Next Article in Journal
Emotion Socialization Strategies of Preschool Teachers in Greece: Job Stress, Age, and Implications for Early Childhood Education
Previous Article in Journal
Pedagogical Tact Insights in Online Learning Communities
error_outline You can access the new MDPI.com website here. Explore and share your feedback with us.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci16010083
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Family Engagement: Perspectives on Training, Challenges and Self-Efficacy

by
Sónia Cabral
*,
Lourdes Mata
and
Francisco Peixoto
EDUNOVA.ISPA—Interdisciplinary Research Centre in Education, ISPA—Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida, 1149-041 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2026, 16(1), 83; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010083
Submission received: 16 October 2025 / Revised: 30 December 2025 / Accepted: 5 January 2026 / Published: 7 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Teacher Education)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Initial teacher education plays a decisive role in preparing future educators to establish meaningful and reciprocal relationships with families that support children’s learning across contexts. Moving beyond traditional, school-centred notions of family involvement, this study adopts a family engagement (FE) perspective to examine preservice early childhood teachers’ perceptions of their preparation, the difficulties they anticipate, and their self-efficacy in working with families. A total of 181 Portuguese preservice early childhood teachers completed a questionnaire comprising three scales: Training Evaluation, Anticipated Difficulties, and Self-efficacy. The Training Evaluation Scale revealed two dimensions (theoretical and practical), which were used in a Latent Profile Analysis that identified three groups (Positive, Neutral, and Low-rating). Participants within each profile showed consistent evaluations across both dimensions. Significant differences emerged between profiles in perceived difficulties, with self-efficacy lowest in the low-rating group. Overall, the findings highlight that variations in perceived training quality are closely associated with preservice teachers’ confidence and their expectations regarding the challenges of engaging families. These results underscore the importance of more systematic, integrated and practice-oriented approaches within initial teacher education to support a shift towards family engagement practices that recognise families as active partners in children’s learning from the outset of teachers’ professional careers.

1. Introduction

Family engagement in education (FE) is widely recognised as a key determinant of children’s emotional, social, and academic development (Castro et al., 2015; Fan & Chen, 2001; Hepburn et al., 2025; Jeynes, 2024, 2025; Kim, 2022; Smith et al., 2020). However, despite its acknowledged importance, both research and practice reveal persistent challenges in how family–school relationships are conceptualised and enacted, often resulting in fragmented, inconsistent, or school-driven approaches (Epstein & Sheldon, 2019; Goodall, 2018; Ishimaru, 2019).
Recent critical scholarship highlights the limitations of traditional parent involvement frameworks, which tend to prioritise school-defined goals and activities, often reinforcing power asymmetries between schools and families (Auerbach, 2012; Ishimaru, 2019). In contrast, contemporary family engagement frameworks emphasise parents’ active, relational, and context-sensitive participation in their children’s learning across home, school, and community settings (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Pushor, 2012).
Initial teacher education (ITE) plays a decisive role in preparing future educators to foster meaningful and equitable family engagement (Hepburn et al., 2025). This preparation involves not only technical knowledge but also the development of relational, communicative, and reflective competences, alongside a professional stance that values families as knowledgeable partners in children’s learning (Hepburn et al., 2025; Mata et al., 2022). Despite recent reforms (Flores, 2024; Van Nuland et al., 2024), research consistently shows that preservice teachers continue to feel insufficiently prepared to engage with families in meaningful ways (de Bruïne et al., 2018; Epstein, 2018; Sebastian & Paulick, 2024).
Understanding preservice teachers’ perceptions of their preparation, their anticipated difficulties, and their sense of self-efficacy is therefore crucial, as these factors strongly influence whether and how they will enact family engagement practices in their future professional contexts.
This study addresses the following central research question:
How do preservice early childhood teachers perceive their preparation for promoting family engagement, and how is this related to their anticipated difficulties and self-efficacy?

1.1. State of the Art

Family engagement in education is widely recognised as a key determinant of children’s learning, development, and well-being (e.g., Jeynes, 2012). The conceptualisation of these family–school relations, however, has evolved significantly, reflecting deeper understandings of agency, power, and the contexts of learning (e.g., Ishimaru, 2020).
Early research in this field, largely framed as parental involvement, focused on identifying specific activities through which families support children’s academic success, both at home (e.g., homework support) and at school (e.g., event participation) (Epstein, 2011; Jeynes, 2007). Several influential theoretical models sought to systematise these practices and their effects (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1993; Epstein, 1987; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997), contributing significantly to the consolidation of the field. Influential theoretical models, such as Epstein’s (1987, 2011) overlapping spheres of influence, sought to systematise these practices. Grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) and Bronfenbrenner and Ceci’s (1994) bioecological perspective, this framework was instrumental in establishing family–school collaboration as a field of study by outlining six types of school-initiated practices to promote involvement (Epstein, 1995/2010).
While these foundational models highlighted the importance of family–school relationships, a substantial body of contemporary scholarship has subjected them to sustained critique. Critics argue that such frameworks are predominantly school-centric, framing parental participation primarily as alignment with institutional expectations and thereby positioning families as supporters of schooling rather than as agents of learning in their own right (Auerbach, 2012; Ishimaru, 2019). This well-intentioned but limited perspective is seen to reinforce power asymmetries, potentially marginalising the knowledge, values, and learning practices of families, particularly from historically minoritised communities.
In response to these limitations, more recent frameworks have advanced a crucial conceptual shift by distinguishing between parent involvement and family or parent engagement (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Whereas involvement typically denotes participation in school-initiated activities, engagement signifies a deeper, more relational process. It foregrounds parents’ active, intentional, and context-sensitive support for their children’s learning across multiple settings: home, school, and community. This reconceptualisation moves the focus from the parent–school dyad to the parent–child learning relationship, recognising learning as distributed across time and place and reconfiguring notions of relational agency (Goodall, 2018; Pushor, 2012).
This shift challenges school-centric assumptions by emphasising reciprocity, shared responsibility, and co-construction. Pushor’s (2012) influential work conceptualises engagement as a relational and ethical stance rooted in mutual care and the recognition of parents’ knowledge as integral to educational decision-making. From this perspective, educators do not act as gatekeepers of schooling, but rather enter into a shared educational landscape co-constructed with families, where both parental and professional knowledge shape goals, practices, and outcomes.
This evolved understanding has direct and profound implications for teacher preparation. Preparing educators for meaningful family engagement requires developing competences that extend beyond technical communication skills. It demands a professional stance that values diverse family practices, challenges deficit discourses, and builds authentic, reciprocal relationships that transcend institutional boundaries. Within this complex relational domain, preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are pivotal (Alaçam & Olgan, 2018). According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy influences motivation, persistence, and professional action, particularly in complex and relational domains such as family engagement. Research consistently shows that teachers with higher self-efficacy communicate more effectively with families, adopt more differentiated practices, and persist in the face of challenges (Chung et al., 2005; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). Self-efficacy, which develops through mastery experiences, mentoring, and reflective practice during initial training (Bandura, 1997; Bauml & Kyzar, 2025; Morris et al., 2017), is particularly relevant in the domain of family engagement, where structured training interventions have been shown to strengthen educators’ skills and confidence in working with parents (Petrovic et al., 2019). This connection between theoretical preparation and professional practice is particularly salient in initial teacher education, where preservice teachers’ openness to theory has been shown to play a key role in shaping self-efficacy beliefs, emotional experiences, and classroom behaviour during the teaching practicum (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2016), reinforcing the relevance of examining preservice teachers’ perceived preparation for family engagement. Despite its recognised importance, evidence suggests that initial teacher education (ITE) programmes often provide limited, fragmented, or overly technical preparation in this area (de Bruïne et al., 2014). Similar patterns have been documented in different national contexts, with studies in Australia highlighting the marginal and often instrumental treatment of parent–school engagement in initial teacher education programmes (Saltmarsh et al., 2015). In Portugal, structural features such as the two-phase model of ITE may further exacerbate challenges related to curricular coherence and the theory–practice nexus, constraining opportunities for sustained, relational learning about family engagement (Flores, 2024; Mouraz et al., 2014; Van Nuland et al., 2024).
In summary, the progression from involvement to engagement marks a critical evolution in the field. While ‘family–school partnerships’ often serves as an umbrella term (Baxter & Kilderry, 2022) family engagement has emerged as a distinct and conceptually richer construct (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Ishimaru, 2019).
This evolution focuses scholarly and professional attention on core questions of power and recognition: how families are positioned, whose knowledge counts, and how learning beyond the school gates is seen and valued. It is within this contemporary conceptual landscape that the present study on preparing preservice teachers for family engagement is situated. Recent calls to re-theorise family–school relations in ECEC further stress the need to move beyond narrow, school-defined notions of parental involvement towards more plural, relational, and contextually situated forms of engagement that recognise families’ diverse roles and contributions to children’s learning (Sadownik & Višnjić Jevtić, 2023).

1.2. Current Study

Given the central role of ITE in shaping preservice teachers’ competences, beliefs, and self-efficacy regarding family engagement, there is a clear need to understand how future early childhood educators perceive their preparation in this domain. This is particularly relevant in light of contemporary shifts towards relational, family-centred, and learning-oriented conceptions of parental engagement.
The present study aims to analyse preservice early childhood educators’ perceptions of their preparation for promoting family engagement, the difficulties they anticipate, and their self-efficacy in enacting engagement practices. Specifically, the study seeks to:
(a)
identify profiles of preservice teachers based on their perceptions of preparation for family engagement; and
(b)
examine differences between these profiles in relation to anticipated difficulties and self-efficacy.
By exploring the relationships between perceived preparation, anticipated difficulties, and self-efficacy, this study aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how ITE may support, or constrain, the development of future educators capable of fostering meaningful, equitable, and learning-centred family engagement.

2. Materials and Methods

A quantitative, cross-sectional, and exploratory design was adopted to examine preservice early childhood teachers’ perceptions of family engagement preparation during ITE, the difficulties they anticipate, and their self-efficacy in promoting FE.

2.1. Participants and Context

This study was conducted in the 2023/2024 academic year with preservice early childhood educators enrolled in a master’s program in Early Childhood Education (ECE) or in Early Childhood and 1st Cycle of Basic Education (ECE1CBE). These master’s students were selected because they represent the final stage of initial teacher education in Portugal, where preparation for family engagement is expected to be fully consolidated. As they will soon enter the workforce, it is essential to understand their readiness to promote family engagement from the outset of their careers.
Eligibility criteria included enrolment in one of these two master’s programs and voluntary consent to participate. The sample was recruited at the national level, among the 29 higher education institutions that provide these degrees. A total of 181 students participated: 88 from ECE and 93 from EC1CBE. Of these, 99% were female (n = 179). About 70% were 2nd year students (n = 126), aged between 21 and 48 years (M = 25.6; SD = 5.71). Regarding the geographical distribution of training institutions, about 60% responded (n = 108), representing all regions of mainland Portugal and the islands.
Participants were asked about the preparation they had received on the topic under study, both in their undergraduate and master’s degrees. The majority reported little or no coverage of FE during their undergraduate degree (n = 124, 68.5%). During the master’s degree, however, most reported a greater frequency of training in this area (n = 106, 58.6%), with 24.3% indicating that it had been addressed many times. Although this was not explicitly accounted for in the analyses, it should be noted that participants’ prior training experiences may have influenced their perceptions and responses.

2.2. Instruments and Data

A questionnaire was designed to examine preservice early childhood teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for family engagement, their anticipated difficulties, and their self-efficacy. The development of the instrument was informed by the evolution of the conceptual landscape in this field (e.g., Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Garcia, 2004; Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Hornby, 2011; Pushor, 2012). The items were generated from a review encompassing:
  • Foundational frameworks that systematised school-initiated practices and parent roles (e.g., Epstein’s Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence).
  • Contemporary scholarship critical of school-centric approaches, which redefines the goal as family engagement, a relational, reciprocal process focused on learning across contexts and recognising family agency (e.g., Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Pushor, 2012).
This dual grounding ensured the scales captured both school-centred practices (e.g., communication, event organisation) that remain relevant in teacher preparation, and the broader, relational competences required for meaningful engagement (e.g., valuing diverse family knowledge, supporting learning at home).
The questionnaire also included a section on sociodemographic and academic background characteristics (e.g., age, gender, master’s program, year of study, geographical location of institution, and prior training on family engagement).
As no existing validated instrument addressed this specific combination of constructs within the Portuguese ITE context, three new scales were developed: a Training Evaluation Scale, an Anticipated Difficulties Scale, and a Self-Efficacy Scale. Their development aimed to reflect both theoretical and practical dimensions relevant to the Portuguese ITE context.

2.2.1. Training Evaluation Scale (TES)

The TES assesses preservice early childhood teachers’ perceptions of the preparation they received to promote family engagement. Each item was rated on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Very Incomplete to (10) Very Complete. The scale comprised 8 items across two dimensions: theoretical training (4 items, e.g., national and international theories about engagement, laws, and regulations on family engagement) and practical training (4 items, e.g., organization and delivery of workshops/training sessions). These dimensions reflect the core components of teacher preparation, encompassing both knowledge acquisition and applied skill development. The items for the theoretical dimension assessed knowledge of foundational and contemporary frameworks, while the practical dimension items focused on skills for implementing both school-initiated activities and relational engagement practices. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a model with two dimensions indicated that the model does not achieve exact fit, χ2 (19) = 109.7, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.972, TLI = 0.959, RMSEA = 0.167 [0.137, 0.197], SRMR = 0.030. However, simulation studies have shown that RMSEA tends to over-reject models with small degrees of freedom, frequently indicating poor fit even for correctly specified models (e.g., Chen et al., 2008; Kenny et al., 2014). In contrast, the incremental indices (CFI = 0.972; TLI = 0.959) indicated good relative fit. To assess internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each dimension. Reliability indices were acceptable to high: α = 0.873 for the theoretical training dimension and α = 0.879 for the practical training dimension.

2.2.2. Anticipated Difficulties Scale (ADS)

The ADS assesses preservice early childhood teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties experienced by kindergarten teachers in promoting FE. Item were rated on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Not Difficult at all to (10) Very Difficult. The scale comprised 18 items across three dimensions: difficulties in communication (8 items, e.g., Creating opportunities to listen to and act on family input; providing information to families about activities and learning developed in the children’s daily lives; organizing information so that it is understandable and accessible to all families); difficulties in formal situations and parenting support (6 items, e.g., Tailoring engagement to the specific needs of families). Difficulties in differentiating engagement (4 items, e.g., Developing a range of activities to foster inclusive family participation). The dimensions captured challenges across a spectrum from foundational, school-centric tasks (e.g., managing formal communication) to those requiring more nuanced, relational, and differentiated approaches central to contemporary engagement frameworks (e.g., tailoring engagement to diverse family contexts). A confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure, χ2 (132) = 459.09, CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.933, RMSEA = 0.119 [0.107, 0.131], SRMR = 0.050. As in the previous model, the χ2 and RMSEA values are inflated; the higher RMSEA is consistent with the known tendency of this index to overestimate misfit under certain conditions, including low degrees of freedom (e.g., Chen et al., 2008; Kenny et al., 2014). The remaining fit indices (CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.933, SRMR = 0.050) fall within ranges typically interpreted as acceptable (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2016). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability indices were acceptable to high, with α = 0.913 for communication, α = 0.818 for formal situations and parenting support, and α = 0.829 for differentiating engagement.

2.2.3. Self-Efficacy Scale (SES)

The SES assesses preservice early childhood teachers’ confidence in promoting family engagement in various situations. Each item was rated on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Not at All Confident to (10) Totally Confident. The scale comprised 8 items (e.g., Actively listening to and acting on family suggestions; supporting families in their parenting role). The items assessed confidence in a range of practices, from organizing school-based events to providing parenting support, reflecting the blend of traditional and relational competencies needed for family engagement. Although FE is conceptualized in the literature as a multidimensional construct, the SES was designed and applied as a unidimensional measure of self-efficacy. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional structure, showing an adequate fit to the data, χ2 (20) = 30.92, CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.056 [0.000, 0.092], SRMR = 0.014 Cronbach’s alpha was computed, and the reliability index was high, α = 0.917.

2.3. Procedure and Data Analysis

Prior to data collection, the questionnaire was tested in two stages. First, its internal validity was assessed through preliminary review by two senior researchers to ensure that the instrument accurately captured the intended constructs (Bush, 2012). Second, to guarantee clarity and relevance, the draft questionnaire was shared with a small group of preservice early childhood teachers for content validation. Minor adjustments were made based on their feedback.
The final questionnaire was distributed via email to the coordinators of the relevant master’s programs, who then shared the survey link with their students. Data were collected online using Qualtrics (Qualtrics XM, Provo, UT, USA) between February and July 2024. Participants were informed about the study’s aims and procedures, provided electronic informed consent, and were assured of confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any stage. Completion took approximately seven minutes, responses were anonymous, and participation was voluntary. Ethical approval was obtained from the University Ethics Committee.
Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies) were calculated for all variables to provide an overview of the data and to prepare them for further analyses. To examine the internal structure of the scales, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were first conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics (v.30.0.0), to identify the underlying dimensions and refine the items. Given that the scales were developed specifically for this study, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were subsequently performed using Mplus (v.8.11), with WLSMV estimation, to test the adequacy of the proposed models and to ensure an acceptable model fit. Internal consistency of each scale was then assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.
Inferential analyses were carried out to address the research questions. A Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted using the two dimensions of the Training Evaluation Scale (TES) (theoretical and practical training) as indicators to identify subgroups of participants. Group differences were then examined via MANOVA on the Anticipated Difficulties dimensions and the Self-efficacy score.

3. Results

The results are structured around the research aims: (a) identifying distinct profiles of preservice teachers based on their evaluation of family engagement training (b) analysing differences between these profiles in terms of (i) anticipated difficulties and (ii) self-efficacy, and (c) to explore the relationship between these variables.

3.1. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) of Training Evaluation Perceptions in Initial Teacher Education

With the first objective in mind, to identify student profiles, an LPA was conducted using the two dimensions of Training Evaluation (theoretical and practical), as assessed with the Training Evaluation Scale (TES). The LPA indicated two viable solutions: the three-profile and the five-profile solutions (Table 1). The three-profile solution proved to be the most balanced, showing a statistically significant improvement compared to the two-profile solution (LMR = 0.001), thus demonstrating that the addition of a third profile substantially improved the model. In addition, it yielded an adequate entropy value (0.833), ensuring a clear and well-defined classification of groups, and the smallest class represented 12.79% of the sample, thereby avoiding groups that were too small (<5%) that could compromise statistical stability. Although the five-profile solution also showed a significant LMR (0.0038), the smallest group dropped to 7.56%, which could indicate a small and potentially artificial group. Conceptually, the five-profile solution was also more difficult to interpret, as two of the profiles presented very similar patterns of results and could not be easily distinguished. For these reasons, the three-profile solution was selected as the most robust and interpretable.

Characteristics of the Identified Profiles

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the standardized and non-standardized averages, respectively, of each dimension of Training Evaluation (theoretical and practical), by latent profile.
Based on the descriptive statistics, the three groups can be characterized as follows:
  • Profile 1 (n = 88, n = 45 ECE/n = 43 ECE1CBE) represents an intermediate group, providing a moderate evaluation of the training received. It shows relatively low scores on both dimensions, suggesting that participants rated the theoretical and practical training as only slightly above average, with higher scores for theoretical training. In our view, this pattern suggests a cohort that may have encountered core concepts of family–school collaboration but perceives a significant gap in opportunities to develop applied, relational competencies, a gap underscored as critical by contemporary engagement scholars. This group was labelled the Neutral Profile.
  • Profile 2 (n = 22, n = 5 ECE/n = 17 ECE1CBE) represents the most positive evaluations of the training received. It has the highest scores among the three profiles. Although these scores are not exceptionally high (around 7/10), they are substantially higher than those of the other profiles, which hover around or below the midpoint. This group likely represents students who perceive their ITE as offering a more balanced and comprehensive introduction to family engagement, integrating theoretical knowledge with practical skill development. This group was labelled the Positive Profile.
  • Profile 3 (n = 62, n = 33 ECE/n = 29 ECE1CBE) reflects the lowest evaluations of the TES. It shows negative scores on both dimensions, indicating that participants judged the theoretical and practical training as insufficient. These preservice teachers perceive their training as largely inadequate in providing either the foundational knowledge or the practical tools necessary for engaging families, indicating a potential systematic experience of omission or insufficiency in their curriculum regarding this domain. This group was labelled the Low-rating Profile.
Although overall evaluations of training were modest, the positive profile rated both theoretical and practical training considerably higher than the other groups, particularly when compared with the sample mean. This finding suggests that students in the positive profile may feel more prepared to promote family engagement.
Importantly, all three profiles rated theoretical training higher than practical training, a finding that holds across the sample. This consistent disparity aligns with critiques that ITE often privileges declarative knowledge over the relational, context-sensitive practice required for meaningful family engagement.

3.2. Differences Between Identified Profiles in Anticipated Difficulties and Self-Efficacy

3.2.1. Anticipated Difficulties in Promoting Family Engagement—Comparative Analysis of the Three Training Profiles

The construct of anticipated difficulties comprising three dimensions—communication, formal situations and supporting parenting, and differentiated engagement—was analysed across the latent profiles. The mean scores for each profile are displayed in Figure 3, showing some variation between dimensions.
A MANOVA was conducted with latent profiles (derived from training evaluation) as the independent variable and the three dimensions of anticipated difficulties as dependent variables. Results revealed a significant multivariate effect of the profiles on the dependent variables, Pillai’s Trace = 0.099, F(6, 336) = 2.91, p = 0.009, partial η2 = 0.049.
The univariate analyses (ANOVA) revealed significant differences between profiles for the dimensions: communication, F(2, 169) = 3.32, p = 0.038, partial η2 = 0.038 (small effect), and formal situations and supporting parenting, F(2, 169) = 6.20, p = 0.003, partial η2 = 0.068 (small to moderate effect). No significant differences emerged for differentiated engagement. In this dimension, mean values were closer between profiles, ranging from M = 4.33 (SD = 1.74, Neutral Profile) to M = 4.71 (SD = 1.70, Low-rating Profile).
Tukey post hoc tests indicated that for formal situations and supporting parenting, the Low-rating profile reported the highest level of anticipated difficulties (M = 5.38), significantly greater than the Neutral profile (M = 4.49; p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.27, 1.52]). For Communication, no statistically significant pairwise differences were found, though a marginal difference emerged between the Neutral (M = 3.20) and Positive profiles (M = 4.03; p = 0.081). The Positive Profile had the highest average (followed by Low-rating Profile) suggesting that participants in this profile perceive more difficulties in communicating with families compared to the other profiles.
Overall, results indicate that anticipated difficulties differ significantly between training profiles with respect to communication and formal situations/supporting parenting, but not to differentiated engagement. These findings suggest that preservice early childhood teachers in the Low-rating profile perceive substantially greater difficulties in formal situations and supporting parenting than those in the Neutral profile, whereas differences in communication were weaker and did not reach statistical significance. On a 10-point Likert scale, values ranged between 3.20 and 5.38 across profiles and dimensions, indicating variation but all below midpoint. This suggests that preservice teachers generally anticipate low to moderate intensity difficulties in promoting family engagement.

3.2.2. Self-Efficacy in Promoting Family Engagement—Comparative Analysis of the Three Training Profiles

Self-efficacy in promoting family engagement was also analysed across the three profiles. Descriptive statistics indicate that the average values of SES vary between profiles, with a global average of 7.07 (SD = 1.72, n = 172) (see Figure 4).
ANOVA revealed a significant overall effect, F(2, 169) = 8.65, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.093. Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed that participants in the Low-rating profile reported significantly lower self-efficacy (M = 6.39) compared to both the Neutral (M = 7.37; p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.34, 1.63]) and Positive profiles (M = 7.74; p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.39, 2.32]). No significant difference was found between Neutral and Positive (p = 0.614).
These findings suggest that preservice early childhood teachers with more negative perceptions of training (Low-rating profile) also report lower self-efficacy in promoting family engagement compared to peers in the other two profiles. This aligns with Bandura’s (1997) theory, where mastery experiences (or the perceived lack thereof) are a primary source of efficacy beliefs. Importantly, self-efficacy was not significantly different between the Neutral and Positive profiles, suggesting that once a basic threshold of perceived preparation is met, further increases in training evaluation may not linearly translate into greater confidence (Bandura, 2012).

3.2.3. Relationships Between Training, Anticipated Difficulties, and Self-Efficacy

The relationships between training evaluation, anticipated difficulties, and self-efficacy in promoting FE were examined through Pearson’s correlations (Table 2).
A strong positive correlation was found between the theoretical and practical components of training evaluation (r = 0.682, p < 0.001). Self-efficacy correlated positively with the theoretical component (r = 0.264, p < 0.001) and, to a lesser extent, with the practical component (r = 0.178, p = 0.019). Significant negative associations were observed between self-efficacy and all dimensions of anticipated difficulties: Communication (r = −0.25, p < 0.001); Formal situations and parenting supporting (r = −0.34, p < 0.001); and Differentiated engagement (r = −0.24, p = 0.001).
These findings indicate that higher levels of anticipated difficulties are significantly associated with lower self-efficacy. Conversely, a more positive perception of training, particularly of its theoretical component, is associated with greater self-efficacy, which in turn is related to anticipating fewer difficulties in promoting parental engagement.

4. Discussion

This study explored preservice early childhood teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for family engagement, during initial teacher education (ITE), identifying latent profiles based on training evaluation. Differences between these profiles were then examined in terms of anticipated difficulties and self-efficacy in promoting FE, and the interrelationships among these constructs were analysed. This provides a comprehensive view of factors shaping preservice early childhood teachers’ preparedness to engage families.
It is important to acknowledge that family–school relations emerge from the interplay of multiple factors, including teachers’ beliefs, institutional conditions, community contexts and the diverse experiences of families themselves (e.g., Cox-Peterson, 2011; Henderson et al., 2002; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Hornby, 2011). Recognising this complexity indicates that the constructs examined here represent only part of a much broader set of influences that merit further investigation.
The construct is understood here as a relational, reciprocal process centred on children’s learning across contexts and recognising family agency (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Pushor, 2012). The findings, interpreted through this engagement-focused framework, reveal a telling portrait of preparedness, or the lack thereof, within initial teacher education (ITE).
Building on this theoretical grounding, we now turn to the empirical findings, examining the distinct profiles of preservice early childhood teachers based on their evaluations of FE training.

4.1. Portraits of Preparedness: Critically Interpreting the Training Profiles

The three identified profiles (Positive, Neutral, Low-rating) reflect not just varying degrees of satisfaction, but distinct experiences of how family engagement is framed within ITE. The near-universal pattern across all profiles, higher ratings for theoretical than practical preparation, is the first crucial clue. This disparity, noted by Jones (2020) and Antony-Newman (2024), who argue that content is often delivered through lectures and readings rather than practical application, suggests that training may prioritise declarative knowledge about family–school relations over the development of relational competences necessary to enact engagement with families. This aligns with critiques that ITE often remains anchored in school-centric, knowledge-transfer models (Auerbach, 2012), rather than fostering the dialogic, co-constructive practices of contemporary engagement.
The starkly small Positive profile (n = 22), the only group reporting balanced preparation, underscores that a comprehensive, practice-rich approach to family engagement is the exception, not the norm. The large Neutral profile, perceiving a marked theory-practice gap, and the substantial Low-rating profile, feeling broadly underprepared, together indicate a systemic issue. Their experiences resonate with persistent reports of insufficient and fragmented coverage of this domain in ITE (Alanko, 2018; de Bruïne et al., 2014; Hepburn et al., 2025) and reflect the ongoing trend where many teachers feel insufficiently trained (Antony-Newman, 2024; Epstein, 2018). Essentially, these profiles may reflect students’ unconscious exposure to the tension between outdated involvement paradigms still embedded in curricula and the emergent engagement ethos discussed in their readings.
Brown et al. (2014) stressed that effective family engagement requires teachers to possess both the skills and the knowledge to implement it successfully. Likewise, Muchnik-Rozanov and Levin (2024) emphasised the significance of integrating theory and practice in teacher training, supporting Darling-Hammond’s (2006, 2021) assertion that teachers must both act as teachers and think as teachers.

4.2. Differences Between Profiles in Anticipated Difficulties and Self-Efficacy

Training in family engagement supports the development of confidence, self-efficacy, and overall readiness to work with families (Antony-Newman, 2024; Bachman & Beard, 2025). Several studies continue to report that many teachers feel insufficiently trained in family engagement during ITE (e.g., Antony-Newman, 2023; Epstein et al., 2019; Nathans et al., 2020) and our findings appear to reflect this ongoing trend.
The differences in anticipated difficulties between profiles are highly revealing when viewed through the lens of engagement theory. The fact that the Low-rating profile anticipated significantly greater difficulty specifically in formal situations and supporting parenting is paradigmatic. These are precisely the types of structured, school-mediated interactions characteristic of traditional involvement models. Their struggle suggests that when training is perceived as failing even on these conventional fronts, it severely undermines future teachers’ sense of basic competence.
The finding that the Positive profile, the most satisfied with training, reported the highest communication difficulties is particularly noteworthy. This may reflect a critical disconnect in ITE. Research often shows that family engagement is equated with communication, but of a kind where teachers primarily inform families (Antony-Newman, 2024; Graham-Clay, 2024). The Positive profile’s apprehension could indicate that even the best-prepared students internalise this narrow, school-centric view of communication, rather than developing skills for the dialogic, reciprocal exchange central to relational engagement (Hepburn et al., 2025).
On the other hand, the lack of significant difference between profiles in anticipating difficulties with differentiated engagement is perhaps the most telling finding. This dimension, which aligns most closely with the relational and responsive core of family engagement, was seen as similarly challenging by all, regardless of their training evaluation. This universal apprehension suggests that current ITE is largely failing to equip any preservice teachers with the confidence or tools to navigate the diversity of family contexts, knowledge, and learning practices, a fundamental requirement for equitable engagement (Ishimaru, 2019). This aligns with previous findings that preservice teachers often feel universally uncertain when addressing diverse family needs (de Bruïne et al., 2014, 2018; Evans, 2013) and may explain the persistence of anticipated difficulties in our study, particularly regarding differentiated engagement.
The pattern for self-efficacy follows a clearer deficit logic, strongly supporting Bandura’s (1997) theory. The Low-rating profile’s significantly lower self-efficacy directly links poor mastery experiences (i.e., perceived inadequate training) to weakened professional agency. The high self-efficacy of the Positive and Neutral profiles, however, warrants cautious interpretation. It may reflect confidence in more traditional, school-defined tasks rather than in the nuanced work of relational engagement, a distinction our global measure may not have captured.

4.3. An Interconnected Cycle: Training, Efficacy, and Anticipated Difficulties

The correlational data unveil a dynamic system central to professional development. The strong link between theoretical and practical training perceptions suggests students view these as an integrated whole: a perceived failure in one dimension compromises the other. This underscores the importance of coherent programme design that meaningfully connects theory and practice, a principle long emphasised in teacher education research (Darling-Hammond, 2006, 2021; Flores, 2024).
More critically, the negative correlation between self-efficacy and anticipated difficulties, strongest for formal/parenting difficulties, confirms a reinforcing cycle: feeling ill-prepared undermines the sense of agency needed to face complex relational tasks, which in turn may discourage engagement. This pattern reinforces the established link between high-quality training and the development of professional confidence and self-efficacy (Bachman & Beard, 2025; Duraku et al., 2022).
However, this cycle must be reconceptualised. The primary goal of ITE should not be merely to reduce anticipated difficulty in school-centric tasks, but to build a specific form of self-efficacy: relational efficacy (Hepburn et al., 2025). This is the confidence to enter into authentic partnerships, value multiple knowledges, and support learning in out-of-school contexts, the very competencies that define contemporary family engagement. Our findings suggest current training is not generating this type of efficacy, as evidenced by the universal high apprehension regarding differentiated engagement. Moving ITE forward requires shifting from preparing teachers to manage family interactions to empowering them to co-construct learning relationships. This reconceptualisation aligns with research showing that targeted interventions addressing teacher beliefs and providing structured relational practice can significantly improve competence (Huertas & López-Larrosa, 2014).
Incorporating practical activities that simulate interactions with families may be particularly effective in enhancing self-efficacy, reducing perceived difficulties and fostering more meaningful sustainable forms of family engagement. When trained in family engagement, teachers often feel more confident and knowledgeable about working with families and improve the ways in which they interact and consult with families (Smith & Sheridan, 2019).

Limitations, Implications and Future Directions

Despite the contributions of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. Although the TES and ADS instruments demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and conceptually coherent factor structures, they were newly developed and therefore require further validation in diverse contexts and samples. Confirmatory analyses indicated some limitations in overall model fit, suggesting the need for further refinement, the testing of alternative model specifications, and the potential revision or expansion of certain items. Such developments would strengthen the psychometric robustness of the scales and deepen our understanding of the constructs they are intended to assess.
In addition, the composition of the sample presents constraints regarding generalisability. The predominance of female participants, while common in early childhood and primary education contexts, and the unequal representation across degree pathways may have influenced participants’ perceptions of preparation. The unequal size of the latent profiles (Neutral Profile, n = 88; Low-rating Profile, n = 62; Positive Profile, n = 22), particularly the smaller Positive Profile, also calls for caution in interpretation of profile-specific findings, despite the use of harmonic mean adjustments. Finally, the study focused exclusively on preservice teachers’ self-reported perceptions of their training. While these perceptions are important indicators of preparedness, they do not directly capture teachers’ actual competence or effectiveness in promoting family involvement and participation once in professional practice.
Beyond these limitations, the findings carry important implications for initial teacher education (ITE). The results highlight the need for more coherent, visible, and systematically embedded approaches to FE preparation. Strengthening ITE curricula may support preservice early childhood teachers in developing more proactive, confident, and inclusive strategies for working with families, particularly by bridging the persistent gap between theoretical and practical components. Training that explicitly integrates conceptual knowledge with applied experiences may ensure that FE preparation is not only consistent across programmes but also relevant to the realities of family–school partnerships.
From a training perspective, the findings suggest that curricula must undergo a critical reframing, explicitly contrasting school-centric involvement models with family-centred engagement frameworks. This reframing involves integrating readings from critical scholars (e.g., Auerbach, 2012; Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Ishimaru, 2019; Pushor, 2012) to support preservice teachers in recognising power asymmetries and valuing family knowledge and learning practices beyond school. To bridge the theory-practice gap, FE preparation should move beyond case studies and role-plays towards structured, authentic field experiences that prioritise the development of relational competence (Amatea et al., 2013). Such experiences can include asset-based home visits (virtual or in person), the co-design of learning activities with families, and dialogic communication practices that centre family perspectives (e.g., Ishimaru, 2020; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). Mentorship from cooperating teachers with expertise in relational engagement is crucial, as is the evolution of assessment practices to value relational and reflective competencies alongside theoretical knowledge (e.g., Walker & Dotger, 2012; Zeichner, 2012). Portfolios may include critical reflections on family interactions, analyses of community assets, or co-constructed projects with families, fostering a professional stance grounded in collaboration rather than a gatekeeper (e.g., Ishimaru, 2020; Pushor, 2015).
Finally, future research should build on these findings by employing longitudinal and mixed-methods designs to explore how preservice teachers’ perceptions during ITE translate into actual engagement practices and relational efficacy in the early years of teaching. Further validation and refinement of measurement instruments across diverse contexts would enhance their robustness and conceptual alignment with contemporary engagement frameworks. Incorporating the perspectives of teacher educators, programme curricula, and families themselves would also contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how FE preparation is conceptualised, enacted, and experienced.

5. Conclusions

This study provides a nuanced map of how future early childhood teachers perceive their preparation for the critical yet complex domain of family engagement. The identification of distinct profiles, most feeling a stark deficit in practical preparation, confirms that ITE often fails to translate theoretical knowledge into relational competence. Crucially, the findings reveal that feeling unprepared most acutely undermines confidence for school-structured tasks, while the relational core of engagement, differentiating practice to honour diverse family contexts, is seen as universally challenging.
The central conclusion is that improving ITE requires a dual shift: from a goal of reducing anxiety about school-centric involvement to the active cultivation of relational efficacy. This entails a deliberate move in curriculum and practice from preparing teachers to involve families in school agendas, towards empowering them to engage with families as co-constructors of children’s learning across contexts. Achieving this shift is fundamental to developing a teaching force capable of building the meaningful, equitable, and sustainable family–school relationships that all children deserve.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C., L.M., F.P.; methodology, S.C., L.M., F.P.; software, S.C., F.P.; validation, S.C., L.M., F.P.; formal analysis, S.C., L.M., F.P.; investigation, S.C.; resources, S.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C.; writing—review and editing, S.C., L.M., F.P.; supervision, L.M., F.P.; funding acquisition, S.C., L.M., F.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) under Grant [https://doi.org/10.54499/2020.06737.BD] awarded to the first author, and Grant [https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/04853/2025] awarded to EDUNOVA.ISPA—Interdisciplinary Research Centre in Education. The APC received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of ISPA Research Ethics Committee and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Instituto Universitário (D-075-2-24, 2024-02-22). The methods and procedures to be adopted respect human rights and the recommendations contained in national and international documents on research ethics.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
FEFamily Engagement
ITEInitial teachers’ education
ECEEarly childhood education master’s degree
EC1CBEEarly childhood & first cycle of basic education master’s degree
TESTraining evaluation scale
ADSAnticipated difficulties scale
SESSelf-efficacy scale
EFAExploratory factor analysis
CFAConfirmatory factor analysis
LPALatent profile analysis
WLSMVWeighted Least Squares Mean and Variance-adjusted
MANOVAMultivariate Analysis of Variance
ANOVAAnalysis of Variance

References

  1. Alaçam, N., & Olgan, R. (2018). Pre-service early childhood teachers’ beliefs concerning parent involvement: The predictive impact of their general self-efficacy beliefs and perceived barriers. Education 3-13, 47(5), 555–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alanko, A. (2018). Preparing pre-service teachers for home–school cooperation: Exploring Finnish teacher education programmes. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amatea, E. S., Mixon, K., & McCarthy, S. (2013). Preparing future teachers to collaborate with families contributions of family systems counselors to a teacher preparation program. The Family Journal, 21(2), 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Antony-Newman, M. (2023). Teachers and school leaders’ readiness for parental engagement: Critical policy analysis of Canadian standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 75(3), 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Antony-Newman, M. (2024). Preparing teachers for parent engagement: Role of teacher educators in Canada. Educational Review, 77(5), 1422–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Auerbach, S. (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bachman, H. F., & Beard, K. S. (2025). Family engagement efficacy beliefs of educators: Confirming a new measure. Teachers and Teaching, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bauml, M., & Kyzar, K. (2025). “I can do this!” How early childhood teacher education influences preservice teachers’ confidence for teaching. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 46(2), 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baxter, G., & Kilderry, A. (2022). Family school partnership discourse: Inconsistencies, misrepresentation, and counter narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Brown, A. L., Harris, M., Jacobson, A., & Trotti, J. (2014). Parent teacher education connection: Preparing preservice teachers for family engagement. The Teacher Educator, 49(2), 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bush, T. (2012). Authenticity in research: Reliability, validity and triangulation. In A. R. J. Briggs, M. Coleman, & M. Morrison (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 75–89). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  16. Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chung, L.-C., Marvin, C. A., & Churchill, S. L. (2005). Teacher factors associated with preschool teacher-child relationships. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(2), 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cox-Peterson, A. (2011). Educational Partnerships. Connecting schools, families, and the community. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  20. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Darling-Hammond, L. (2021). Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. de Bruïne, E. J., Willemse, T. M., D’Haem, J., Griswold, P., Vloeberghs, L., & van Eyende, S. (2014). Preparing teacher candidates for family-school partnerships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. de Bruïne, E. J., Willemse, T. M., Franssens, J., van Eynde, S., Vloeberghs, L., & Vandermarliere, L. (2018). Small-scale curriculum changes for improving pre-service teachers’ preparation for family-school partnerships. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Duraku, Z. H., Blakaj, V., Likaj, E. S., Boci, L., & Shtylla, H. (2022). Professional training improves early education teachers’ knowledge, skills, motivation, and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 568–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement across the school years. In K. Hurrelmann, F. X. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). DeGruyter. [Google Scholar]
  27. Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96, (Original work published 1995). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., Van Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfeld, M. D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2019). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action, fourth edition and handbook CD. Corwin Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. (2019). The importance of evaluating programs of school, family and community partnerships. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Evans, M. P. (2013). Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and community engagement. Teaching Education, 24(2), 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Flores, M. A. (2024). Fifty years of initial teacher education in Portugal: Looking back, looking forward. Journal of Education for Teaching, 50(5), 852–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and family involvement practices: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39(3), 290–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Goodall, J. (2018). Leading for parental engagement: Working towards partnership. School Leadership & Management, 38(2), 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Graham-Clay, S. (2024). Difficult conversations with parents: Practical skills for teachers. School Community Journal, 34(1), 61–84. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hascher, T., & Hagenauer, G. (2016). Openness to theory and its importance for pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy, emotions, and classroom behaviour in the teaching practicum. International Journal of Educational Research, 77, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., & SEDL National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis. National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=796577 (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  42. Hepburn, S.-J., Trompf, M., Hodges, J., MacLeod, L. M., Ma, T., Teng, J., Johnson, A., Boyle, C., & Sanders, M. (2025). Creating a positive home-school partnership through professional learning for teachers—A scoping review of the international literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 165, 105127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hornby, G. (2011). Parental involvement in childhood education: Building effective school-family partnerships. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Huertas, C. V., & López-Larrosa, S. (2014). Creencias sobre la relación familia-escuela. Cambios en el futuro profesorado tras recibir formación específica. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación, 1(2), 111–121. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=695276974002 (accessed on 19 November 2025). [CrossRef]
  49. Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy, 33(2), 350–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ishimaru, A. M. (2020). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communities. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jeynes, W. H. (2024). A meta-analysis: The association between increased use of communicative technology and parental involvement and the relationship with academic achievement. Urban Education, 60(6), 1499–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jeynes, W. H. (2025). What we now know about parental engagement, which will guide the future. Education and Urban Society, 57(5), 444–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jones, C. (2020). Don’t forget the parents: Preparing trainee teachers for family–school partnership. Practice, 2(1), 68–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, S. (2022). Fifty years of parental involvement and achievement research: A second-order meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships partners education in A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. U.S. Department of Education. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290447281_Partners_in_Education_A_Dual_Capacity-Building_Framework_for_Family-School_Partnerships (accessed on 17 September 2025).
  60. Mata, L., Pacheco, P., Brito, A. T., Pereira, M., & Cabral, S. (2022). Envolvimento das famílias no processo educativo: Perspetiva de futuros profissionais. Revista Portuguesa De Educação, 35(2), 263–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the sources of teaching self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 795–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mouraz, A., Leite, C., & Fernandes, P. (2014). A formação inicial de professores em Portugal decorrente do processo de Bolonha: Uma análise a partir do “olhar” de professores e de estudantes. Revista Portuguesa De Pedagogia, 46(2), 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Muchnik-Rozanov, Y., & Levin, O. (2024). Bridging the gap between preservice teachers’ theoretical and practical knowledge through simulations of teacher-parent interactions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 52(5), 622–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nathans, L., Brown, A., Harris, M., & Jacobson, A. (2020). Preservice teacher learning about parent involvement at four universities. Educational Studies, 48(4), 529–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Petrovic, Z., Clayton, O., Matthews, J., Wade, C., Tan, L., Meyer, D., Gates, A., Almendingen, A., & Cann, W. (2019). Building the skills and confidence of early childhood educators to work with parents: Study protocol for the partnering with parents cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pushor, D. (2012). Tracing my research on parent engagement: Working to interrupt the story of school as protectorate. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5–6), 464–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pushor, D. (2015). Walking alongside: A pedagogy of working with parents and family in canada. In International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Vol. 22B). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sadownik, A. R., & Višnjić Jevtić, A. (2023). Why a re-theorisation of more-than-parental involvement in ECEC is needed. In A. R. Sadownik, & A. Višnjić Jevtić (Eds.), (Re)theorising more-than-parental involvement in early childhood education and care (pp. 1–19). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Saltmarsh, S., Barr, J., & Chapman, A. (2015). Preparing for parents: How Australian teacher education is addressing the question of parent-school engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sebastian, R., & Paulick, J. (2024). “Build that relationship”: Supporting preservice teachers’ engagement with families. School Community Journal, 34(2), 179–199. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1451060.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2025).
  71. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 518–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Smith, T. E., & Sheridan, S. M. (2019). The effects of teacher training on teachers’ family-engagement practices, attitudes, and knowledge: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29(2), 128–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Smith, T. E., Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Park, S., & Beretvas, S. N. (2020). The effects of family-school partnership interventions on academic and social-emotional functioning: A meta-analysis exploring what works for whom. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 511–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Van Nuland, S., Dinitsa-Schmidt, S., Flores, M. A., Hordatt Gentles, C., la Velle, L., & Ruttenberg-Rozen, R. (2024). Changes in teacher education provision: Comparative experiences internationally. Journal of Education for Teaching, 50(2), 341–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Walker, J. M. T., & Dotger, B. H. (2012). Because wisdom can’t be told: Using comparison of simulated parent–teacher conferences to assess teacher candidates’ readiness for family-school partnership: Using comparison of simulated parent–teacher conferences to assess teacher candidates’ readiness for family-school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 16 00083 g001
Figure 1. Standardised averages of the Training Evaluation dimensions (theoretical and practical) by latent profile.
Figure 1. Standardised averages of the Training Evaluation dimensions (theoretical and practical) by latent profile.
Education 16 00083 g001
Education 16 00083 g002
Figure 2. Non-standardised averages of the Training Evaluation dimensions (theoretical and practical) by latent profile.
Figure 2. Non-standardised averages of the Training Evaluation dimensions (theoretical and practical) by latent profile.
Education 16 00083 g002
Education 16 00083 g003
Figure 3. Mean scores of the three latent profiles for each dimension of anticipated difficulties in promoting FE.
Figure 3. Mean scores of the three latent profiles for each dimension of anticipated difficulties in promoting FE.
Education 16 00083 g003
Education 16 00083 g004
Figure 4. Mean scores of the three latent profiles for self-efficacy in promoting family engagement.
Figure 4. Mean scores of the three latent profiles for self-efficacy in promoting family engagement.
Education 16 00083 g004
Table 1. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) models.
Table 1. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) models.
#No.Log Likelihood#dfAICBICSABICLMRBLRTVL-LRTEntropySCF
2−682.07971378.1581400.191378.0250.0425<0.0010.03620.75228.49%
3−653.029101326.0581357.5331325.8680.001<0.0010.00060.83312.79%
4−638.941131303.8821344.7991303.6350.5807<0.0010.56630.82712.79%
5−627.348161286.6951337.0551286.3910.0038<0.0010.00290.8577.56%
6−619.724191277.4481337.251277.0870.0047<0.0010.00340.881.16%
7−613.837221271.6751340.921271.2570.242<0.0010.21660.8561.16%
8−605.026251260.0521338.741259.5770.1435<0.0010.12940.8981.16%
Note. #No. = number of profiles; #df = degrees of freedom; AIC = Akaike’s information criterion; BIC = Bayesian nformation criterion; SABIC = sample-size-adjusted BIC; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; BLRT = parametric bootstrapped likelihood ratio test; VL-LRT = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test; SCF = smallest class frequency.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations among study variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations among study variables.
VariableMSD123456
1. TES—Theoretical4.722.02—
2. TES—Practical3.601.950.68 **—
3. ADS—Communication3.501.62−0.050.13—
4. ADS—Formal situations & parenting4.901.62−0.11−0.150.64 **—
5. ADS—Differentiated engagement4.501.79−0.07−0.070.72 **0.64 **—
6. SES—Self-efficacy7.061.700.26 **0.18 *−0.25 **−0.34 **−0.24 **—
Note. TES = Training Evaluation Scale; ADS = Anticipated Difficulties Scale; SES = Self-Efficacy Scale. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
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

Cabral, S.; Mata, L.; Peixoto, F. Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Family Engagement: Perspectives on Training, Challenges and Self-Efficacy. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010083

AMA Style

Cabral S, Mata L, Peixoto F. Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Family Engagement: Perspectives on Training, Challenges and Self-Efficacy. Education Sciences. 2026; 16(1):83. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010083

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cabral, Sónia, Lourdes Mata, and Francisco Peixoto. 2026. "Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Family Engagement: Perspectives on Training, Challenges and Self-Efficacy" Education Sciences 16, no. 1: 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010083

APA Style

Cabral, S., Mata, L., & Peixoto, F. (2026). Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Family Engagement: Perspectives on Training, Challenges and Self-Efficacy. Education Sciences, 16(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010083

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