Exploring How Educators Perceive Enacting Asset-Based Family Engagement

Abstract

Despite widespread acknowledgement of the importance of family engagement in supporting children’s academic and social success, many educators feel underprepared to establish meaningful connections with families. Research reveals that many educators perceive family engagement through a narrow lens, expecting families to participate in school-directed activities that may alienate families from marginalized backgrounds. This design-based study examined how participation in a virtual professional development course might serve as a space for educators to (re)consider how they engage with families. Pre-and post-questionnaires from 34 educators assessed changes in their perceived frequency of and methods for family engagement. Participants used Likert scale items to report how frequently they enacted asset-based family engagement before and after participating in the professional development. Educators’ open-ended responses provided additional insights into their perceptions of family engagement. Findings indicate that participants perceived increased frequency and use of asset-based approaches following the professional development. Additionally, participants shifted how they described the roles and responsibilities of families and staff regarding engagement. These findings underscore the potential benefits of virtual professional development in bridging gaps in educators’ understanding. Practical applications of our findings include adapting the pre- and post-questionnaires into a tool that educators can use to self-assess their development towards using asset-based family engagement approaches.

1. Introduction

Researchers and policymakers acknowledge that family engagement is a crucial component of children’s academic and social success (Boonk et al. 2018; Mapp and Kuttner 2013). However, as one participant in our study noted, “I might know something, but it doesn’t mean that I practice what I know regularly” (Participant 28). This sentiment is common. Many educators understand the importance of family engagement but struggle to enact this knowledge. A recent study revealed that fewer than 40% of educators felt adequately prepared to engage with families (National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) 2022).

Adding to the challenge are the prevalent beliefs regarding how families should engage with schools and with their children’s teachers. Contemporary education legislation (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015) defines family engagement in ways that reflect White, middle-class forms of involvement (Nygreen 2019). Reflecting these policies, some educators continue to use school-centric and teacher-initiated forms of family engagement (Posey-Maddox and Haley-Lock 2020). These forms of family engagement often characterize the families of minoritized children as lacking the necessary skillsets to support their children, being uninterested in school initiatives, or being “problematic” (Minniear 2023). Such beliefs, perceptions, and discourses perpetuate deficit perspectives on families, which in turn influence how schools and educators design family engagement opportunities and the roles that families are permitted to take up within school spaces (Baquedano-López et al. 2013).

Mapp et al. (2017) argued that addressing these challenges requires adopting more culturally responsive and inclusive family engagement strategies—strategies such as viewing families as assets to children’s education and designing engagement opportunities that build upon familial strengths and contributions. Asset-based family engagement approaches are grounded in culturally sustaining, bi-directional partnerships between schools and families (Leo et al. 2019). Thus, the focus of asset-based family engagement is not solely improved academic achievement but also social justice and community empowerment. To shift towards these asset-based family engagement approaches, educators need professional development opportunities to obtain the family engagement preparation that they identify as “missing” (Kirmaci 2019). When educators learn asset-based strategies that position families as experts and how to share leadership and decision-making with families, research shows that family engagement has a greater impact on student learning (Caspe and Hernandez 2024).

In this design-based research study, we examined how educators who participated in a virtual professional development course described their perceptions of family engagement. In this study, educators included anyone in the school context involved in educating or caring for children and youth. We addressed the questions: How did educators’ perceptions of how often they engage with families change after participating in a virtual professional development course? How did educators’ perceptions of the ways they engage with families change after participating in a virtual professional development course? We intentionally use the terms “caregiver” or “family” rather than “parent”. This inclusive discourse acknowledges the current reality that an array of individuals may assume the role of “parent” or “family member”. In other words, a range of people care for, love, and support children throughout their lives.

1.1. Literature Review

As conceptualizations of family engagement have shifted across space and time, it is important to first share the definition of family engagement that informed this study. We then synthesize the literature on how educators perceive families and family engagement within contemporary educational contexts. We conclude by discussing professional development research examining how to support educators in shifting their perceptions of families and family engagement.

1.1.1. Defining Family Engagement

Family engagement is a dynamic, collaborative process in which families, schools, and communities actively partner to support the holistic development and academic success of children and youth. This partnership transcends traditional or limited notions of caregiver involvement, such as only attending school events or helping with homework. Rather, the focus is meaningful, reciprocal relationships where families are recognized as equal partners in the educational process. According to the National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) (n.d.), family engagement is “shared responsibility in which schools and other community agencies and organizations are committed to reaching out to engage families in meaningful ways and in which families are committed to actively supporting their children’s learning and development” (para. 1). Effective family engagement requires schools and educators to adopt an asset-based perspective, acknowledging that all families, regardless of socioeconomic, cultural, or linguistic background, bring valuable knowledge and resources to support their children’s learning. Recent studies emphasize that recognizing and leveraging family strengths fosters greater collaboration and equity in educational settings (Ishimaru and Bang 2016). Building on this research, Epstein and Sheldon (2023) underscored the importance of creating family engagement opportunities that promote two-way communication, mutual respect, and shared responsibility between schools and families.

1.1.2. Educators’ Perceptions

Historically, educators have often viewed family engagement through a narrow lens, focusing on traditional forms of participation such as attending parent–teacher conferences, volunteering at school, or helping with homework (Hornby and Lafaele 2011; Woltran 2023). As Goodall and Montgomery (2014) highlighted, many educators tend to equate family engagement with visible participation in school-organized activities, such as attending parent–teacher conferences or volunteering for school events. Hornby and Lafaele (2011) similarly emphasized that educators often perceive certain families as “hard to engage”, largely due to structural barriers such as language differences, work schedules, or unfamiliarity with the school system.

While progress has been made towards reframing family engagement to be more asset-based, recent scholarship reveals that these historically deficit viewpoints still influence the enactment of family engagement. Baker et al. (2016) determined that educators were able to identify barriers limiting asset-based family engagement. However, when tasked with developing solutions to these barriers, educators proposed solutions that perpetuated inequitable forms of family involvement such as requiring families’ presence within schools. Similarly, Bang et al. (2018) cautioned that family engagement models often remain grounded in White, middle-class norms. Families may feel alienated when their literacy practices, expectations, and preferred forms of engagement diverge from these White, middle-class norms. Findings such as these highlight that educators may hold diverse perspectives about family engagement, specifically regarding what constitutes family engagement; how families ought to engage with schools and educators; and how power, privilege, and access are distributed among educators and family members. Importantly, these diverse perspectives are shaped by educators’ roles, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences (Graue 2005; Zeichner 2024).

1.1.3. Shifting Perceptions

Research has shown that adopting asset-based perspectives is no easy task. Educators need to engage in critical reflection that leads to recognizing whether their perspectives need to shift (Kirmaci 2019; Nikolovski 2022). As Zeichner (2024) recently stated, equity-oriented views of family engagement center families and communities by elevating their voices and mitigating power imbalances. In a comprehensive review of educators’ experiences with family engagement, Kirmaci (2019) concluded that although educators may have good intentions, they often struggle to enact these intentions and break away from patterns of family engagement that they have long witnessed and enacted. Thus, adopting a perspective and stance to “care” about children and families does not necessarily translate into the enactment of equity-based forms of family engagement. Because many educators feel underprepared to engage with families, there is a need for intentional and frequent professional development opportunities through which educators can build their capacity to adopt and enact equity-oriented mindsets (Caspe and Hernandez 2024; Hong 2019; Kirmaci 2019).

While there is a robust literature base addressing how schools and educators can build partnerships with families and effective asset-based family engagement strategies (e.g., Baker et al. 2016; Ishimaru 2019; Jacques and Villegas 2018), there is a paucity of research that examines how to support educators in learning to engage with families. The extent of the research examining professional development addressing family engagement predominately concerns how educators shift their perceptions and/or actions when learning or enacting a particular family engagement approach such as conducting home visits, interviewing families, or participating in community outreach (Peltier et al. 2024; Cornett et al. 2020; He and Bagwell 2022; Johnson 2014; Rothstein-Fish et al. 2009). Across these studies, many use professional development designs that function as professional learning communities that meet in person, synchronously online, or asynchronously online. Collectively, findings indicate that key elements of effective professional development include: (1) ongoing meetings between the professional development creators and participants, and (2) engagement in professional learning communities (Peltier et al. 2024; Calderón 2009; He and Bagwell 2022).

As virtual meetings have become commonplace in the post-COVID-19 world, opportunities exist to examine how to extend this research into virtual professional development opportunities. Hence, we envisioned a virtual professional development course that engaged educators in discussing and (re)framing family engagement through asset-based perspectives. Our particular approach to virtual professional development differed from the previous research base in that it was cross-geographic region and cross-educator positionality. Thus, an early childhood educator living in the Northeastern United States could learn with and from a secondary educator living in the Midwest. In addition, our professional development provided opportunities for both personal learning and critical reflection, as well as synchronous discussions and conversations. Rather than the research team moderating the synchronous sessions, they provided a brief five-minute overview of the session’s topic, and the remainder of the session was dedicated to participant guided conversation and reflection. This design reflected the theory of a community of practice—a community where all members learn with and from each other. Additionally, it supported participants’ development and use of cognitive flexibility, which we discuss further in our methods section.

2. Methods

We employed a design-based research approach (Bradley and Reinking 2011) to examine how a virtual professional development course might serve as a space in which educators could discuss and (re)envision how to enact family engagement. In design-based research, iterative cycles are used to revise specific research goals to improve the intervention (i.e., the virtual professional development course). We intended for all participants to experience positive outcomes and potentially broader transformations in their teaching and learning (Ivy 2021). In alignment with the key characteristics of this methodology, our study examined how a virtual professional development course situated within the authentic context of a community of practice served as an intervention to support educators’ efforts to (re)envision family engagement. We drew on community of practice theory to inform the development of the virtual professional development course. Here, we report findings from the first iterative cycle and discuss implications for future intervention cycles.

2.1. Virtual Professional Development Course Design

The virtual professional development course was designed as a 4-month book club experience. We used the text Partnering with Families for Student Success: 24 Scenarios for Problem-Solving with Parents (Edwards et al. 2019). The text’s introductory chapters present a framework that guides educators to learn how power, prestige, positioning, and access shape interactions among families and educators. Each of the 24 scenarios feature different family types and lived experiences that educators may encounter. Participants learned how to apply cognitive flexibility theory (Spirio et al. 1987) to navigate these scenarios and draw on asset-based family engagement approaches. Namely, they learned how to draw on and adapt prior knowledge and experiences to navigate novel situations in ways that elevate, respect, and honor families’ views, experiences, and knowledge. The scenarios provided specific guidance regarding how to enact asset-based family strategies such as establishing bi-directional communication approaches, learning about families’ experiences and literacies, and developing strategies to overcome constraints to their engagement with schools. Across the four virtual book club meetings, participants selected the focal modules and discussed how they could (1) (re)envision engaging families within their school contexts, and (2) support teacher candidates in learning how to engage families from an asset-based perspective. Each session followed a similar structure with a brief overview of the module topic, an opportunity to review and discuss the assigned reading, and a guided reflection.

We drew on the theory of communities of practice (CoPs) when designing the virtual book clubs. Wenger (1998) defined a CoP as having three elements: (1) mutual engagement, (2) joint enterprise, and (3) shared repertoire. Mutual engagement occurs when people engage in actions and negotiate meaning together. Joint enterprise concerns the set of issues about which the community is concerned and the system(s) they create while pursuing these issues. A shared repertoire refers to members’ discourse, as well as any artifacts or concepts that they create (Pyrko et al. 2017). As Wenger (1998) described, CoPs create a context for “new insights to be transformed into knowledge” (p. 214).

In this study, the CoP consisted of educators’ mutual engagement in developing knowledge of how to engage with diverse families, negotiating meaning through their shared conversations during the virtual book club meetings. The joint enterprise in this COP was not only the transmission of knowledge between members of the CoP but also existed within the situations presented within the selected text (Renga 2024). The case scenarios presented in Partnering with Families for Student Success: 24 Scenarios for Problem-Solving with Parents created opportunities for participants in the CoP to discuss and reason through how they might navigate similar situations (Edwards et al. 2019).

The virtual book club groups selected the case scenarios to discuss during their monthly meetings. The discussions allowed participants to share their own experiences working with families in varying contexts and at different points in their professional careers. This sharing allowed those who were novices (i.e., minimal experience engaging with particular family types) to learn from more experienced members (i.e., more in-depth experience engaging with particular family types). The shared repertoire among the CoP consisted of contextualized discourses that educators understood. In all, the CoP promoted conversation across geographic locations, educator positionalities, and levels of professional experience.

2.2. Participants

The educators participating in this study represent a convenience sample since recruitment efforts consisted of distributing fliers to local school districts and affiliated university–school partners. Thirty-four participants from five geographic areas in the United States decided to participate in the virtual book club project. As shown in

Table 1. Participant Demographics.

Geographic Area	Number of Participants	African American	White	Asian	Multiracial	Male	Female
Northern Midwest	11	0	10	1	0	1	10
Central Midwest	5	1	4	0	0	1	4
Southern Midwest	8	1	7	0	0	0	8
Southeast	8	1	7	0	0	0	8
Northeast	7	0	6	0	1	0	7
Total	34	5	27	1	1	2	32

, most participants self-identified as White (n = 27) and female (n = 32).

Table 2. Demographics Delineated by Educator Role.

Educator Role	Number of Participants	African American	White	Asian	Multiracial	Male	Female
Early Childhood	1	1	0	0	0	0	1
Elementary	19	1	18	0	0	1	18
Secondary	5	1	3	1	0	1	4
Student Support	8	2	6	0	0	0	8
Administration	1	0	0	0	1	0	1
Total	34	5	27	1	1	2	32

details participants’ demographics according to their roles as an educator. Among the participants, 25 were employed as PK-12 teachers—specifically, two participants were special education teachers, while the other 23 taught in general education classrooms. The remaining nine participants included a school nurse, a counselor, a behavioral specialist, special education paraprofessionals, and a K-12 administrator. Most participants (n = 19) have been employed for 10 or more years in the education profession. Notably, 23 participants held at least a Master’s degree. When asked about their initial teacher preparation programs, seventeen participants felt somewhat prepared to engage with families, while eight felt fully prepared. Additionally, only 17 participants lived in the district in which they taught, while the others commuted from neighboring school districts or beyond.

2.3. Data Collection

We distributed pre- and post-questionnaires to explore the participants’ perspectives on how frequently and in what ways they engaged with families before and after the book club experience. Since all participants completed both the pre- and post-questionnaires, these questionnaires served as the primary data source for capturing nuanced changes in the educators’ perspectives over time. Participants completed the pre-questionnaire prior to beginning the book club experience, establishing baseline data for educators’ initial perceptions. The pre-questionnaire consisted of eight demographic questions, thirty Likert scale items, and one opportunity for an open-ended response. Participants defined parental engagement for the open-ended response.

We based the pre- and post-questionnaire off the newly released Family Engagement Core Competencies (National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) 2022). We drew upon these competencies since they were the first nationally agreed upon set of family engagement competencies for educators. Further, their development was guided by rigorous research standards (see the National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) 2022 for a complete discussion of the methods). As shown in

Table 3. Family Engagement Core Competencies.

Domain	Core Competencies
Reflect	Respect, honor, and value families. Embrace equity throughout family engagement.
Connect	3. Build trusting and reciprocal relationships with families. 4. Foster community partnerships for learning and family wellbeing
Collaborate	5. Co-construct learning opportunities with families. 6. Link family and community engagement to learning and development.
Lead	7. Take part in lifelong learning. 8. Advocate for system change.

Note: Please see the National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) (2022) for the complete set of core competencies and sub-competencies.

, the Family Engagement Core Competencies consist of four domains: Reflect, Connect, Collaborate, and Lead. The Reflect domain addresses how teachers respect and demonstrate honor towards families as they elevate equitable engagement opportunities for families and communities. The Connect domain centers on fostering trusting relationships with families, with a focus on student learning and overall family wellbeing. The Collaborate domain addresses building trusting bi-directional partnerships in which parties work together to develop accessible learning and engagement opportunities that support student achievement. The Lead domain emphasizes continuous learning about family engagement and how to advocate for families within the spaces of systemic change. Each domain consists of two core competencies and four to seven sub-competencies.

The pre- and post-questionnaires were developed specifically for this study. We used language taken directly from the Engagement Core Competencies (National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) 2022) to create the Likert scale items. Participants indicated how often they engaged in each sub-competency skill using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never to always. As shown in

Table 4. Internal Consistency for Questionnaires.

Domain	Cronbach’s α
	Pre-Questionnaire	Post-Questionnaire
Reflect	0.816	0.810
Connect	0.904	0.890
Collaborate	0.899	0.886
Lead	0.901	0.886

, we determined that each of the domains on the pre- and post-questionnaire had high internal consistency.

After completing the book club experience, participants completed the post-questionnaire. In the post-questionnaire, we refined the wording of five Likert scale items based on participant feedback. This refinement aligns with the principles of design-based research in that it is adaptive, and participants ought to “assume ownership of the tools and practices developed through the intervention” (Ivy 2021, p. 149). We discuss whether this refinement skewed the data in our analysis section.

2.4. Data Analysis

We conducted quantitative and qualitative analysis of the pre- and post-questionnaire responses to determine how educators shifted their perspectives regarding the frequency with which and ways in which they engaged with families before and after participating in the research study. Due to the relatively small sample (n = 34) and normal distributions of scores, we used nonparametric measures to analyze the quantitative data. Prior to analysis, we identified the aggregate scores for each domain (i.e., Reflect, Connect, Collaborate, Lead). Using IBM SPSS Statistics (v. 29), we conducted the Kruskal–Wallis H test to determine whether participants’ responses to the Likert scale items varied according to specific demographic factors (e.g., amount of time in the profession, race/ethnicity). To identify significant changes in each participant’s paired pre- and post-questionnaire responses, we utilized the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Since we made changes to the post-questionnaire as part of our research design, we analyzed the post-questionnaire data to determine if refining the five questions skewed the data. For the three questions in the Connect domain, we determined that refining the questions did not skew the data since (1) the median and mean values were consistent with those from other domains, and (2) the number of individual changes greater than 1 were similar to the patterns in the other domain aggregates. Close analysis of the two questions in the Lead domain indicated that the wording changes, while minor, did potentially alter the meaning of the question. We decided to remove these two Likert scale items from all quantitative analysis. Thus, our analysis and findings address 28 Likert scale items rather than the original 30.

We analyzed the open-ended response question through iterative coding cycles (Saldaña 2021). All coding was conducted at the sentence level so that we could fully capture the participants’ ideas. We began our analysis with the pre-questionnaire. Our first coding cycle employed descriptive and in vivo coding methods using MAXQDA v 24.8, an analytical qualitative software program. These coding approaches enabled us to preserve the participants’ language while providing a broader overview of their epistemological thinking. We then collapsed the codes by using pattern coding (Saldaña 2021) during the second cycle. As appropriate, we double coded participants’ responses. This allowed us to look for broader patterns of how participants defined family engagement. Lastly, we organized the pattern codes into broader themes. After completing analysis of the pre-questionnaire, we used the same approach to analyze the post-questionnaire. There were no new pattern codes or themes that arose during the post-questionnaire analysis. We present the themes and pattern codes in

Table 5. Themes and Pattern Codes.

Theme	Pattern Code	Example Data
Locus of Responsibility Def.: Who is responsible for the engagement	Parent Def.: Students’ family members	Showing interest in what is happening at school, communicating with school staff, supporting school activities/schoolwork with the student at home. (Participant 9, Pre-questionnaire)
	Shared Def.: Responsibility is shared between entities	How families and educators interact and collaborate regarding educational setting. (Participant 23, Pre-questionnaire)
	School Def.: Educators associated with the school	I would like to encourage the (school district) corporation to allow for increased communication to caregivers regarding their child’s actual reading abilities as seen and observed as an interventionist. (Participant 1, Post-questionnaire)
	Community Def.: Anyone invested in the school or in the school	A close relationship with the grown-ups who care for students outside school hours—frequent communication, sharing of challenges and accomplishments, shared problem solving. (Participant 13, Pre-questionnaire)
Type of Partnership Def.: Type of engagement partnership and how each partner’s input is valued	Collaborative Def.: Each partner’s input is valued	Schools and families working together to help students achieve! (Participant 31, Post-questionnaire)
	Unspecified Def.: Discusses partnerships but details about the type are not provided	Building trusting, positive relationships early on in the year, in order to create a good school to home relationship for student success. (Participant 26, Post-questionnaire)
	One Directional Def.: One partner’s input is valued more	The first component to successfully engaging families is establishing a trusting relationship and looking deeper into how we connect with and understand the families we are working with. (Participant 18, Post-questionnaire)
Form of Engagement Def.: Ways that families can be engaged	Communication Def.: Written or spoken forms of communication	Caregivers/Extended families communicating with teachers, attending parent/teacher conferences, attending school sponsored activities, and being involved with school-related activities. (Participant 20, Pre-questionnaire)
	School Events/Activities Def.: Attend or support school events or activities	Not everyone can do school events during and/or afterschool. Therefore, I want to find creative ways parents can be active without leaving their jobs (Participant 27, Post-questionnaire)
	Unspecified but Active Def.: Specify families must be engaged but not specific ways	Any involvement by the caregiver in the child’s educational experience. (Participant 14, Post-questionnaire)
	Home-Based Learning Def.: Completing homework, discussing school day or learning, doing other learning activities	Interest in classwork and assignments, reading and responding when necessary to school and teacher communications, supporting students with time when needed. (Participant 25, Pre-questionnaire)
	Access to Information or Opportunities Def.: Access to school-level information or opportunities	Parent engagement is the active and open communication between school and home to update and inform both the teacher and guardian of necessary information (Participant 17, Pre-questionnaire)
	Advocating Def.: Navigating systems and advancing what is best for the student	Parents need to be able to advocate for their children. (Participant 11, Post-questionnaire)
Connection to Student Success Def.: Connection to academic or life outcomes	Connection to Student Success Def.: Connection to academic or life outcomes	Families and school working together to improve and support learning. (Participant 3, Pre-questionnaire)

Note: Def.: Definition.

alongside definitions (Def.) and example data.

3. Results

In this section, we synthesize the findings from the Likert scale item analysis and the themes identified in participants’ written responses.

3.1. Likert Scale Items

We used the Kruskal–Wallis H test to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between various demographic categories (e.g., tenure in the education field, level of education, commuting distance, or race/ethnicity) for the Likert scale questionnaire items. For the pre-questionnaire, analyses of the demographic categories revealed no statistically significant differences. These data indicate that at the onset of the study, participants reported similar perceptions of how often and in what ways they enacted the family engagement domains.

For the post-questionnaire, there was one demographic category (i.e., educator role) of note. The Kruskal–Wallis H test revealed statistically significant differences in the mean ranks of the Collaborate domain aggregate scores were statistically significant between educator professional roles, for which H(4) = 9.647, p = 0.047 (see mean ranks in

Table 6. Mean Ranks According to Educator’s Professional Role.

	Respect		Connect		Collaborate		Lead
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Early Childhood	4.83	NA 1	4.00	NA	4.00 *	NA	3.33	NA
Elementary	4.46	0.481	4.06	0.627	3.48 *	0.771	3.85	0.812
Secondary	4.57	0.465	2.93	0.932	2.42	0.364	3.34	0.809
Student Support	4.52	0.361	3.72	0.579	2.77	1.114	3.34	1.117
Administration	4.67	NA	4.11	NA	2.86	NA	4.33	NA

Note: * p < 0.05.; NA ¹ = Standard deviations were not able to be calculated since the educator role consisted of only one participant.

). Educators who were early childhood and elementary teachers perceived that they enacted the collaborate competencies about half of the time or more. These data indicate that educators’ perceptions about the frequency with which and ways in which they enacted the Collaborate domain did vary according to their role as an educator.

We also conducted an analysis of individuals’ pre-questionnaire responses compared to their post-questionnaire responses to determine how perceptions changed following participation in the virtual professional development course. Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, we found each domain aggregate displayed a statistically significant change from the pre- to the post-questionnaire (see the domain aggregate median and z scores in

Table 7. Domain Aggregate Median and Z Scores.

	Pre-Questionnaire Median	Post-Questionnaire Median	Z Score
Reflect	4.33	4.67	2.264 *
Connect	3.50	4.00	2.014 *
Collaborate	2.64	2.85	2.498 *
Lead	2.75	3.67	3.746 **

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.

). Specifically, twenty participants perceived an increase in how frequently they engaged in the subskills associated with the Reflect domain, whereas eight reported no change and six reported a decrease. There was a statistically significant median increase in perceived frequency of engagement for the Reflect domain from pre-questionnaire (4.33) to post-questionnaire (4.67), for which z = 2.264, p = 0.024.

For the Connect domain, twenty-one participants perceived an increase in how often they engaged in the associated subskills, while two participants did not perceive any change and eleven perceived a negative change in the frequency of their engagement. Thus, there was a statistically significant median increase in perceived frequency of engagement for the Connect domain, for which z = 2.014, p = 0.044. Within the Collaborate domain, twenty-six participants perceived an increase, one participant perceived no change, and seven participants perceived a decrease in how often they engaged in the associated subskills. These perceptions yield a statistically significant median increase in perceived frequency of engagement for the Collaborate domain, for which z = 2.498, p = 0.013. Lastly, twenty-five participants perceived an increase, one participant perceived no change, and eight participants perceived a decrease in how often they engaged in the associated subskills for the Lead domain. There was a statistically significant median increase for the Lead domain, for which z = 3.746, p ≤ 0.001. Collectively, these findings indicate that most participants reported positive increases in their perception regarding how often they engaged in the various family engagement domains.

3.2. Qualitative Data

As shown in

Table 8. Qualitative Theme and Code Frequencies.

Theme	Pattern Code	Pre-Questionnaire	Post-Questionnaire
Locus of Responsibility		88.9%	68.8%
	Parent	40.0%	7.8%
	Shared	24.4%	1.7%
	School	22.2%	59.3%
	Community	2.2%	0%
Type of Partnership		26.7%	10.9%
	Collaborative	22.2%	6.2%
	Unspecified	4.4%	1.47%
	One-Directional	0%	3.1%
Form of Engagement		93.3%	32.8%
	Communication	40.0%	17.2%
	School Events/Activities	15.6%	10.9%
	Unspecified but Active	13.3%	4.7%
	Home-Based Learning	13.3%	1.47%
	Access to Information or Opportunities	8.9%	1.47%
	Advocating	2.2%	1.47%
Connection to Student Success		26.7%	12.5%

, we calculated frequency counts for the themes and associated pattern codes. Since our analytic procedures permitted applying multiple codes at the sentence level, we calculated the frequency percentage by dividing the number of opportunities we had to apply the code by the total number of sentences in the respective data set (i.e., 45 sentences for pre-questionnaire, 64 sentences for post-questionnaire). For the pre-questionnaire, the themes form of engagement (93.3%) and locus of responsibility (88.9%) were coded at nearly the same frequency. However, for the post-questionnaire, the frequency with which participants described forms of engagement (32.8%) decreased significantly, while the frequency for locus of responsibility showed a moderate decrease (68.8%). Participants tended to incorporate descriptions regarding the themes types of partnership and connections to student success at about the same frequency across both questionnaires. While consistent, these two themes were coded less frequently than the themes locus of responsibility and form of engagement.

Analysis of the code frequencies for the two most prevalent themes revealed additional insights into how participants described the ways they engaged with families. Code frequencies within the locus of responsibility theme indicate that participants’ pre-questionnaire responses predominately assigned responsibility for family engagement to parents (40.0%), shared responsibility between the school and families (24.4%), or solely to the school (22.2%). For instance, Participant 5’s pre-questionnaire response described family engagement as “parents who are involved in all aspects of the child’s education”. This description places the primary responsibility for family engagement on caregivers. In contrast, post-questionnaire frequency counts show a notable shift, with participants perceiving the school as primarily responsible for family engagement (59.3%). Illustratively, Participant 5’s post-questionnaire response emphasized a school-initiated approach, describing family engagement as “taking the time to meet the needs of the parents”. This shift reflects a reallocation of primary responsibility for family engagement from caregivers to schools.

Within the forms of engagement theme, communication emerged as the most prevalent code on the pre-questionnaire (40.0%). Less frequent forms of engagement included participating in school events or activities (15.6%), being active in unspecified ways (13.3%), participating in home-based learning activities (13.3%), and accessing information or activities (8.9%). On the post-assessment, communication remained the most prevalent code (17.2%), while other frequent codes included participating in school events or activities (10.9%) and being active in unspecified ways (4.7%). These frequencies suggest that participants described a broader range of engagement forms on the pre-questionnaire compared to the post-questionnaire, where their descriptions were more concentrated on a narrower set of engagement practices.

Interestingly, communication was frequently co-coded with codes for the themes of locus of responsibility and types of partnership.

Table 9. Frequency Co-Coding for Communication.

Pattern Code	Subcode	Pre-Questionnaire	Post-Questionnaire
Locus of Responsibility	Parent	20.0%	1.6%
	Shared	6.7%	0%
	School	8.9%	15.6%
	Community	0%	0%
Type of Partnership	Collaborative	13.3%	0%
	Unspecified	2.2%	0%
	One-Directional	0%	0%

presents the frequency of co-coding between communication and these themes on the pre- and post-questionnaires. As shown in the table, communication was most frequently co-coded with parent (20%) on the pre-questionnaire, indicating that participants initially viewed caregivers as being primarily responsible for communication. In contrast, on the post-questionnaire, communication was most frequently co-coded with school (15.6%) on the post-questionnaire, suggesting a shift in perception toward the school taking greater responsibility for fostering communication.

To illustrate this shift, Participant 15 described family engagement on the pre-questionnaire as “reading emails and notes from school and the teacher, responding if necessary, reaching out to the school and/or teacher with questions/concerns about their child”. This response places the onus of initiating and maintaining communication on the caregiver. However, following participation in the virtual professional development course, Participant 15 shared on the post-questionnaire: “this book club has reminded me to never stop trying with families and to make more effort to communicate more regularly with all families”. This statement reflects a transformation in perspective, emphasizing the school’s role in creating the conditions that invite and sustain family engagement and communication.

Equally significant is the shift in co-coding communication with collaborative types of partnerships, which participants noted on the pre-questionnaire (13.3%) but was entirely absent on the post-questionnaire. This shift indicates a change in how participants conceptualized family–school interactions over time. For instance, Participant 15’s post-questionnaire explanation, which was previously noted, highlights an increased sense of educator responsibility, as the educator stated their commitment to continuing efforts to engage families. However, the response does not address the reciprocal role of families in fostering shared interactions and engagement. These changes in how educators describe locus of responsibility and the type of partnership suggest a growing tendency to frame their role in family engagement as educator-initiated, with less emphasis on collaborative and bi-directional engagement with families.

4. Discussion

This mixed-methods study explored how and if educators shifted their perceptions about their frequency and methods of engaging with families after participating in a virtual professional development course. Quantitative findings indicate statistically significant increases in educators’ perceived frequency of use of asset-based family engagement approaches after participating in professional development. Additionally, qualitative data analysis indicated shifts in participants’ descriptions of family engagement regarding the roles and responsibilities of families and school staff, as well as the forms of engagement opportunities. In this section, we discuss key findings and their implications for future research and educator professional development.

4.1. Integration of Professional Development Learning

Analysis revealed significant increases in the perceived frequency with which participants engaged in NAFSCE’s family engagement competencies following the virtual professional development course. Specifically, participants indicated that they perceived an increase in their enactment of the core competencies for all four domains (i.e., Reflect, Connect, Collaborate, and Lead). However, participants’ written descriptions of family engagement revealed more nuanced and at times conflicting interpretations of how frequently and in what ways the participants engaged with families. These discrepancies are associated with the post-questionnaire responses, when participants shifted to assigning responsibility for family engagement to schools rather than families and decreased descriptions regarding collaborative partnerships with families. The Likert scale items necessitated participants only recognize asset-based engagement approaches, while the open-ended descriptions required them to apply their learning by describing these engagement approaches in their own words. As supported in Kirmaci’s (2019) research, the participants may find difficulty in breaking from their previously held views and actions. We suggest that these discrepancies thus appear to indicate that the participants may still be integrating their increased awareness of asset-based family engagement approaches with their personal understandings and contexts.

Similar to the participants in this study, other educators may need extended opportunities and time to integrate learning with their situated family engagement efforts and personal understanding. We suggest that the design of our virtual professional development course as a CoP is well suited for this need. The design of the virtual CoP created a space where educators, across varied demographic and geographic locations, could mutually engage and reflect on how frequently and in what ways they engage with families. Within this virtual space, participants could fluidly move from novice to expert positionalities based on their prior experiences and interactions with families as they pursued a joint enterprise in their CoP. Thus, a virtual professional development course designed as a CoP may be one avenue for addressing previously identified barriers to family engagement (Hornby and Lafaele 2011). Further, this particular type of professional development may serve as a catalyst for (re)envisioning family engagement, particularly when educators may feel less confident in their abilities to shift towards asset-based approaches.

Of note, our analysis revealed differences in mean ranks according to the educator role. Specifically, participants who were employed as secondary educators or student support personnel expressed that they engaged in family engagement approaches associated with the Connect and Collaborate domains less frequently than the participants who were employed as early childhood educators or elementary education teachers. Qualitative data analysis did not reveal any instances where participants attributed the frequency of their engagement or the methods used to the educator role they held. However, we suggest that these differences in frequency and type of family engagement may be due to educational system issues. Often, educators in secondary schools teach multiple periods of their subject each day, resulting in a larger number of students and families with whom they could engage. Likewise, student support personnel may not be permitted to directly engage with families due to school policy that outlines that only the teacher on record communicates with families. While these differences existed, the virtual CoP may have provided opportunities for secondary educators or student support staff to (re)envision how their efforts may reflect asset-based approaches.

4.2. Communication as an Entry Point to Asset-Based Engagement Approaches

Across both the pre- and post-questionnaires, participants described communication as one of their predominant forms of family engagement. On the pre-assessment, participants frequently described communication as being the responsibility of the parent, whereas on the post-questionnaire, many described it as the school’s responsibility. In the example data that we shared in the Findings section, Participant 15’s description indicates a shift in perception from the family being responsible (pre-assessment) to themselves holding primary responsibility (post-assessment). Within their explanation, this educator assumed responsibility for communication and creating welcoming opportunities for families to engage but did not yet express this engagement and communication as a bidirectional relationship. Progress towards cultivating bidirectional relationships is essential since research has established that student learning is positively impacted when educators share leadership and decision-making with families (Caspe and Hernandez 2024).

Participants preferred communication as a primary family engagement approach. Thus, asset-based forms of communication could serve as an introductory topic for a virtual professional development course. After learning about asset-based forms of communication, participants could then enact these forms of communication, contextualizing them for their individual families. Subsequent professional development sessions could then provide space to reflect on these enacted forms of communication and envision approaches for sustaining their enactment. As prior research indicates, educators often use communication forms that are initiated by the educator and reflect school-centric models of family engagement (Nygreen 2019; Posey-Maddox and Haley-Lock 2020). Thus, it is important that professional development can provide opportunities to critically examine the forms of communication that participants use while problematizing Eurocentric, middle-class views of how families and schools should interact. Educators and families could work together to design bi-directional communication strategies that foster reciprocal partnerships and elevate families’ knowledge and expertise (Ishimaru and Bang 2016).

4.3. Limitations

These findings are limited as they are primarily based on self-reported, Likert scale data, meaning that they only reveal the participants’ perceptions of enactment. It is possible that an educator perceived themselves engaging in a core competency more frequently than they actually enacted it. Additionally, participants were asked to describe family engagement in response to a single open-ended question on the pre- and post-questionnaires. This may have limited the depth and breadth of their responses. Additional opportunities to explore educators’ approaches to family engagement are needed. This includes creating spaces where educators can elaborate on their perceptions of family engagement and provide concrete examples of how they engage with families.

Our analysis indicated that there may be differences in how educators perceive their ability to enact various forms of family engagement based on their role within the school system. For instance, participants who were employed as secondary educators or student support personnel perceived fewer opportunities to engage with families to plan, implement, and evaluate family engagement opportunities (i.e., Collaborate domain). These findings underscore the need to research further how educator role-specific professional development might address specific context and grade related barriers. Navigating around these barriers involves more than just a desire to increase family engagement (Baker et al. 2016). Intentional professional development can support educators by identifying how systems could change to mitigate these barriers.

4.4. Implications

Difficulty shifting perceptions coupled with family engagement being a missing component in teacher preparation programs are reasons why sustained and intentional professional development addressing family engagement is necessary (Caspe and Hernandez 2024; Hong 2019). Shifting perceptions around family engagement is difficult, especially when educators may have long-established approaches or encounter school-based precedents for family engagement within their contexts (Kirmaci 2019; Nikolovski 2022). For educators seeking to shift how they engage with families, self-assessment and ongoing monitoring of their learning through professional development is critical. In this study, we drew on the newly released Family Engagement Core Competencies (National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) 2022) to construct our pre- and post-questionnaires. These questionnaires measured changes in educators’ perception of the frequency of their family engagement and the methods used. In line with the design-based research, participants’ responses and input were used to refine the post-questionnaire. Based on our findings, future research can examine how educators might use the questionnaires as a self-assessment tool.

Further, our findings suggest that the pre- and post-questionnaires could serve as a practical self-assessment tool for educators engaging in asset-based family engagement professional development. In this study, our analysis indicated participants’ perceived changes in the frequency and types of family engagement activities across a 4-month timespan. We recommend that future research explore how educators could self-assess their enactments of family engagement activities across longer and more sustained periods of professional development and classroom practice.

For the pre- and post-questionnaires to be used as self-assessment tools, there are a few important implementation considerations. First, the questionnaires elevate specific models, actions, and dispositions reflecting asset-based family engagement. To enhance the reliability of educators’ self-assessment, explicit training in each competency is needed. Professional development could incorporate this training, deepening participants’ understandings of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions associated with each domain and competency. NAFSCE’s published materials support this explicit training (i.e., National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) 2022). Second, while Likert scale questions are useful to capture trends in changing perceptions, they do not provide a comprehensive understanding of how educators enact their perceptions. Extending the self-assessment to include providing artifacts, such as lesson plans, communication logs, and family engagement materials, could serve as evidence for their self-assessment. These artifacts would provide a window into how educators are enacting what they learn in professional development while reducing potential inaccuracies in self-reported data. Overall, the pre- and post-questionnaires developed in this study could evolve into a robust tool for empowering educators to critically monitor and re(envision) their family engagement practices.

5. Conclusions

This study adds new information to the literature, recognizing that educators value family engagement but do not always engage with families in ways aligned with their knowledge and dispositions (National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) 2022; Posey-Maddox and Haley-Lock 2020). This project provided virtual rather than in-person professional development to colleagues across locations to (re)frame family engagement from an asset-based approach. The online book club created a CoP that provided a place and space for teachers to converse across geographical contexts, educator roles, and professional experiences in the mutual engagement of a joint enterprise. Following the virtual professional development experience, educators perceived enacting asset-based family engagement more frequently, yet they describe methods of family engagement that reflect school-centric and one-directional approaches. Future studies might continue to explore how educators perceive and enact asset-based engagement within their local contexts. This research project provides an example of what strategies might be used to enhance understanding and support of asset-based family engagement.