Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics and science ...

Download PDF
15 downloads 16353 Views 263KB Size Report
Comment
Jul 18, 2013 - ... problem solving; and (c) to explore the impact of an inquiry-based learning environment comprising a model-eliciting activity and Twitter.
ZDM Mathematics Education (2013) 45:863–874 DOI 10.1007/s11858-013-0524-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics and science through inquiry-based learning: an examination of teachers’ and parents’ beliefs Nicholas G. Mousoulides

Accepted: 18 July 2013 / Published online: 30 July 2013  FIZ Karlsruhe 2013

Abstract This study examined teachers’ and parents’ beliefs on the implementation of inquiry-based modeling activities as a means to facilitate parental engagement in school mathematics and science. The study had three objectives: (a) to describe teachers’ beliefs about inquirybased mathematics and science and parental engagement; (b) to describe parents’ beliefs about inquiry-based mathematics and science and their engagement in inquiry-based problem solving; and (c) to explore the impact of an inquiry-based learning environment comprising a modeleliciting activity and Twitter. The research involved three sixth-grade teachers and 32 parents from one elementary school. Teachers and parents participated in workshops, followed by the implementation of a model-eliciting activity in two classrooms. Three teachers and six parents participated in semi-structured interviews. Teachers reported positive beliefs on parental engagement in the mathematics and science classrooms and the potential positive role of parents in implementing innovative problem-solving activities. Parents expressed strong beliefs on their engagement and welcomed the inquiry-based modeling approach. Based on the results of this aspect of a fouryear longitudinal design, implications for parental engagement in inquiry-based mathematics and science teaching and learning and further research are discussed. Keywords Parental engagement  Teachers’ beliefs  Parents’ beliefs  Model eliciting activities  Modeling

N. G. Mousoulides (&) Department of Educational Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus e-mail: [email protected]

1 Introduction Students, from a young age, are exposed to complexity on a regular basis, as our global community has become governed by complex situations. Further, an appreciation and understanding of the world as interlocked complex systems is critical for making effective decisions about their lives as individuals and community members (Lesh and Zawojewski 2007). Students’ exposure to complex situations further underlines the necessity to integrate group work in classrooms, build on students’ existing knowledge, design experiments and work with complex data, and share and discuss ideas with peers. These practices (among others) are collectively known as inquiry-based learning (IBL) (Linn et al. 2004). The complexity that appears in all forms of society, the economy, and education, and the new technologies that have been integrated in all forms of work, have led to significant changes in the forms of mathematical and scientific thinking that are needed beyond the classroom (Sriraman and English 2010). Consequently, there is a demand to further improve students’ abilities to use effectively these new technological tools in dealing with complex problems in school subjects and beyond. Taking into account these demands, researchers and educational policy makers have highlighted the need to promote students’ problem-solving abilities, and their skills in designing experiments, setting hypotheses, manipulating variables, working in teams, and effectively communicating with others (Lesh and Zawojewski 2007; Mousoulides et al. 2008). Adopting an inquiry-based approach as a means to achieve the above goals is not a straightforward process (Linn et al. 2004). It conflicts with national curriculum requirements and other constraints, such as the need for time, the need for more resources, other curriculum constraints,

123

864

and parental engagement. With regard to parental engagement, several researchers have underlined the significance of engaging parents in the implementation of innovations in school mathematics and science (Deslandes and Bertrand 2005; Epstein et al. 2009; Hornby 2011). Parental engagement has been also documented as a positive influence on children’s achievement, attitudes, and behavior, regardless of cultural background, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. However, this engagement is not easy to be maintained. Teachers are encouraged to find appropriate methods to engage parents, especially when it comes to use of innovative methods, such as IBL, and schools have to take an active role in developing collaborative relationships within parents and communities (Barr et al. 2006). While a significant number of studies have examined various aspects of parental engagement, there is a lack of studies that have focused on the role of parents in implementing innovations such as IBL in the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. To this end, the present study examined teachers’ and parents’ beliefs with regard to IBL and parental engagement. The study further explored how parents’, students’, and teachers’ collaboration during the implementation of an inquiry-based modeling activity could contribute to improved parental engagement. The research questions that guided the study were: (a)

What are teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science and parental engagement? (b) What are parents’ beliefs about inquiry-based mathematics and science and their engagement in inquirybased problem solving? (c) What is the impact of an inquiry-based learning environment comprising a model-eliciting activity and technology tools for communication on parental engagement?

2 Theoretical framework The theoretical framework builds on two strands: (a) instructional interventions to promote mathematical and scientific inquiry, particularly in using a models and modeling perspective (Lesh and Doerr 2003); and (b) parental engagement with an emphasis on teachers’ and parents’ beliefs. 2.1 A modeling perspective in inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science In studying complex situations and problems at elementary school level mathematics and science, a focus on new students’ abilities is needed. These abilities, for

123

N. G. Mousoulides

conceptualization, collaboration, and communication, have led to significant changes in the forms of mathematical and scientific thinking that are needed, such as the abilities to generate, analyze, operate on, and transform complex data sets (Sriraman and English 2010). In achieving these abilities, a number of researchers propose the use of inquiry-based approaches in the teaching of mathematics and science. In the present study we adopted Linn and colleagues’ (2004) definition of inquiry-based learning (IBL), as ‘‘the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, and distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, and forming coherent arguments’’ (Linn et al. 2004). By reflecting on these characteristics, a means to develop students’ abilities is through future-oriented, interdisciplinary problem-solving experiences that mirror the IBL characteristics. The problems used in this study draw upon the broad field of engineering, providing powerful links between the school mathematics and science and the real world, enabling students to apply their mathematics and science learning to the solution of an authentic problem (English and Mousoulides 2011; Kaiser and Sriraman 2006). The use of such modeling activities in the mathematics and science curriculum provides students with opportunities to work with realistic, client-driven problems that are based on the theoretical framework of models and modeling (Mousoulides et al. 2008). Engineering Model Eliciting Activities (EngMEAs) provide opportunities for developing students’ creative and flexible use of mathematical and scientific ideas within interdisciplinary contexts, for creating, applying, and adapting mathematical and scientific models in interpreting, explaining, and predicting the behavior of complex engineering problems (English and Mousoulides 2011; Maass and Doorman 2013). EngMEAs aim to complement and enrich the inquiry-based approach (which shares many characteristics with the engineering design process) (English and Mousoulides 2011) by offering students opportunities to repeatedly express, test, and refine or revise their current ways of thinking as they endeavor to create a structurally significant product—structural in the sense of generating powerful mathematical, scientific, and engineering constructs (Zawojewski et al. 2008). Thus, the components of a modeling basic engineering design process that students go through are: Ask (What is the problem? What have others done? What are the constraints?), Imagine (What are some possible solutions?), Plan (What diagram/sketch can you draw? Make a list of materials needed), Create (Follow your plan and create a model; test it out), and Improve (Discuss what works, what does not, and what could work better; modify your design to make it better; test it out) (Cunningham and Hester 2007).

Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics

2.2 Parental engagement Broadly, parental engagement refers to mutual collaboration, support, and participation of parents, community, and teachers in activities that directly and positively affect student outcomes. Engagement can range from parents’ activities at home that support learning to parental activities in schools (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001). Parental engagement has been documented in a number of studies as a positive influence on children’s achievement and overall success of the student, socially, emotionally, and academically (Epstein et al. 2009; Hornby 2011). Active parental engagement, however, is quite difficult to be maintained. Minner and Hiles (2005) have identified a number of barriers impeding effective parental engagement, including: (a) the status of science and mathematics curricula, in which community and parental resources and experiences are not taken into account; and (b) professional development challenges and strategies. Parental engagement strategies are rarely included in teacher professional development courses and therefore teachers often do not know how to effectively involve parents. Musti-Rao and Cartledge (2004), in agreement with Minner and Hiles (2005), concluded their study by proposing strategies identified as appropriate for engaging parents. Among others, they identified the establishment of clear communication between teachers and parents as a prominent one. In strengthening the communication channels between parents and teachers, Ramirez (1999) suggested the use of technology, while Barr and Parrett (2003) identified the importance of taking into account teachers’ and parents’ beliefs. The use of technology can reduce the time needed for appropriate communication, while it can help teachers individualize their communication to specific students’ needs. With regard to technology, the present study extends Ramirez’s (1999) suggestion by employing Twitter, a contemporary technological tool, as a means to facilitate communication. With regard to beliefs, the study examines teachers’ and parents’ beliefs with regard to IBL and parental engagement. The importance of parents’ beliefs was clearly highlighted by Miller (1989), who stated that: ‘‘The family can socialize either a very positive or a very negative attitude toward science. Parents want their children to study science and mathematics and encourage that through … talk about topics and problems that involve science and mathematics’’ (p. 177). Further, Barr and Parrett (2003) have identified teacher beliefs as another barrier in creating relationships between the home and school. When teachers do not feel that parental engagement could have a positive impact on students’ achievement and attitudes, they tend to exclude parents from the schools’ activities and their children’s learning (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001). Often, the beliefs

865

and expectations between families and educators are not shared collectively. In order for teacher beliefs to change, more parental engagement training on how to work with parents and communities is needed (Hornby 2011).

3 The present study 3.1 The purpose of the study The purpose of the study was to explore teachers’ and parents’ beliefs on parental engagement, with a focus on implementing an inquiry-based modeling approach. We hypothesized that the interactive learning environment would have a positive impact on teachers’ and parents’ beliefs, and that it could further inform good practices on parental engagement. We investigated teachers’ and parents’ beliefs on parental engagement and IBL, and examined the impact of the learning environment on facilitating parental engagement. More specifically, we investigated: (a) teachers’ beliefs on IBL and parental engagement; (b) parents’ beliefs on innovative approaches in mathematics and science, such as IBL, and their engagement in school; and (c) the impact of the inquiry-based environment, comprising EngMEAs and Twitter, on teachers’ and parents’ beliefs. 3.2 Participants and procedures The findings presented in this study are part of a larger research design that included: (a) inquiry-based mathematics and science instruction; (b) integration of engineering model-eliciting activities as a part of the mathematics and science instruction; and (c) examination of various forms of parental engagement, including workshop participation, participation in classroom activities, and communication with teachers. In the PRIMAS1 project, a longitudinal four-year study, 62 teachers participated in professional development courses and were provided with teaching materials for integrating IBL in their day-to-day teaching practices. The present study followed three of these teachers, who worked in two sixth grade classes from one public K-6 elementary school in the urban area of Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus. One class of 22 and one class of 19 eleven-yearolds, their parents, and the three teachers worked on the ‘‘Water Shortage’’ activity, during the second year of the project. The activity was the third one in a sequence of four 1

PRIMAS, Promoting Inquiry Based Learning in Mathematics and Science, focuses on enhancing students’ inquiry skills in mathematics, science, and engineering (e.g., decision making) and on exploring students’ development of modeling competences.

123

866

modeling activities that were implemented. All activities required students to develop models for solving engineering-based problems. Chronologically, the order of the activities was: ‘‘Office Spaces,’’ ‘‘House Temperature,’’ ‘‘Water Shortage,’’ and ‘‘Bridge Design.’’ Parents were engaged in two of the activities, namely ‘‘House Temperature’’ and ‘‘Water Shortage,’’ and the results from their engagement in the second activity are presented here. Results from the other activities have been reported elsewhere (see English and Mousoulides 2011). 3.2.1 Teachers’ and parents’ workshops Prior to working with modeling activities in their classrooms, all 62 teachers attended three 5-h workshops in afternoon or Saturday sessions. More detailed information on the structure and the implementation of the PRIMAS professional development courses can be found in other contributions in this volume (e.g., Maass and Doorman 2013; Dorier and Garcı´a 2013). A fourth workshop focused on the use of Twitter and on parental engagement good practices. Parents participated in two workshops: one that focused on IBL in mathematics and science; and a second on the use of Twitter. Out of the 41 parents who were invited to participate, only 28 accepted the invitation. Seventeen parents held university or college degrees (10 females and 7 males), while the remainder had earned high school degrees (6 females and 5 men). The workshops were designed and conducted by PRIMAS personnel. During workshops, teachers were actively involved as they shared questions, suggestions, and examples from their own practice. Some teachers experienced in working with modeling activities shared the challenges and constraints they faced in implementing model-eliciting activities in their classrooms. Participating parents expressed their willingness to learn more about IBL and how IBL approaches might improve students’ achievement and attitudes towards mathematics and science. They also welcomed the PRIMAS initiative, as an opportunity to explore with researchers and teachers appropriate ways to be engaged in their children’s learning. The first workshop (for both parents and teachers) provided an introduction to IBL and parental engagement. Emphasis was given to effective inquiry instruction that requires a balance of teacher guidance and student initiative, as teachers make the decisions about when and how to foster student responsibility depending on students’ prior experience with inquiry and the difficulty of inquiry tasks. A discussion on appropriate strategies for parental engagement also took place during the first workshop. During the second and third workshop teachers were introduced to model-eliciting activities and worked with

123

N. G. Mousoulides

PRIMAS materials. Teachers had opportunities to work in small groups, in which they discussed appropriate ways to implement open-ended, and student-centered activities. A more detailed presentation of model-eliciting activities and an introduction to the ‘‘Water Shortage’’ activity took place during the fourth workshop. Teachers and parents formed groups and worked on the activity. Teachers formed groups and reflected on possible ways of implementing the activity, while parents formed their own groups, trying to find possible ways to be engaged during the implementation of the activity. In the second part of the workshop participants (teachers and parents) were introduced to Twitter and how it could be used in the mathematics and science classrooms. Twitter is an online technological tool which can break down the rigid classroom schedule barriers and allow teachers, students, and parents to collaborate. Participants familiarized themselves with Twitter; they created accounts, shared tweets (messages), followed others, sent direct messages, and created lists. Parents and teachers were also introduced to a free service for shortening website links (urls) (as tweets are limited to 140 characters, users often have to shorten long urls). 3.2.2 The implementation of the ‘‘Water Shortage’’ activity The ‘‘Water Shortage’’ activity (see Appendix) entailed: (a) a warm-up task comprising a mathematically rich ‘‘newspaper article’’ designed to familiarize the students with the context of the activity; (b) ‘‘readiness’’ questions to be answered about the article; and (c) the problem to be solved, including the tables of data. This activity asked students to assist the local authorities in finding the best country for supplying Cyprus with water. As water shortage was one of the biggest problems Cyprus faced, students were very familiar with the problem situation. The activity was implemented by the author and the classroom teachers. Activity implementation lasted 3 weeks. Working in groups of three to four, the children spent five 40-min sessions in solving the activity. Two sessions took place during the first week, two during the second week, while the last session took place during the third week of the implementation. During the first two sessions the children worked on the newspaper article and the readiness questions and familiarized themselves with Google Earth and spreadsheets (software used in creating the models appropriate for solving the activity). During the first session students individually read the newspaper article and answered the related questions. They then discussed in groups the importance of water shortage and submitted a relevant tweet (one Twitter account was created for each group of

Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics

students2). Twelve parents commented on students’ tweets, by agreeing that this was indeed among the country’s most important problems and by providing additional sources of information. During the second session students reviewed the parents’ comments. Students accessed the provided resources and reached a conclusion on the importance of the water shortage problem. They were then introduced to Google Earth. Core functions and commands of the software were presented and discussed with students, with a focus on commands like ‘‘Fly to’’ for visiting a place, ‘‘Add Placemark’’ and ‘‘Ruler’’ for calculating the distance between two points, and ‘‘Path’’ for drawing a path between two points. In contrast to regular maps, Google Earth could help students in making accurate calculations, being precise in drawing tanker routes, and in observing each country’s ports and landscape. Since the great majority of students were familiar with spreadsheets no specific introduction to the software was provided. Students worked on solving the problem in the next two sessions. They developed a number of appropriate models, which they shared with their teachers and parents. During model development students were prompted by teachers to share their ideas and their models with the parents. To better facilitate communication a public Wiki was created, in which students could easily upload their files and documentation, and share links to their files by sending tweets to the parents. Almost all parents provided feedback, by replying to these tweets. During model development parents and teachers sent more than eighty tweets, a quite impressive number. However, the majority of these tweets (around 80 %) just encouraged students to continue the good work (e.g., ‘‘Your solution is very good; continue like this’’), while only few tweets (around 20 %) provided constructive feedback and identified weaknesses in students’ models (e.g., ‘‘There is an error in the Excel file. Check your calculations!’’ ‘‘You did not use port facilities in your model. Why?’’). During the last session students wrote letters to local authorities, in which they documented their models/ solutions. The activity ended with a class discussion, which focused on the key mathematical ideas and relationships students had generated while working on the activity. 3.2.3 Interviews The three teachers (2 females and 1 male) and six parents (3 females and 3 males) who were randomly selected 2

Students’ groups and parents’ Twitter accounts were ‘anonymous’ (Parent 1, Parent 2, … Student Group 1, etc.) so as to better facilitate the process. Since some parents did not participate, we did not want to exclude their children from being actively involved in the activity. Further, we aimed to avoid direct communication between parents and their child only.

867

participated in individual interviews that took place after the activity implementation. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 min and all interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed. Semi-structured interviews (Corbin and Strauss 2008) were used to allow the researchers to be flexible and adapt the questions to each particular interview session. Three areas of interest, following the research questions of the study, were investigated during the interviews: (a) participants’ (teacher or parent) beliefs on IBL and the implementation of the EngMEA; (b) parental engagement in mathematics and science, with an emphasis on IBL; and (c) participants’ experiences with regard to collaboration and communication during the activity implementation. With a list of topics to cover and suggested questions the researchers introduced the topics of conversation and through questions steered the course of the interview. The questions that guided the interview protocol are presented in Fig. 1. 3.2.4 Data analysis After the interviews were transcribed, the author and one teaching assistant examined the transcripts for themes. With each interview, the researchers followed an open data exploration and theoretical sampling technique (Corbin and Strauss 2008), which encouraged the gathering of data based on evolving concepts, to elucidate the varying dimensions of beliefs on IBL and parental engagement among the teachers and parents participating. How do you feel about inquiry in the mathematics and science classroom? How do you evaluate the possible contribution of IBL in student learning outcomes in mathematics and science? What is your opinion on the use of modeling activities in the mathematics and science curriculum? Can you remember a positive and a negative experience in working with IBL and inquiry activities in your classroom? Did you have any professional development courses on IBL and modeling? What do you think of parental engagement? Did parental engagement assist you during the implementation of the modeling activity? Did this experience affect your attitudes towards IBL and/or parental engagement? Did you find this setting appropriate enough for your engagement in your child learning at school and home? How did you find the communication between you and the students? Between you and the teachers? Was engaging in school mathematics a positive or a negative experience for you? What else would you like to experience as part of your engagement in school?

Fig. 1 The interview questions

123

868

N. G. Mousoulides

Following Corbin and Strauss (2008), the two major levels of coding—open coding and axial coding—were employed. At the beginning of coding interview data, researchers were engaged in the process of open coding or ‘‘breaking data apart and delineating concepts to stand for blocks of raw data’’ (Corbin and Strauss 2008, p. 195). This approach allowed for exploration of the ideas and meanings that were contained in the raw data, and resulted in creating codes. In determining the potential codes, the researchers had discussions regarding the theoretical framework that guided the study and the themes that arose in the data collected through the interviews. At first, both researchers worked on providing codes for the same interview. In a discussion that followed, different interpretations of the data were discussed until we had a consensus. Once codes were created using open coding, researchers proceeded to analyze them through the process of axial coding. This higher level of coding enabled researchers to identify the connections that existed between codes and to build families of codes (themes). Axial coding was done by using AtlasTI, a content analysis tool designed for qualitative assessment, where themes were identified and clustered. Examples of the codes generated are presented in Table 1.

4 Results The presentation of the results is structured around the three research questions that guided the study. Within each research question, the results are presented in terms of the themes that arose from the analysis of the data. With regard to the first question (What are teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based mathematics and science and parental engagement?), the results are organized in two themes, namely the goals of inquiry in the mathematics and science

teaching and the teachers’ beliefs with regard to parental engagement in school mathematics and science. Results that revealed parents’ beliefs about inquirybased mathematics and science and engagement in inquirybased problem solving (second question) are organized in two themes, namely parents’ beliefs on the role of inquiry and beliefs on their engagement in school mathematics and science. Finally, the examination of the impact of the learning environment on parental engagement (third question) is presented. 4.1 Teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based mathematics and science and parental engagement 4.1.1 Goal of inquiry in mathematics and science teaching Teachers’ responses to the questions related to the goals of an inquiry-based approach could be summarized in three broad categories: (a) student cognitive goals and teaching effectiveness; (b) student affective goals; and (c) constraints of using IBL. Teachers reported positive comments on the impact of IBL in students’ cognitive gains. They reported that students had opportunities to design experiments, handle variables, set hypotheses, and use their critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving skills. This emphasis on inquiry and critical thinking was evident in one teacher’s comment: ‘‘This open approach got the children to think critically, set their own questions to reach a solution, and become independent in solving quite complex problems.’’ A second teacher reported: ‘‘I really enjoy teaching when I have the feeling that students work like real mathematicians. This is the only way to teach higher order thinking and problem-solving skills.’’ She further referred to an impact on herself: ‘‘I spent a lot of time in preparing the activity. It was challenging, and even helped

Table 1 Sample codes, definitions, and examples Code

Description

Example

Active parental engagement

Teacher/parent makes direct/indirect reference to specific actions that are considered to promote active parental engagement and consequently have an impact on the teaching–learning process

‘‘Workshops helped parents to get involved […] It helped them realize that […] their role was crucial […] to the success of the activity.’’

Student cognitive goals

Teacher/Parent states or alludes to a belief that inquiry-based learning has an impact on student cognitive goals

Student affective goals

Teacher/Parent states or alludes to a belief that inquiry-based learning has an impact on student affective goals

‘‘This open approach got the children to think critically, set their own questions to reach a solution, and become independent in solving quite complex problems.’’ ‘‘I have students who rarely participate in more traditional lessons; their behavior in PRIMAS activities is completely different.’’

Modeling referencing

Teacher makes direct/indirect reference to (aspects of) the model-eliciting activity and its positive impact on parental engagement

‘‘This approach was a good example. We clearly need more good examples in engaging parents in mathematics.’’

123

Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics

me to increase my own mathematical knowledge […] although I sometimes had the fear that students might ask something I could not answer.’’ The third teacher added: ‘‘I strongly believe that my teaching is more effective now. Perhaps I do not cover so many curriculum objectives, but I am impressed with how well students work with the activities and solve problems.’’ She continued: ‘‘I am confident that you [PRIMAS personnel] should promote these activities [referring to PRIMAS materials] to other teachers as well. They [teachers] will benefit and their [teaching] approach will change.’’ Teachers were also very emphatic in commenting on the affective goals. They mentioned that such approaches could help students in developing ‘‘a love for mathematics and science’’ and getting students ‘‘excited about problem solving.’’ One teacher commented: ‘‘I really like watching average [ability] students working so hard. It is obvious that they enjoy what they are doing … and their results are often impressive.’’ A second teacher added: ‘‘I have students who rarely participate in more traditional lessons. Their behavior in PRIMAS activities is completely different; they repeatedly told me that they really like these activities.’’ Teachers also reported a number of concerns regarding the constraints related to using IBL approaches. Time constraints were mentioned in all teachers’ responses. For instance, a teacher commented: ‘‘I wish I could use more inquiry in my lessons, but there is so little time for extracurricular activities. I assume we are lucky because our principal and inspector are in favor of such approaches in mathematics … more time would be much appreciated.’’ A second teacher commented on the ‘fragmented nature’ of the curriculum. He said: ‘‘At least in elementary school we can integrate subjects and adopt a more interdisciplinary approach. Things are worse in middle school. My wife [also a PRIMAS teacher] has great difficulties in using modeling activities in her lessons. How can you complete even a part of it [modeling activity] in 45 min?’’

869

acknowledged that practices like those adopted in PRIMAS provided good examples of active parental involvement. One teacher commented: ‘‘Moving beyond workshops [for engaging parents] was appropriate. Parents had ideas to discuss with their children at home … some of my students were so active and almost every day we had discussions based on their interactions with their parents at home.’’ A second teacher added: ‘‘Workshops helped parents to get involved, and assigning parents with specific tasks was appropriate. It helped them realize that everyone was valued and their role was crucial and critical to the success of the activity. But of course this was not easy; only half of them participated, right? And I am not sure how many of them spent much time at home finding resources and providing accurate feedback to students’ solutions.’’ Another teacher shared the same belief, that parental engagement was an ongoing process and that careful planning and organization was needed. Another theme that arose in teachers’ interviews was the impact of parental engagement on students’ growth and involvement. The great majority of students were actively involved in the activity and tried their best in solving the problem. Teachers reported that the activity could not be the same without the active engagement of the parents, which was clearly positive and constructive. Teachers further proposed: ‘‘This approach was a good example. We clearly need more good examples in engaging parents in mathematics, which, I believe, will be beneficial for students’ achievement.’’ Another teacher pointed out: ‘‘Is there a better way to engage parents both at school and home? I do not think so. I am confident that such appropriate engagement practices will help their children to improve their grades and attitudes towards mathematics and science.’’ 4.2 Parents’ beliefs about inquiry-based mathematics and science and their engagement in inquiry-based problem solving

4.1.2 Teachers’ beliefs on parental engagement 4.2.1 Parents’ perceptions on the role of inquiry Teachers shared various ideas on how to engage parents in school mathematics and science. They reported that parental engagement was important in improving a school’s results, and that parents should help their children at home with their homework. One teacher mentioned that it was the school’s responsibility to teach parents various ways of helping their children with their homework. All three teachers stressed that parental engagement was important for student success in school and they underlined that the great majority of parents in their school expressed their willingness to be more engaged. Teachers explicitly expressed that active involvement was more than volunteering at school events. Teachers also

All parents welcomed this type of activity in the mathematics and science classrooms. They explicitly mentioned that such activities were challenging, not only for their children, but also for them. One parent who was actively involved in the activity commented: ‘‘I was always good in math and I never had any problems in helping my son with his homework. But this activity opened new horizons for me. I did not have to ask every day: ‘What do you have for homework?’ I frequently visited the Wiki and commented on students’ tweets. It was great! And my son also liked it very much. Believe it or not, he even discussed the activity with his cousins.’’ Another parent, a civil engineer

123

870

N. G. Mousoulides

professional, expressed: ‘‘Well, students were invited to act like real engineers … taking into account real constraints, working with complex data, drawing assumptions. Ok, it was not like the actual problem, but I am impressed how well they did.’’ In addition, a third parent commented: ‘‘Such activities will help our children to develop important skills, needed beyond school … in the society. I am not sure that all of my colleagues have these skills [works as a salesperson] … I am very happy that we use such approaches in our school.’’ Less positively, two parents mentioned that the activity was interesting, but rather difficult. One parent mentioned that the activity was quite complicated, even for him. He added that sometimes his daughter was frustrated and confused: ‘‘Well, I could not know for sure that the solution was correct, and that was somehow annoying. Perhaps more guidance from you [PRIMAS personnel] and the teacher could be helpful.’’

successful parental engagement. I guess we are lucky to have it here.’’ Although quite satisfied with the situation, parents explicitly mentioned that it was expected for school and teachers to do more in order to enhance parental engagement. It was revealed that a school’s climate and culture impacted the overall effectiveness of parental engagement efforts in a significant way. From parents’ responses a number of suggestions emerged for what schools should do in order to better encourage and enhance parental engagement. One parent mentioned that schools should promote parental engagement using various methods, and not just expect parents to be engaged. She said: ‘‘Schools and teachers must actively seek and promote parental engagement. Not all parents are engaged by default.’’

4.2.2 Parents’ beliefs on parental engagement

All teachers emphasized the positive impact of the ‘‘Water Shortage’’ modeling activity. At first, teachers indicated that PRIMAS materials had an impact on the way they structured their lessons in mathematics and science and consequently had an impact on parental engagement. Teachers reported that in this new setting there was more focus on discussion, both in the classroom and at home (as reported by parents), more time for group work, and students’ cooperative learning roles (with their peers at school and with parents at home) improved. Teachers reported the ‘‘Water Shortage’’ activity to be a good example of active student involvement, in which discussion fostered opportunities for critical thinking. For instance, one teacher said: ‘‘Students had to collect information and data from multiple sources … that helped them to further develop their critical skills. It was very challenging for them when some parents suggested somehow contradictory [however correct] resources. That was real problem solving!’’ Two parents also shared the same feeling; they mentioned that parents also got involved in real problem solving, since they had a crucial role in providing students with extra data and resources. A second teacher characterized the activity as ‘pure inquiring.’ He explained: ‘‘I was so impressed to see how many questions students asked … well, some were naive, but in general they asked very precise and appropriate questions.’’ Another teacher added: ‘‘In the first two sessions some students were somehow afraid to even answer a question, because they thought they were going to be wrong.’’ Parents also reported that questions were central while working with their children at home. A parent noted that she encouraged her daughter to ask questions, during class discussion, but also using Twitter, since ‘‘precise questions are important for understanding a real problem.’’

To improve parental engagement in schools, parents seemed to agree unanimously that good communication and active engagement were key. Parents suggested a number of different events and strategies that could assist all parents to be engaged. One parent noted: ‘‘Attending lessons is not bad, but it cannot be the only way to engage parents. I enjoyed the two workshops very much, although I had to leave from my work earlier … we should have [such] workshops more often.’’ Another parent added: ‘‘Working with our children was great. Perhaps we could have Math Afternoons or Nights to discuss with our children and teachers at school math and science problems. I am sure she [her daughter] would love that.’’ Another parent mentioned a strategy currently employed in the school: ‘‘Last year children had to work on two projects. Those projects were not focused on math, but required some math and science. I would like to see more projects like these, in which I can work with my child at home.’’ All parents underlined the necessity for open communication in order to improve parental engagement. One parent noted that open communication was the key to accessibility. He stated: ‘‘Teachers should be nice to parents, welcome them when they show up, and not make them feel like they are intruding.’’ Another parent added: ‘‘Parents should feel comfortable enough with the teachers to ask content-related questions, and even spend time on working on activities, if we are expected to assist our children at home.’’ A third parent highlighted the importance of constant communication: ‘‘Every parent wants to be involved in his child’s school … you only need to know that you are welcome and that you can freely communicate with teachers. An appropriate atmosphere is needed for

123

4.3 The impact of the learning environment on parental engagement

Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics

Another dimension of teachers’ comments on the appropriateness of the learning environment focused on the use of technology. All three teachers described technology as having a very positive impact on students’ solutions and on the communication between teachers, students, and eventually parents. With regard to the use of Twitter, one teacher described his initial worries and how his beliefs gradually changed as: ‘‘To be honest, during the workshop I was very skeptical. I could not think of many ways to use Twitter. At the beginning of the activity I was impressed by parents’ involvement and how that [involvement] benefited students’ work … I really liked the way Twitter was used and I will continue using it in my lessons, when possible. Well, this is obvious from the number of my tweets! [He submitted a significant number of tweets, replying to both students’ and parents’ messages].’’ Another teacher added: ‘‘I love it! It is great when students and parents are involved. I had the impression that the lesson was ongoing, 24 h a day. This is teaching!’’ In line with teachers’ comments, all six parents explicitly highlighted how the activity assisted in building a partnership climate between parents and teachers. The activity opened a whole new space for fruitful collaboration and created better communication channels among parents, teachers, and children. ‘‘I had the feeling that we [parents and teachers] were equal partners,’’ one parent commented. She continued: ‘‘It was far better than sitting at the back [in the classroom] and watching a lesson. We were actively involved and we had constant communication with our children and the teacher. It was really good.’’ Another parent added: ‘‘I was following the teacher’s comments and suggestions and tried to build on these, by discussing at home with my child … yes, it helped the communication between all of us.’’ A third parent commented: ‘‘I found those messages [tweets] a much more appropriate method of communication than signing tests … I knew exactly what my child did in the activity, and even better I could now observe the process, not only the results. I would definitely prefer [my child] to have more activities like this one.’’ Another parent claimed: ‘‘Such activities [‘‘Water Shortage’’ activity] are one of the best ways to engage parents, because their children are also engaged. When the children are excited and discuss their mathematics and science work, parents are more inclined to be engaged.’’

5 Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ and parents’ beliefs with regard to parental engagement in mathematics and science teaching, with a focus on modeling as an inquiry-based approach. The study aimed to inform research by exploring teachers’ and parents’ beliefs

871

on collaborating during the implementation of a modeling activity, and by examining how a communication-rich environment could facilitate parental engagement. Building on previous research and by linking teachers’ IBL-related beliefs and practices to their beliefs on parental engagement, and to parents’ beliefs, we have gained new information about how model-eliciting activities might serve in improving teachers’ and parents’ partnership climate and how positive relationships between them might be related to improved students’ engagement. In this section, conclusions stemming from the results are discussed, followed by implications for parental engagement practices and recommendations for further research. The first aspect of the study focused on examining teachers’ beliefs with regard to IBL and parental engagement. The results, in line with previous research, supported the expectation that inquiry-based approaches are likely to affect teachers’ and parents’ partnership in mathematics and science and possibly student outcomes (Epstein et al. 2009). Further, the activity used here facilitated students’ engagement in a creative and innovative problem-solving approach and increased students’ awareness of the different aspects of real-world problems (English and Mousoulides 2011). The environment generated provided opportunities for students to elicit their own mathematical and scientific ideas as they worked on the problem, and to collaborate with their teachers and parents. The study also showed that teachers welcomed a refocus on their teaching, so as to better respond to students’ ideas and needs, and parents responded positively to their new roles as engaging partners in their children’s learning. During interviews, teachers emphasized the importance of IBL and expressed their positive beliefs towards IBL, although they identified challenges, demands, and other institutional constraints. Teachers reported that adopting a modeling perspective provided an opportunity for a more interdisciplinary, real-world-based approach, in which students’ role was central and parents’ impact had the potential to be positive. With regard to parental engagement, teachers expressed positive beliefs. Clearly, teachers can play a significant role in bridging the gap between home and school, and their beliefs are important in determining parental engagement in their classrooms. Positive teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are needed to maintain the best possible parental engagement, and to build mutual understandings and collaboration for the improvement of mathematics and science teaching. The second aspect of the study focused on parents’ beliefs on their engagement in school mathematics and science, and on their beliefs on IBL. Interviews with parents revealed that they held positive beliefs and attitudes towards innovations in mathematics and science, such as an IBL modeling perspective.

123

872

The third aspect of the study focused on the impact of the learning environment on parental engagement. An essential component of the learning environment was the enhancement of communication among the key players. The use of Twitter not only facilitated this communication, but also assisted in generating a safe, shared knowledge space, in which parents gained insights into their children’s learning, and assisted the children in developing better solutions. This new setting also allowed teachers to find more appropriate methods to engage parents beyond classroom observations and meetings. Students accessed a whole new space, by having their parents and teachers as partners in challenging problem solving, beyond the traditional classroom boundaries (English and Mousoulides 2011). In extending the findings of the present study, the next research steps in involving Twitter in parental engagement programs (in IBL in mathematics and science, and beyond) should take account of a number of constraints. First, involving larger numbers of parents is not a solution; this might result in a complete avalanche of tweet ‘data’ that would be impossible to cope with or to identify how parents’ engagement assisted students and resulted in improved models and solutions. Second, analysis of parents’ data should carefully take into consideration issues related to the representativeness of the tweeters, and avoid only focusing on more articulate and interested parental groups. There were a number of limitations to this study, which therefore does not allow us to proceed to many generalizations. One limitation was the number of the participating teachers. Only three out of the 62 teachers who participated in PRIMAS’ professional development courses in Cyprus participated in this study. Further, all three teachers came from one high socioeconomic status school. However, although biased, we can claim that the sample of the three teachers provided useful insights into teachers’ beliefs with regard to IBL and parental engagement, and thus met the needs of the study. A second limitation was the number of parents involved in the interviews. Due to time constraints, only six out of the 26 parents involved in the study were interviewed. Although the six-parent sample was randomly selected and the beliefs reported in the interviews could be generalized for the whole sample, we cannot claim that the activity had a significant impact on their beliefs. Further, although a limitation, the fact that the majority of parents appear to be highly educated might also lead to a recommendation for further research amongst less educated parents, and in schools with lower socioeconomic status. It would be beneficial to examine how parents’ education might impact their engagement in school mathematics and science, and which strategies might better support the less advantaged parents. In addition, taking into account the qualitative nature of the study, and therefore the inability to proceed to further

123

N. G. Mousoulides

generalizations, we can only make claims as to the success and the novelty of the implementation of the modeling activity as a means to improve parental engagement and to turn teachers’ and parents’ beliefs into more positive ones. So, while the limitations are present, it is believed that much could be gained from examining the impact of the implementation of inquiry-based modeling activities in improving parental engagement, as long as the limitations are made clear at the outset. Like many other studies, the present study generated more questions than it answered. Among the new research questions that can be considered in follow-up studies are: (a) How might the different levels of interest and/or commitment displayed by different parents or parent groups impact their beliefs and their communication and collaboration with teachers? (b) What are effective strategies to engage those parents who are not interested or able to participate? (c) How can different genres of technology be used to facilitate parental engagement and to improve parents’ beliefs? (d) If the approach used here is extended to mathematics and science as a whole what will be the impact on parental engagement? At least some of these questions raised are targeted within the PRIMAS project. While this study presented results from one activity, our continued research will examine the extent to which the positive teachers’ and parents’ beliefs and strategies towards IBL and parental engagement might become manifest in the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. The analysis of the data presented here not only unveiled aspects of effective parental engagement from the perspective of parents and teachers, but the research has also revealed characteristics that schools and communities must possess to help strengthen and sustain parental engagement. Unquestionably, students need high-quality instruction to improve mathematics and science learning. However, if schools, teachers, and parents work together in creating appropriate, collaborative environments, they are more likely to see higher students’ learning outcomes. Acknowledgments This paper is based on work within the project PRIMAS—Promoting Inquiry Based Learning in Mathematics and Science across Europe (http://www.primas-project.eu). Project coordination: University of Education, Freiburg (Germany). Partners: University of Gene`ve (Switzerland), Freudenthal Institute, University of Utrecht (The Netherlands), MARS—Shell Centre, University of Nottingham (UK), University of Jaen (Spain), Konstantin the Philosopher University in Nitra (Slovak Republic), University of Szeged (Hungary), Cyprus University of Technology (Cyprus), University of Malta (Malta), Roskilde University, Department of Science, Systems and Models (Denmark), University of Manchester (UK), Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca (Romania), Sør-Trøndelag University College (Norway), IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Kiel (Germany). The research leading to these results/PRIMAS has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)

Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics under Grant Agreement no. 244380. This paper reflects only the author’s views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Appendix There is a trouble in paradise: severe water shortage problem in Cyprus Part of background information Nicosia. Alex Chris, a landscape gardener working for several foreign embassies and private estates in Nicosia, said many of the capital’s boreholes are now pumping mud. ‘‘I installed one expensive garden with 500 meters of irrigation pipe in Nicosia a few months ago,’’ he said. ‘‘Last week they called to tell me the system had stopped and their trees and lawns were dying. I found that sludge had been pumped through the pipes and then solidified in the heat. It was like cement.’’ […] Emergency water rationing as well as a request to import water from nearby countries was ordered as a result of a severe water shortage due to a drought over the last 4 years. Reservoir reserves have plunged dangerously low and desalination plants cannot keep up with a growing demand for water. Cyprus has two desalination plants running at full capacity, with a third due to come on stream in June. The island is increasingly relying on desalinization plants for water, but they can only provide 45 % of demand, and their operation is energy heavy. Further, there are several concerns on the environmental impact of their use. […] Cypriot officials decided to sign a contract with a nearby country, to import more than 12 million cubic meters over the summer period starting at the end of June. Officials will also sign a contract with a shipping company to use oil tankers for supplying Cyprus with water. The tanker supply program will continue until a permanent solution to the problem has been reached. Sample of readiness questions 1. 2.

3.

How many desalination plants are currently in Cyprus? Why did the Cyprus government decide to not build more desalination plants to cover the country’s water needs? Which solution did the Cyprus Water Board decide to adopt for solving the water shortage problem?

The problem Cyprus Water Board needs to decide from which country Cyprus will import water for the next summer period.

873

Using the information provided, assist the Board in making the best possible choice. Lebanon, Greece, Syria, and Egypt expressed their willingness to supply Cyprus with water. The Water Board has received information about the water price, how much water they can supply Cyprus with during summer, oil tanker cost, and the port facilities. This information is presented below. Write a letter explaining the method you used to make your decision so that the Board can use your method for selecting the best available option not only for now, but also for the future when the Board will have to take similar decisions.

Country

Water supply per week (metric tons)

Water price (metric ton)

Tanker capacity (metric tons)

Tanker oil cost per 100 km

Port facilities for tankers

Egypt

3,000,000

€ 4.00

30,000

€ 20,000

Average

Greece

4,000,000

€ 2.00

50,000

€ 25,000

Very good

Lebanon

2,000,000

€ 5.20

30,000

€ 20,000

Average

Syria

3,000,000

€ 5.00

30,000

€ 20,000

Good

References Barr, R., & Parrett, W. (2003). Saving our students, saving our schools: 50 proven strategies for revitalizing at-risk students and low performing schools. Corwin: Glenview. Barr, J. Y., Sommas, W. A., Ghere, G. S., & Monte, J. (2006). Reflective practices to improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering education annual conference and exposition. Honolulu, Hawaii: American Society for Engineering Education. Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary level schooling. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 164–175. Dorier, J.-L., & and Garcı´a, F. J. G. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for the implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6) (this issue). doi:10.1007/s11858013-0512-8. English, L., & Mousoulides, N. (2011). Engineering-based modelling experiences in the elementary classroom. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Dynamic modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific enquiry (pp. 173–194). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. B., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., Van Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas,

123

874 B. G., Greenfeld, M. D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (Third edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 181–193. Hornby, G. (2011). Parental involvement in childhood education: Building effective school-family partnerships. New York, NY: Springer. Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modeling in mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(3), 302–310. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Greenwich, CT: IAP. Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315–339). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Maass, K., & Doorman, M. (2013). A model for a widespread implementation of inquiry-based learning. ZDM—The

123

N. G. Mousoulides International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6) (this issue). doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0505-7. Miller, J. D. (1989). The roots of scientific literacy: The role of informal learning. In P. G. Helton & L. A. Marquardt (Eds.), Science learning in the informal setting (pp. 172–182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Minner, D. D., & Hiles, E. (2005). Rural school-community partnerships: The case of science education. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 61–91. Mousoulides, N., Sriraman, B., & Lesh, R. (2008). The philosophy and practicality of modeling involving complex systems. The Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 23, 134–157. Musti-Rao, S., & Cartledge, G. (2004). Making home an advantage in the prevention of reading failure: Strategies for collaborating with parents in urban schools. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 15–21. Ramirez, A. Y. (1999). Teachers’ attitudes toward parents and parental involvement in high school. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana. Sriraman, B., & English, L. (Eds.). (2010). Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers. Advances in Mathematics Education. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science. Zawojewski, J. S., Hjalmarson, J. S., Bowman, K., & Lesh, R. (2008). A modeling perspective on learning and teaching in engineering education. In J. Zawojewski, H. Diefes-Dux, & K. Bowman (Eds.), Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.