Differences in Pre-Service Teacher Attitude Change about Family Involvement across Four Universities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript!
Author(s) results support ongoing research documenting the lack of pre-service preparation regarding family engagement in general education settings. The author(s) provided an extensive literature review to frame their problem of practice and to justify the need for their study. Their selected literature review, conceptual/theoretical grounding, research questions, research design, methods, and analysis seemed appropriate for their study, therefore their results are aligned with such conceptual and methodological choices.
Based on their own expertise, I provide some questions and/or feedback to author(s) so they can evaluate what they feel are useful suggestions that could strengthen the manuscript if appropriate. As is the case with any peer review process, some parts may be helpful and some may not.
a. Because of author(s) conceptual and methodological choices, the problem of practice regarding lack of family engagement is analyzed under an individualistic practice perspective (e.g., limited to teachers actions and attitudes) instead of broadening the analysis of such pervasive problem of practice across general education settings (and beyond). For example, as author(s) discuss implications for Higher Education Institutions, depending on the literature selected, there are serious institutional (e.g., policies, norms, practices), systemic (e.g., interinstitutional interactions across time and space that reproduce inequality regarding family engagement), and structural (e.g., discriminatory, racist, and ableist practices well documented in the literature e.g, Ishimaru's work) issues that need to be considered.
b. Author(s) provide a description of how each university provided/implemented differently the PTEC curriculum across cohorts and years. As a reader it was difficult to pinpoint the specific elements that perhaps were used similarly across sites, but also it was difficult to easily gather the magnitude of the differences across implementation sites. This information is extremely relevant, as it may support interested readers in perhaps considering such implementation in their own sites. I think the paper would benefit extremely from having a table comparing sites general characteristics but also key distinctive implementation elements (e.g., similar and unique implementation key elements regarding the 6 modules).
c. There is a comment in lines 277-280 "Three out of the four universities (Southwest, North, and South-Rural) worked with culturally diverse populations that were generally low-income, and accordingly may not have been perceived as able to complete these two tasks". I question, perceived to not be competent by whom? such perception needs to be unpacked and cited accordingly. It reads under a deficit-based lens of marginalized characteristics, placing the blame on the individuals instead of the decision-making of people taking/implementing the curriculum.
d. The following comment in lines 437-438: "Preservice teachers also recognized a voice for children in parent-teacher conferences for Native American and Hispanic parents, suggesting pre-service teachers viewed students as cultural brokers". This comment has huge implications as to why and how such a perception has implications for equity in family engagement practices, as this was only a perception in connection to historically racially marginalized groups, but not to dominant perspectives of White children's voice. It did not have any citation, and such "understanding" needs to be unpacked for the reader.
Thank you for allowing me to engage with their work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a study of preservice teachers’ attitude change after taking Parent Teacher Education Connect curriculum that was based on Joyce Epstein’s 6 types of Parent Involvement.
The research design involved a large sample of 1658 preservice teachers among four universities. The universities seem to be diverse in terms of geographic locations (rural vs. urban) and racial families such as African American, Native American (Indigeneous- more appropriate term), Latino (Latinx- more appropriate). Preservice teachers completed a survey of about 30 items – Section 1 - rate the importance of PI activities that teachers use with parents and Section 2 - activities you think parents of the students you teach should conduct
Findings demonstrated that preservice teachers changed their attitudes more in teacher – initiate involvement items than parent- initiated items.
Although this is a well-designed study, there is nothing new that is being added to the literature on how to help families support their child’s education. Several reasons for this response follow: 1) The study it is based on Epstein’s model that has been widely adopted by many school districts in the United States. It is an important foundational parent involvement model that included families in their child’s education. However, this model has been critiqued for not accommodating families who have been marginalized such as African Americans, Latinx, and other English learners (Herrera, Porter, Barko-Alva). The model’s 6 types of parent involvement are more of a one-way approach meaning schools decide what counts as parent involvement. For example, Gallo’s study of Latinx families demonstrates that one the father’s teachings of Spanish to his daughter wasn’t acknowledged as parent involvement.
Furthermore, the study explains that teachers need to be more prepared to involve parents. Teacher preparation is indeed important. However, only teaching these skills isn’t enough to address families who have been marginalized such as single-parent, low socio-economic backgrounds, English learners, and other immigrant families.
2) Currently, the field has included sociocultural theories for involving all families’ in their child’s education. For example, preservice teachers are now being educated to identity family’s funds of knowledge – The historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge essential for household or individual functioning and well-being (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2006). These new directions are important to reverse the deficit narrative of families and honor their strengths and cultural resources.
3) The study briefly addresses the benefits of parent involvement but doesn’t explain conditions needed for these benefits. For example, Henderson and Mapp (2002) examined 80 studies of parental involvement and found that the programs that were effective in influencing student achievement were those that had trusting relationships between families, schools, and communities and connecting parent involvement had to be related to academic learning. Teacher are to be learners of their students’ families.
References –
Gallo, S., Valdes, G. (2017). Mi Padre: Mexican Immigrant Fathers and Their Children's
Education. United States: Teachers College Press.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
Herrera, S. G., Porter, L., Barko-Alva, K. (2020). Equity in School-Parent Partnerships:
Cultivating Community and Family Trust in Culturally Diverse Classrooms. United States: Teachers College Press.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very interesting and focus on a real lack within the academic training for the future teachers. The variety of contexts studied enriches the study and highligh the advantages and disadvantages of the programme applied.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments and favorable review.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors' revisions definitely improve the strength of the study and it's findings. There are two minor wording revisions. First, a minor wording that they might want to address to be more current regarding family structure and involvement is the use of family involvement and not parent involvement. I recommend that they not change the word parent involvement but reference in a footnote or somewhere early in the manuscript that they highlight not just parents but that other family members who may be caregivers and responsible for their child's education. 2) Also, in Table 2 - change the word of regular teachers to general educators.
