Next Article in Journal
Development of Educational Video Capsules for Active Learning in Environmental Sciences through Universal Design for Learning
Previous Article in Journal
The Contributions of Creativity to the Learning Process within Educational Approaches for Sustainable Development and/or Ecosocial Perspectives: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/educsci14080825
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perception Differences between Families and Teachers on the Integral Development of the Child and the Educational Process

by
Enrique Muñoz-Herrera
1,2,*,
Delfina María Montero-Trillo
2,
Francisco Aranda-Ruz
2 and
Francisco Jesús Llorente-Cantarero
1,3,4
1
Department of Specific Didactics, Faculty of Education and Psycology, University of Córdoba, C. San Alberto Magno, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
2
Reales Escuelas La Inmaculada—Diocesan Foundation of Teaching Santos Mártires de Córdoba, Plaza de la Compañía, 14002 Córdoba, Spain
3
Consorcio CIBER, M.P. Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBEROBN), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), 28029 Madrid, Spain
4
Maimónides Institute of Biomedicine Research of Córdoba (IMIBIC), University of Córdoba, 14014 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(8), 825; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080825
Submission received: 4 April 2024 / Revised: 29 June 2024 / Accepted: 24 July 2024 / Published: 27 July 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Educational development should be balanced among the different agents that make-up the entirety of the educational community (students, teachers, families, and external agents), with a prominent role of the family and teachers. However, it seems that reality does not comply with these principles, leading to a decrease in educational effectiveness. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the perceptions of the legal guardian/family (LG), and the class tutor/teacher (CT), on the comprehensive development of students and on the global educational process, in order to clarify their role in this process. For this purpose, students aged 3–8 years were selected and the views of their families and teachers were compared (n = 820 observations), both in terms of the five areas that make-up the comprehensive development of the individual (cognitive, social, emotional, moral, and motor) and in regard to other determining variables that affect the global educational process (adaptive, cultural, digital, and school-type areas). The results show significant differences in the perceptions between both groups, with LGs rating all areas higher, except for the adaptive area, which was rated higher by CTs. The conclusions and the factors that explain these results, highlighting technical training as the most important determining factor, could serve as a starting point to bring the vision of both educational agents closer, which would result in an improvement in the communication channels between teachers and families, and in the optimization of the teaching and learning process itself.

1. Introduction

The education of children begins in the family and continues at school, where the future autonomy of the subject is forged through the development of cognitive, procedural, and attitudinal competencies [1]. In this school–home binomial, the resources and dispositions that make it possible for the infant to receive an adequate education are important, as well as the social conditions that facilitate the acquisition of such resources [2]. Nowadays, education is evolving rapidly, along with society [3]. Therefore, a scientific analysis of the educational context and, specifically, of the main agents (the family and teachers) that will interact with the child throughout his or her life, is necessary. However, this duality is in dissonance, because opportunities are not provided to strengthen the communication and relationships in the learning context, where teachers and families provide guidance and aid the transformation process in a climate of reciprocity [4]. Due to the new forms of socialization (internet, technology, media…) and the power they acquire in the formation of students, educational action is forced to establish new formative roles [5], such as the intimate family–school collaboration. In this sense, the interest of the educational community is booming, not only in terms of academic processes, but also in regard to the values, skills, and competencies that are integral to the formation of students [6].
Social learning theory clarifies the current view on the learning process for infants and considers that the environment and the stimuli that they are exposed to shape their behavior and thinking. This theory goes further and refers to the fact that the learning of behaviors takes place in a social framework [7]. This means that in the early ages of a child, appropriate behavioral models are acquired through observation [8]. On the other hand, attitudes and relationships are developed in the family environment that will favor or hinder the infant’s development and, therefore, their achievements acquired at school [9]. In addition to these factors, other factors that could condition development have been identified, including fatigue after a school day [10], leisure time management [11], or the lack of quality time due to an excessive workload, which implies a decrease in the amount of attention paid to children [12]; all of these factors can be found in the educational context [13].
Once the important role of the family and the school in a child’s development has been exposed, it is necessary to understand how the vision of both educational agents can influence the teaching–learning process. In this sense, some authors have analyzed how family and teacher expectations have an impact on learning and even on the family–school relationship [14], demonstrating the high degree of influence of these key factors on students’ academic performance [15]. It has been observed that social position could be a determinant in generating a certain level of educational expectations [16,17]. For example, people with a lower socioeconomic status but higher educational expectations are more likely to have similar job expectations for their descendants than their peers with a higher socioeconomic status [18]. On the teacher’s side, the possible influence (positive or negative) that teachers can exert on their students, due to what is known as “hidden expectations”, focuses on the care that should be taken in the use of expressive language when teaching classes at early ages [19]. Even more recently, in contexts in which the collaboration between schools and families is explicitly and systematically taken care of and worked on, a high degree of satisfaction with the educational process has been found, which has a direct impact on their expectations towards it [20].
The term “educational process” can be defined as the set of initiatives, activities, planning, and experiences carried out by the different agents, with the aim that the theoretical concept of educability can become a reality [21]. Despite being a concept traditionally studied by the scientific community, it is currently receiving interest from different areas, which has given rise to the approach of using specific factors as conditioning factors in the degree of success in terms of the components that make-up the global educational process or, in other words, areas that affect the educational process. A clear example could be educational architecture, which refers to the typology of educational centers, especially with regard to school spaces and facilities. In this sense, it will be important to create educational spaces that have a specific functionality [22], in which the school activities to be developed are connected to specific materials and facilities [23]. On the other hand, the technological and digital field has been progressively added to the educational process, in a similar way to how it has been integrated into real life. Theories go even further, not only recognizing the existence of “digital natives” (a term coined by the scientific community in 2001), but also the need for the continuous training of teachers in order to respond to new generations that are increasingly prepared in terms of this field [24]. At the same time, there is a need to overcome the reluctance towards the integration of technology and the digital environment in the classroom, as a reflection of what is happening in society [25]. Psychology has long been addressing the impact that the effect of culture can have on the educational process. The relationship between performance at school and culture has recently been demonstrated [26]. Finally, sociology emphasizes the importance of working positively on adaptive behavior within the formal educational process, in order to acquire the conceptual, social, and practical skills that the individual needs to respond effectively to the circumstances of daily life, as well as to strengthen independent behavior and student participation [27]. For a long time, intellectual disability has not been taken into account in the school setting, despite its influence on daily living skills [28]. In short, and according to the existing scientific literature, we observe how variables, such as the type of center, the cultural, adaptive, and digital environment, affect the degree of success, directly or indirectly, of the educational process itself, thus they should be taken into account and controlled in the process itself.
In relation to the term “integral education”, human beings should be considered to be unique and indivisible entities, in which development should be conceived in a global manner, integrating the cognitive, social, affective, and motor spheres [29]. Furthermore, from the perspective of cognitive–evolutionary psychology, the moral sphere is incorporated as a fundamental aspect in the development of the individual [30,31,32]. Accepting both postulates, it is assumed that the integral development of the subject, constituted by the cognitive, social, affective–emotional, motor, and moral spheres, should not be understood as independent, but interconnected with each other. If we focus on education, it becomes even more evident that the global educational process itself should consider as its main objective to have an impact on these five areas.
Specifically, there are multiple variables that affect both the development of children and the global educational process itself (behaviors that develop within a social framework through observation, the family environment, attitudes and relationships in this context, fatigue after the school day, leisure time management, a lack of quality time due to the workload of legal guardians, digital evolution, and motivation levels…).
In practice, it is essential that families and schools work together, with a common goal: the optimal development of the child. However, this aim will not achieve its full potential if families and teachers do not share a common idea of the most important variables that affect the educational process and the child’s own development. In fact, these variables could in practice generate discrepancies and conflicts in the school and family environment, due to the possible disparity in the perceptions between teachers and families. It is, therefore, necessary to answer a question that prevails among teaching and education professionals: do the main influential agents in the educational process have the same concept of education?
As can be seen from the analysis of the scientific literature, although these factors have been studied individually in different social and educational contexts, there is an evident absence of research that analyzes and compares in detail the existing divergence in the perceptions of the two main figures directly involved in the education of students, namely the legal guardian (family) and the class tutor (teacher). This reality, together with the current integral concept of education, raises the need for studies that take into account these aspects in the teaching–learning process. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to find out and evaluate whether the perception of the legal guardian coincides with that of the class tutor, with respect to the integral development of the child, as well as to the global educational process.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study is a cross-sectional study of students in the Spanish educational system (age range: 3 to 8 years), selected from pre-school and primary schools provided by the Spanish Ministry of Education. The determination of the selected age range was marked both by Piaget’s taxonomy, according to which, the 7–8 years stage is shown to be the closest and most similar to the preoperational stage (3–6 years), and by the postulates of neuroscience [33], which establishes that the process of brain maturation in terms of the executive functions has several stages, establishing the period up to 8 years of age as a common period in relation to development and maturation. The main characteristics of the study sample (age and gender) were as follows: with respect to “age”, the average was 5.7 years; with respect to “gender”, the sample was 51.22% female and 48.78% male. Inclusion criteria: the study was offered to all students enrolled in the selected schools. Exclusion criteria: students who did not meet the age criteria and/or technical requirements of the study (lacking the written informed consent of their legal guardians and a failure to correctly complete the scales administered). The project was approved by the Ethics Committee at the University of x. In addition, the ethical standards in the Declaration of Helsinki, revised in 2013, were followed throughout the procedure, as well as the ethical principles and criteria in the Code of Good Scientific Practice, approved by the Spanish National Research Council in 2010.

2.2. Design and Experimental Phase

Sampling Design: Schools with different socioeconomic (income levels), cultural (extracurricular activities offered by the school, cultural resources, and infrastructure in the environment), and management (state, private, and subsidized schools) circumstances were selected in order to ensure the maximum level of diversity of the participants. Informed consent was obtained from all the evaluators, legal guardians (LGs) and class tutors (CTs). Each student was evaluated independently by his or her LG and by his or her CT. For this purpose, the same physical questionnaire (identical for the LG and the CT) was distributed to each LG and CT of each student. The data from these agents were collected in collaboration with the technicians at the selected schools.
The measurement conditions were carried out according to a strict control protocol, taking into account constancy and/or elimination (presence of the principal investigator during the measurements, replication of the measurement conditions, guarantee of data replication, control of internal and external contingencies, previous systematic training of the evaluators), in order to eliminate extraneous or contaminating variables that could affect the study. In this sense, the presence of the principal investigator during the measurements, together with the training process of the evaluators, guaranteed that the different scores issued by the LG or CT only indicated the best or worst assessment by one or the other agent, and not different points of view.
Measurement Instrument: To evaluate the study variables, a questionnaire consisting of 39 questions was applied, based on the one validated by Alpern (2018) [34]. To check the consistency, an initial exploratory session was performed in both working groups. The previous validation process for the questionnaire achieved the triple objective of guaranteeing, on the one hand, that each item or question was valid for the age range selected in the study, on the other hand, that each item or question made possible a correct and adequate evaluation by both the LG and the CT (regardless of the different characteristics of one and the other evaluating agent), and, finally, that they achieved the specific objective for which each indicator was intended (items or questions that could have generated doubts in any of the three senses were eliminated or substituted). The exploratory data provided by Cronbach’s alpha (0.906) shows the high degree of reliability of the tool. The questionnaire, having as a reference the categories consigned by Alpern (2018) [34], was structured into dimensions, subdimensions, and specific indicators (see Table 1). The two dimensions (integral development of the child and global educational process) were divided into several subdimensions: firstly, the dimension “integral development of the child” comprised five domains (cognitive, social, affective, moral, and motor), each of which conformed to their respective individual indicators; secondly, the dimension “global educational process” was divided into four different domains (adaptive, cultural, digital, and the type of school), each of which conformed to their respective indicators. Thus, after 5 preliminary questions (which were not the object of the comparison in the present study) to identify the educational level, professional group, and employment status of the observers in question, the questionnaire was structured into a total of 34 indicators, which referred to the 9 domains in the study: cognitive, social, affective, moral, motor, the type of school, cultural, adaptive, and digital.
The specific questions asked in the questionnaire to measure the defined domains are presented in Figure 1. The rating scale used was from 1 “completely disagree” to 10 “completely agree”. Once the questionnaire was developed, a copy was given to each LG and another to each CT, in order to obtain 2 evaluations for each student included in the study.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The normality of the continuous variables, taking into account the total number of participants, was evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The homogeneity of the variances was estimated using Levene’s test. The reliability, namely the internal consistency, was determined using Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. The data presented a non-normal distribution. An attempt was made to normalize the study variables through different methods, such as “log”, “sqrt”, etc., as well as through the analysis of outliers. However, due to the dispersion of the population, it was decided to carry out the Wilcoxon test for the two related samples for the comparison between the CTs and the LGs. The data are shown as the mean and standard deviation. The analyses were carried out using the SPSS 23 program.

3. Results

In the present study, data were obtained from a total of 820 observations, divided into two groups, namely legal guardians (LGs) and class tutors (CTs) of the participating students, using a common questionnaire (with identical indicators for both groups).
Of the 34 indicators analyzed, 27 of them show statistically significant differences when comparing the perceptions of the LGs and the CTs (p < 0.05), where 81.48% of them present a higher score for the LGs than the CTs. Among the 27 indicators that show differences, 15 refer to the areas of integral development (Table 2) and 12 correspond to the different areas that affect the global educational process of the students (Table 3).
In relation to integral development, in 93.33% of them, the mean score of the LGs is higher than that of the CTs (p < 0.05) (Table 2). Breaking this section down into different areas, it can be seen how in the “cognitive” area, with indicators 22, 23, and 33, the LGs obtain higher scores than the CTs (p < 0.001). Oral expression (+0.7) and phoneme pronunciation (+0.3) score higher in the family domain than the academic domain. Similarly, families score their children’s ability to successfully adapt to unfamiliar situations (+0.7) higher than in the opinion shown by their teachers. A similar tendency is seen in the “affective” domain (indicators 28, 29, and 35), where the children’s relatives provide a higher score in response to every question related to the emotional component (p < 0.001). On the one hand, they positively value their children’s ability to recognize and express their feelings (+0.8), as well as to request help from the adult when needed (+1.1). On the other hand, they also have a higher score than the teachers when they value their child’s ability to face situations in which they must act critically and channel their own emotions (+0.5).
With respect to the “ethical–moral” area (indicators 31 and 32), a higher score is once again evident on the part of the children’s families (p < 0.001), in this case with respect to the respect that their children show for nature (+1.2), as well as their sensitivity towards the animal world (+1.1).
A similar line is shown in the “motor” domain (indicators 11, 21, and 37), where it can be seen that the LGs again give higher scores than the CTs in regard to the three relevant indicators. Thus, families score higher in regard to the interest in extracurricular sports activities (+1.1) (p < 0.001) and give a better score in regard to the children’s fine motor skills when picking up a pencil (+1.2) (p = 0.019). Regarding the general evaluation of their child’s physical and motor development according to his/her age, they also score more positively than the CTs (+0.9) (p < 0.001) in terms of the correct motor development.
Similar results were found in the “social” domain, where the LGs again showed higher scores in regard to indicators 30, 34, and 38 than the CTs (p < 0.001). In the family domain, there was greater concern shown by the child in regard to the mood of others (+1.3) and a better score was given in terms of the integration and interaction of the child with his/her peers (+0.8). In addition, they also gave a higher score in regard to their child’s enthusiasm and interest in attending school and carrying out educational activities (+0.5) than that given by the teachers. However, as indicator 25 shows, the LGs gave a lower score to the child’s preference for playing with their peers compared to playing with adults, compared to the score given by the CTs (−0.3) (p = 0.025).
Regarding the areas that affect the educational process, we can observe, at different levels of significance (see Table 3), a higher score given by the LGs compared to the CTs, in all cases, with the exception of the “adaptive” area, in which they provide a very different view.
In regard to the indicators related to the “type of school”, the LGs gave a higher score than the CTs when evaluating the technological and sports facilities available in the school (+0.3) in terms of their child’s development, as well as the variety of didactic material (+0.7) available in the school, for an adequate level of development of the children in their classes.
A similar trend is observed in the “digital” domain (indicators 24 and 39), where a better score is observed on the part of the families than in the educational domain (p < 0.001). Thus, the LGs gave a higher score for the appropriate use of new technologies by the child (+1) and also gave a higher score than the CTs in terms of the children’s interest in carrying out activities in a digital format, as well as for the correct and responsible use of the technological devices used (+1).
Regarding the “cultural” domain, for the four relevant indicators (6, 7, 8, and 16), the LGs scored their child more positively than the CTs. Thus, the families gave a higher score to the quality time they can dedicate to their child (+0.4) (p < 0.001) compared to that given by the teachers, due to the administrative tasks that they have to perform beyond direct teaching. Likewise, the families’ score on the cultural activities that the child carries out outside the school day was also higher (+0.6) (p < 0.001), as was the score by the LGs on the access that their child has to reference books (+0.4) (p < 0.001) and on their reading of books on a voluntary basis (+0.3) (p = 0.02). However, we found two indicators (12 and 14) in which the CTs gave higher scores than the LGs. In these cases, the family environment scored less in terms of a lower level of interest in musical extracurricular activities (−0.4) (p < 0.001) and in dance extracurricular activities (−0.2) (p = 0.027), than in the school environment, where they were given a better score.
Particularly significant is the change in the trend shown in the “adaptive” area, specifically with regard to the discipline factor (indicators 20 and 27) with respect to the rest of the areas evaluated. The perception of the families shows a radically different perspective (p < 0.001); in this case, the indicators show that the CTs gave higher scores than the LGs. On the one hand, the families’ score on the child’s ability to remain seated during personal work time is significantly lower (−0.7) than that of the teachers. Similarly, the families also gave a more negative score (−0.7) to the way in which the child is able to control his or her tantrums and frustrations.
In general terms, and as we can appreciate in a more descriptive way in Figure 2, the present analysis of the results for the indicators with significant differences, shows an important disparity in the reality appreciated by the LGs and the CTs regarding student development and the global educational process (taking into account the dimensions, subdimensions, and specific indicators shown in Table 1). This vision receives a more positive score from the LGs in all the evaluated areas except one; the “adaptive” area presents a different perspective.

4. Discussion

The existing divergence between the LGs and CTs on the educational process and on the integral development of the child are evident. The causes seem to be multifactorial, depending on the variable in question, although a common pattern can be observed, which is described below.
In the first place, beginning with the educational process itself, and specifically in the “cultural” area, the higher score from the LGs than the CTs seems to be related to the different management of quality time given to the children between both evaluators, with respect to the realization of cultural activities and in regard to the access and use of this type of content. These statements suggest that the bureaucratization of the educational system makes it impossible to realize the time that class tutors would like to give to their students, and even certain project variables, such as the ratio of children to teachers in the school, are an impediment to being able to dedicate the attention needed to address children individually [13]. In this regard, in rural schools with a lower teacher to children ratio, the attention paid to children is much more specific, and is valued as something positive [11]. On the contrary, the time available to families outside the formal education system is dedicated in part to leisure and cultural activities, not being directed at curricular activities, as happens in school and not having the requirement to meet certain objectives [35,36]. Moreover, in areas with particular connotations, such as artistic disciplines, these tendencies are also observed [37,38].
Regarding the “type of school”, it is observed that teachers are more critical of the resources, scoring them lower. The fact that they are more aware of the needs concerning such resources for the performance of their work, more so than families, who value and trust the resources available in the school for the education of their child, seems to be one of the factors that explain this difference in the score. A similar line is shown by those who, when presenting the scale of trust that families have in the school, did not value the facilities or material resources as a determinant; consequently, these elements were adequate for them [39]. On the other hand, the technical training of teachers makes it easier to detect deficiencies in this sense. Thus, this greater demand by teachers is justified because the teacher understands the resources and facilities as a support for pedagogical interventions and needs them to be taken care of, since they provide greater enrichment for the child, the more varied the spaces and materials presented are [40].
The “digital” area presents a similar conclusion, although in this case, the difference lies in what is understood by an adequate use of technology. We could affirm that a playful use of technology could be assimilated as adequate for families, while for teachers it may not be understood as such, since they expect an educational use of technology. For appropriate learning to take place in the classroom, including the use of digital tools and new technologies, a series of very specific requirements must be met [41]. The family, not having this technical training, would not give more relevance to its use. As for accessibility, at home, having a device for personal use, they can positively value this indicator, being used habitually and indistinctly as a work and leisure tool [42]. Finally, it is necessary to add a third explanatory factor: exposure time [43,44]. A certain time of daily use can be seen as positive by the family, and as negative by the technicians, since they have a deeper knowledge of the physical–emotional damage that could be caused.
The perspective is radically different in the “adaptive” area, with the specific factor of discipline being the only one for which the LGs scored lower than the CTs. The explanatory factors found in the scientific literature seem to clarify the reasons; in the first place, and as has been repeated in previous sections, the teacher’s technical training seems to be a determining factor. The occurrence of temper tantrums is due to multiple factors [45]. Firstly, teachers know how to handle these situations better, as they understand the natural concept of a “tantrum”, as well as its mechanisms in terms of occurrence and control [46,47]. Secondly, rules also seem to significantly affect this area. Thus, a child acts differently depending on the context or situation in which he/she finds him/herself [48]. At school, working with a larger group, there are well-defined and clear rules [49]. On the other hand, in the family context, it will depend mainly on the parenting style, with multiple possibilities available, including the absence of rules and an excess of authority, which are factors that could directly influence these indicators [50]. On the other hand, the educational context and the effect of mirror neurons, as well as group learning, could be a determinant. Mirror neurons “allow us to understand the world around us, the actions and feelings of others, allowing the human being to develop and enhance socialization skills, to learn through imitation and to form values and feelings inside” [51]. In addition, the time of day is also a factor to be taken into account. During the morning and coinciding with the school period, a higher attention and motivation level and the use of active methodologies will optimize curricular activities [52]. In this regard, different studies show that school fatigue and tiredness increase as the school day progresses [10]. More precisely, this could explain the increase in tantrums later in the day [45]. Finally, children who do not adhere to the behaviors established at school seem to be precisely those who present the greatest focus of conflict between teachers and families, due to family dysfunctionalities [53], as the latter do not understand that this undesired behavior presented at school is abnormal (since these behaviors would be seen as appropriate at home).
Secondly, the areas that affect the integral development of the child show a tendency of continuity with respect to the rest of the areas of the educational process (with the exception of the “adaptive” field). Regarding the “cognitive” field, we could affirm that the teacher’s technical training enables him/her to detect the usual skills that each child should perform according to his/her age group, as well as the deficiencies in this sense; on the other hand, families do not have this level of training, which leads them to assume that any achievement that their children have attained are very positive and significant processes, such as reading and writing. Thus, there is confusion and a tendency to be satisfied simply with decoding or repetition in oral and written expression [54]. In addition, within this characteristic, the CT has the possibility of comparing a child with their peers in the classroom, with respect to the levels of achievement that are considered adequate in regard to these indicators (according to the current regulations), which is not the case for the LG.
Regarding the “affective” area, in the first place, the teacher’s vision seems to be more demanding and more critical, scoring this area lower. Among other reasons, “although most teachers seem to attach importance to dealing with emotions in the classroom, their intentions are accompanied by limited training in emotional education, and a lack of resources to carry it out” [55]. On the other hand, in the domestic environment, the requirement seems to be much laxer; not in vain, the mere fact that there is a positive family climate is an excellent way of achieving subjective well-being for the members of the family group [56]. On the other hand, the fact that students ask for less help in class (as valued by the CTs) seems to be related to factors concerning the development of personal autonomy and learning processes, since these processes are precisely led by mirror neurons [51], as mentioned above.
In relation to the “social” area, the bureaucratization of the educational system and the implementation of directed curricular activities seem to be postulated as determining factors, as we have seen in different studies [13]. Regarding the integration of students in the classroom context, it is evident that for teachers this is one of the objectives to be achieved at this stage (LOMLOE), while for families it does not have the same relevance. With respect to the motivational climate, the child shows a different degree of motivation, according to each activity proposed at school [57]. The CT, being aware of this, uses the most suitable pedagogical strategies to try to increase these motivation rates in order to achieve the curriculum objectives. Outside the classroom, the level of satisfaction is more stable (given the lower load of curricular activities in the family context). Finally, the CT scores higher the fact that the child prefers to play with their peers rather than with adults. Once again, the studies support the teacher’s technical training as the explanatory factor, since the teacher sees how children prefer to play with their peer group. In other cases, even pediatricians encourage playful learning with peers, even prescribing “prescriptions for play” in medical check-up campaigns for healthy children [58].
In relation to the “ethical–moral” area, the tendency to carry out family activities in nature is clearly increasing, which seems to justify the higher score given by the LGs in regard to these indicators, as they have a greater possibility of interacting in this type of context during family leisure time and free time activities compared to CTs [59].
In the last aspect analyzed, the “motor” area, we found similar justifications to those found in the cognitive area. The different technical training of the CTs and LGs, and the difficulty faced by the LGs in comparing their children with larger peer groups, again appear as clear differential factors, in line with studies such as that of [54]. On the other hand, the fact that the family scores more positively the child’s interest in participating in extracurricular sports activities may be due to their eminently ludic, procedural, and delightful nature that encourages children to participate [60].
In conclusion, the greatest scientific contribution of the present study lies in offering, for the first time, the necessary comparative analysis between both educational agents, in regard to the variables that affect the integral development of students and the educational process. The differentiated management of quality time by both evaluators is evidenced both in the realization of cultural activities and in the access to and use of this type of content. The CTs, in comparison with the LGs, show a greater awareness of the resource needs for the performance of their work, valuing and trusting the resources available in their school for the formation of their students. Furthermore, in relation to the appropriate use of technology, while the LGs consider the playful use of technology as appropriate, the CTs tend to expect use more oriented towards educational purposes. The lack of technical training of the LGs reduces the relevance they give to a specific use of technology. Regarding accessibility, the availability of personal devices at home allows a more positive score, being used indistinctly as work and leisure tools. Going deeper into the integral development of the student, the technical training of the CTs is crucial to detect the expected skills according to the age group and the deficiencies in this area. In contrast, LGs, lacking this level of training, perceive any achievement by their children in regard to significant processes, such as reading and writing, very positively. Furthermore, CTs are more able to compare children with their peers in the classroom in terms of the appropriate achievement levels, according to the current regulations, a situation that is more complex for LGs. In the social sphere, the bureaucratization of the educational system and the implementation of directed curricular activities are postulated as determining factors that explain the divergences found. Regarding the social integration of students in the classroom context, it is evident that the CTs consider this as one of the objectives to be achieved during the educational stage, while for the LGs some confusion is appreciated. Therefore, the CTs use appropriate pedagogical strategies to increase the motivation rates and achieve curriculum objectives. Outside the classroom, the level of satisfaction is more stable due to the lower load of curricular activities in the family context.
Finally, considering that the degree of the relationship, collaboration, and understanding between families and schools is directly proportional to the degree of success of the educational process and the integral development of the student, we present the two most important limitations of this study, which are related to the level of education and the range of ages affected. In regard to the first of these, once the existing divergence has been demonstrated, and once the explanatory factors, among which technical training stands out in a decisive way, have been exposed, it is necessary to know, first of all, how the different levels of training of the LGs would affect the difference in perception between the two groups. The second relates to the extension of the conclusions reached to other age groups/more advanced educational stages, which are also determinant in the development of the individual.

5. Conclusions

In general, as a final conclusion of the present research, and derived from the final objective of this study, it is shown for the first time that a clear undesired divergence exists between the LGs and the CTs when quantifying the student’s development within the educational context. Specifically, it is evident that the LGs tend to score higher both the variables that make-up the integral development of children, as well as the variables that affect the educational process itself, compared to the CTs. The exception is found in the adaptive area, which is directly related to the problems encountered in the family in regard to adequately managing the use of discipline.
As an additional contribution to the scientific field, we provide explanatory factors that could justify the great distance that still exists between families and teachers (notable differences regarding the time dedicated to the child, regarding the knowledge of the educational phenomenon, regarding the level of demand, regarding the degree of laxity in the rules…), underlining technical training as the main cause of all of the differences.
The knowledge of these explanatory factors, and specifically the necessary technical training, should be considered as the starting point to bring the positions and understanding of both educational agents closer together. Future research could propose this line of investigation as one of the key ways to modify some of the roles in terms of the family–school interaction. Especially innovative would be the design and implementation of a specific program of basic technical training in the aforementioned areas, aimed at families, in order to achieve an optimal level of understanding and communication between educational agents, in regard to the same educational and scientific criteria (this program, to be developed progressively throughout each academic year, should stem from the Guidance Department of each school, with the technical planning of topics adapted to each school level).
We encourage future researchers to propose studies that have as their final objective to bring closer the vision, interests, and expectations of the main educational agents, as a necessary way to optimize the educational process itself, and to contribute the maximum potential to the integral development of the main protagonist of the whole process, the child.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.-H., F.A.-R. and D.M.M.-T.; methodology, E.M.-H., D.M.M.-T. and F.J.L.-C.; validation, E.M.-H., D.M.M.-T. and F.J.L.-C.; formal analysis, E.M.-H., F.A.-R., D.M.M.-T. and F.J.L.-C.; investigation, E.M.-H., F.A.-R. and F.J.L.-C.; resources, E.M.-H., F.A.-R. and F.J.L.-C.; data curation, E.M.-H., D.M.M.-T. and F.J.L.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.-H., F.A.-R., D.M.M.-T. and F.J.L.-C.; writing—review and editing, E.M.-H., F.A.-R., D.M.M.-T. and F.J.L.-C.; visualization, E.M.-H. and F.J.L.-C.; supervision, E.M.-H. and F.J.L.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Córdoba University (protocol code CEIH-23-14), on 3 May 2023, for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The school’s contract with the pupils’ parents stipulates that the pupils’ work may be analyzed for academic purposes, subject to ethical principles and confidentiality requirements. Respondents from sensitive groups did not directly participate in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical concerns, but are available from the authors on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Freire, E.E. La formación de profesores de educación básica. Soc. Tecnol. 2022, 5, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sánchez, A.; Reyes, F.; Villarroel, V. Participación y expectativas de los padres sobre la educación de sus hijos en una escuela pública. Estud. Pedagógicos 2016, 42, 347–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Santamaría, R.M.; Corbí, M. Evolución de la educación en valores y su proyección social en la escuela inclusiva. Educ. Siglo XXI 2020, 38, 317–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Frontado, M.C. Importancia de la comunicación en la relación familia-escuela y el proceso educativo. Rev. Sci. 2020, 5, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bolívar, A. Familia y escuela: Dos mundos llamados a trabajar en común. Rev. Educ. 2006, 339, 119–146. Available online: https://bit.ly/3LUO3du (accessed on 3 November 2023).
  6. Vera, J.D.; Londoño, M.M. Guía de Estrategias de Formación a Padres de Familia para Facilitadores, Desde una Perspectiva Neurodidáctica. Ph.D. Thesis, University CES of Medellín, Medellín, Colombia, 2018. Unpublished. Available online: https://bit.ly/40Hze1Y (accessed on 5 November 2023).
  7. Ochoa, A.C. Análisis de la percepción infantil con respecto a la familia a partir de la caricatura «Franklin y sus amigos». Investig. Univ. Multidiscip. Rev. Investig. Univ. Simón Bolívar 2007, 6, 35–47. Available online: https://bit.ly/3JMN10I (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  8. Zambrano, D.B.; Ávila, C.C. Las neuronas espejo y su incidencia en el aprendizaje. Res Non Verba Rev. Científica 2021, 11, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Egido, I. Las relaciones entre familia y escuela. Una visión general. Minist. Educ. 2015, 7, 12–13. Available online: https://bit.ly/42KQDJ5 (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  10. Zevallos, A. Construcción, validación y confiabilidad de la escala de fatiga escolar para niños de 7 a 10 años de edad. Educ. Momentum 2021, 7, 57–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gutiérrez-Domenech, M. El tiempo con los hijos y la actividad laboral de los padres. Doc. Econ. Caixa 2007, 6, 1–19. Available online: https://bit.ly/42EVXOl (accessed on 13 November 2023).
  12. Pacheco, R.P.; Guerra, J.A.; Galarza, M.Z.; Mejía, A.B. Aproximación fenomenológica y hermenéutica de los expertos en recreación, sobre las teorías del ocio y el tiempo libre en el proceso de socialización en las instituciones educativas. Rev. Científica Olimp. 2020, 17, 78–91. Available online: https://bit.ly/3FVbhMM (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  13. Rubio, F.J.; Olivo, J.L. Dificultades del profesorado en sus funciones docentes y posibles soluciones. Un estudio descriptivo actualizado. Cienc. Educ. 2020, 4, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Krishnaswamy, J.; Seow, S.K.; Annamalai, N. The shadow education system: Students’ responses to private tutorial learning. Malays. J. Learn. Instr. 2019, 16, 201–225. Available online: https://bit.ly/47Epx7U (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  15. Yan, Y.; Gai, X. High Achievers from Low Family Socioeconomic Status Families: Protective Factors for Academically Resilient Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Davis, P. The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. J. Fam. Psychol. 2005, 19, 294–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Stull, J. Family socioeconomic status, parent expectations, and a child’s achievement. Res. Educ. 2013, 90, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schmitt-Wilson, S. Social class and expectations of rural adolescents: The role of parental expectations. Career Dev. Q. 2012, 61, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vega, V.; Osman, Y.; Katz, B.; Giordano, K. Hidden expectations: Do teachers use expressive language ability as a proxy for overall development? Early Child Dev. Care 2020, 190, 1682–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rest, J.; Edwards, L.; Thoma, S. Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: Stage preference and stage consistency approaches. J. Educ. 1997, 89, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carrillo, C.M.; Mena, N.J.; Gonzalez, L.P.; Toalombo, M.M. Una mirada al proceso educativo, desde la investigación científica como herramienta para el desarrollo de la docencia en la educación superior; un estudio narrativo. Dominio Cienc. 2023, 9, 2356–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Upitis, R. Four strong schools: Developing a sense of place through school architecture. Int. J. Educ. Arts 2007, 8, 1–16. Available online: https://bit.ly/3UcrPHY (accessed on 28 November 2023).
  23. Crespo, J.; Lorenzo, M. Los espacios de la escuela primaria inclusiva: Conexiones y desarmonías entre la normativa de construcciones escolares y las finalidades del sistema educativo. Bordón Rev. Pedagog. 2016, 68, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fernández, F.J.; Fernández, M.J. Generation Z’s Teachers and their Digital Skills. Comunicar 2016, 46, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Garcia, L. Necesidad de una educación digital en un mundo digital. RIED Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Distancia 2019, 22, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gareca, S.B. Cultura, Inteligencia y Fracaso Escolar. Una Tríada de Complejo Abordaje en la Práctica Docente. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. 2005, 36, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Daley, S.G.; McCarthy, M.F. Students with disabilities in social and emotional learning interventions: A systematic review. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2021, 42, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sandjojo, J.; Zedlitz, A.; Gebhardt, W.A.; Hoekman, J.; Haan, J.A.; Evers, A. Effects of a self-management training for people with intellectual disabilities. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2019, 32, 390–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Palacios, J.; Marchesi, A.; Coll, C. Desarrollo Psicológico y Educación; Alianza Editorial: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cabero, J.; Barroso, J. La utilización del juicio de experto para la evaluación de TIC: El coeficiente de competencia experta. Bordón 2013, 65, 25–38. Available online: https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/BORDON/article/view/brp.2013.65202 (accessed on 29 November 2023). [CrossRef]
  31. Lind, G. The important role-taking opportunities for self-sustaining moral development. J. Educ. Res. 2000, 10, 9–15. Available online: https://bit.ly/3S0D0kx (accessed on 3 December 2023).
  32. Palomo, M.J. El desarrollo moral desde el punto de vista de la psicología cognitivo-evolucionista: Bases conceptuales para una verdadera Educación integral. Rev. Ventana Abierta 2019, 41, 1–13. Available online: https://bit.ly/3O373Xp (accessed on 4 December 2023).
  33. Matute, M. Tendencias Actuales de las Neurociencias Cognitivas; Manual Moderno Editorial: Mexico City, Mexico, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  34. Alpern, G.D. DP-3. Perfil de Desarrollo-3; TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Espejo, L.B. Educación y Ocio: Planteamientos pedagógicos para el tiempo de ocio. Pedagog. Soc. Rev. Interuniv. 1998, 1, 221–232. Available online: https://bit.ly/3zbXduI (accessed on 13 December 2023).
  36. Paccaud, A.; Keller, R.; Luder, R.; Pastore, G.; Kunz, A. Satisfaction With the Collaboration Between Families and Schools—The Parent’s View. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 646878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rivera, M.; Milicic, N. Alianza familia-escuela: Percepciones, creencias, expectativas y aspiraciones de padres y profesores de enseñanza general básica. Psykhe 2006, 15, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guillén, J.C. El cerebro creativo: Algunas implicaciones educativas. Cuad. Pedagog. 2020, 505, 112–116. Available online: https://bit.ly/3LVEtY6 (accessed on 15 December 2023).
  39. Rodríguez, A.G.; Sandoval, L.Y. El valor de la confianza en la escuela. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2022, 20, 40–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Moreno, F.M. Función pedagógica de los recursos materiales en educación infantil. [Pedagogical function of material resources in early childhood education]. Vivat Acad. 2015, 133, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rodríguez, M.S.; Rappoport, S. Recomendaciones para un uso apropiado de las Nuevas Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación en la educación infantil. Debates Prácticas Educ. 2019, 4, 7–15. Available online: https://bit.ly/3FVyG0K (accessed on 15 December 2023).
  42. Spera, C. A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2005, 17, 125–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gallardo, I.M.; Sáiz, H.; Aguasanta, M.E.; López, M. Educar en la escuela infantil del siglo XXI: Diálogo, inclusión y tecnología. Innoeduca. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Innov. 2021, 7, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. García, Y.; Machado, C.; Cruz, O.; Mejías, M.; Machado, Y.; Cruz, C. Utilidad y riesgo en el consumo de nuevas tecnologías en edad temprana, desde la perspectiva de los padres. Humanid. Méd. 2015, 15, 88–106. Available online: https://bit.ly/3JIK8xM (accessed on 17 December 2023).
  45. Mirabá, K.M.; Rivera, M.L. La Autorregulación en las Rabietas Infantiles en Niños de 4 a 5 Años. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Guayaquil, Santiago de Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2022. Unpublished. Available online: http://bit.ly/3JWheKS (accessed on 19 December 2023).
  46. Carballo, K. La Educación Emocional Infantil. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Panamá, Panama City, Panama, 2018. Unpublished. Available online: http://bit.ly/3FQYj2v (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  47. Clavijo, G.M.; Cedeño, A.E. Rol del Docente y la Inteligencia Emocional en los Niños de 4 a 5 Años. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Guayaquil, Santiago de Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2022. Unpublished. Available online: http://bit.ly/3ntCvUj (accessed on 23 December 2023).
  48. Palma, M.T. Construyendo un aula democrática en educación infantil. Rev. Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2018, 32, 55–67. Available online: https://bit.ly/3noJRZs (accessed on 27 December 2023).
  49. Sánchez, S.; González, C. La asamblea de clase en educación infantil: Un espacio para crecer como grupo. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. 2016, 71, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Camacho, Y.V. Problemas Conductuales: Rabietas y Berrinches en la Infancia en Niños y Niñas del Nivel Inicial. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tumbes, Piura, Peru, 2020. Available online: https://bit.ly/3Zp8JNQ (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  51. Trujillo, E.; Ceballos, E.M.; Trujillo, M.C.; Moral, C. El papel de las emociones en el aula de educació infantil. Profr. Rev. Currículum Form. Profr. 2020, 24, 226–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cálciz, A.B. Metodologías activas y aprendizaje por descubrimiento. Rev. Digit. Innovación Exp. Educ. 2011, 7, 1–11. Available online: https://bit.ly/40GDwqs (accessed on 13 January 2024).
  53. Delgado, K.; Barcia, M.F. Familias disfuncionales y su impacto en el comportamiento de los estudiantes. Polo del Conocimiento: Rev. Científico-Prof. 2020, 5, 419–433. Available online: https://bit.ly/3Kd87qr (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  54. Palos, M.U.; Ávalos, M.L.; Flores, F.; Montes, R. Creencias de madres y docentes sobre el aprendizaje de la lectoescritura en Educación Preescolar. Actual. Investig. Educ. 2017, 17, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. González, A.; Bernad, O.; López, M.P.; Llevot, N.; Marín, R. Las escuelas rurales desde sus debilidades hasta sus fortalezas: Análisis actual. Ehquidad Rev. Int. Políticas Bienestar Trab. Soc. 2021, 15, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pi, A.M.; Cobián, A.E. Clima Familiar: Una nueva mirada a sus dimensiones e interrelaciones. Multimed 2016, 20, 437–448. Available online: https://bit.ly/40HxNR8 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
  57. García-Pérez, J.B. Motivación. Clave para un aprendizaje activo y profundo. Padres Maest./J. Parents Teach. 2022, 389, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Monge, M.; Méndez, M.; Hernández, M.J.; Quintana, C.; Presa, E. La importancia del juego en los niños. Canar. Pediátrica 2019, 43, 31–35. Available online: https://bit.ly/3norhAy (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  59. Tejada, J.; Sáez, J. Educación física y educación ambiental. posibilidades educativas de las actividades en el medio natural. Perspectivas de futuro: La educación al aire libre y el aula naturaleza. Wanceulen Educ. Física Digit. 2009, 5, 1885–5873. Available online: https://bit.ly/3nn5TvD (accessed on 26 January 2024).
  60. Sáez, M.B.; Gil, P.; Martínez, M. Desarrollo psicomotor y su vinculación con la motivación hacia el aprendizaje y el rendimiento académico en Educación Infantil. Rev. Educ. 2021, 392, 20–22. Available online: https://bit.ly/3ZqAZ2x (accessed on 29 January 2024).
Education 14 00825 g001
Figure 1. Questionnaire items corresponding to the evaluated indicators (comprehensive development and educational process).
Figure 1. Questionnaire items corresponding to the evaluated indicators (comprehensive development and educational process).
Education 14 00825 g001
Education 14 00825 g002
Figure 2. Differences in perceptions between legal guardians and class tutors. Note. LG: legal guardian; CT: class tutor.
Figure 2. Differences in perceptions between legal guardians and class tutors. Note. LG: legal guardian; CT: class tutor.
Education 14 00825 g002
Table 1. Organization of the questionnaire into dimensions, subdimensions, and specific indicators.
Table 1. Organization of the questionnaire into dimensions, subdimensions, and specific indicators.
«Integral Development of the Child» Dimension“Global Educational Process”
Dimension
SubdimensionSubdimension
«Cognitive» area: Indicators 22, 23, 33.«Type of school» area: Indicators 9, 10.
«Social» area: Indicators 25, 26, 30, 34, 38.« Cultural » area: Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16.
«Affective» area: Indicators 28, 29, 35.«Adaptive» area: Indicators 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27.
«Moral» area: Indicators 31, 32, 36.«Digital» area: Indicators 24, 39.
«Motor» area: Indicators 11, 21, 37.
Table 2. Significant indicators affecting the integral development of the child.
Table 2. Significant indicators affecting the integral development of the child.
IndicatorLGsCTsp
115.6 ± 1.754.5 ± 1.38<0.001
215.6 ± 1.455.4 ± 1.470.019
225.9 ± 1.395.2 ± 1.58<0.001
235.4 ± 1.615.1 ± 1.74<0.001
255.3 ± 1.535.6 ± 1.220.025
285.8 ± 1.315.0 ± 1.44<0.001
296.4 ± 0.965.3 ± 1.26<0.001
306.2 ± 1.114.9 ± 1.30<0.001
316.3 ± 1.105.1 ± 1.28<0.001
326.3 ± 1.055.2 ± 1.34<0.001
335.5 ± 1.084.8 ± 1.18<0.001
346.0 ± 1.195.2 ± 1.21<0.001
355.2 ± 1.174.7 ± 1.30<0.001
376.4 ± 1.015.6 ± 1.26<0.001
386.3 ± 1.015.8 ± 1.21<0.001
Notes. LGs: legal guardians; CTs: class tutors. Results expressed as average and standard deviation of both groups, together with the level of significance (p).
Table 3. Significant indicators affecting the global educational process.
Table 3. Significant indicators affecting the global educational process.
ItemsLGsCTsp
65.2 ± 1.544.8 ± 1.14<0.001
74.9 ± 1.854.3 ± 1.24<0.001
86.1 ± 1.175.7 ± 1.19<0.001
96.0 ± 1.255.7 ± 1.19<0.001
106.0 ± 1.295.3 ± 0.88<0.001
124.3 ± 1.914.7 ± 1.38<0.001
144.5 ± 2.074.7 ± 1.360.027
164.9 ± 1.634.6 ± 1.510.020
204.7 ± 1.615.4 ± 1.49<0.001
245.8 ± 1.344.8 ± 1.17<0.001
274.6 ± 1.365.3 ± 1.43<0.001
395.8 ± 1.334.8 ± 1.27<0.001
Notes. LGs: legal guardians; CTs: class tutors. Results expressed as average and standard deviation of both groups, together with the level of significance (p).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muñoz-Herrera, E.; Montero-Trillo, D.M.; Aranda-Ruz, F.; Llorente-Cantarero, F.J. Perception Differences between Families and Teachers on the Integral Development of the Child and the Educational Process. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 825. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080825

AMA Style

Muñoz-Herrera E, Montero-Trillo DM, Aranda-Ruz F, Llorente-Cantarero FJ. Perception Differences between Families and Teachers on the Integral Development of the Child and the Educational Process. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(8):825. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080825

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muñoz-Herrera, Enrique, Delfina María Montero-Trillo, Francisco Aranda-Ruz, and Francisco Jesús Llorente-Cantarero. 2024. "Perception Differences between Families and Teachers on the Integral Development of the Child and the Educational Process" Education Sciences 14, no. 8: 825. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080825

APA Style

Muñoz-Herrera, E., Montero-Trillo, D. M., Aranda-Ruz, F., & Llorente-Cantarero, F. J. (2024). Perception Differences between Families and Teachers on the Integral Development of the Child and the Educational Process. Education Sciences, 14(8), 825. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080825

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop