Next Article in Journal
Culturally Responsive Pedagogical Knowledge: An Integrative Teacher Knowledge Base for Diversified STEM Classrooms
Previous Article in Journal
A Study of the Effects of a Structured Daily Physical Activity Intervention in Schools in Malta
 
 
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 2
10.3390/educsci14020123
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

Digital Bonds: Exploring the Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication on Parent–Educator Relationships in Early Childhood Education and Care

by
Ann Wilke
1,
Tricia van Rhijn
2,*,
Kimberly Squires
2 and
Kim Barton
2
1
Children’s Early Years Division, County of Wellington, Guelph, ON N1H 3T9, Canada
2
Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, College of Social and Applied Human Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(2), 123; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020123
Submission received: 5 December 2023 / Revised: 18 January 2024 / Accepted: 24 January 2024 / Published: 25 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Early Childhood Education)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite advancements in the use of mobile technology in recent years, investigation of the technology designed for communication in parent–educator relationships in early education and its impact remains limited. This study investigated how computer-mediated communication could support parent–educator communication in the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector. The participants selected were parent users (n = 140) at sites in Ontario, Canada, who had implemented a specified communication application; these participants were recruited by email, as identified within the organization’s database. Using a retrospective mixed-method design involving open- and close-ended and blended questions, an online survey consisting of 47 researcher-created questions was used to assess participants’ perspectives of changes in parent–educator communication. The quantitative and qualitative survey data were analyzed using paired sample sign tests and thematic analysis. Computer-mediated communication was found to have the potential to strengthen parent–educator communication practices, particularly when paired with face-to-face communication. The participants reported increased communication content regarding their children’s daily experiences, which positively influenced both parent–educator and parent–child relationships. To facilitate technology-mediated communication in childcare settings in the future, ongoing training and clear expectations for its use are recommended to support the effective application of technology within parent–educator communication practice.

1. Introduction

The development and use of mobile technology have exploded over the past three decades, leading to increased access and usage within early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings [1,2,3,4]. Discussions related to the perceived benefits, effective application, and usefulness of technology within ECEC settings have been widely publicized [5,6]. In 2012, a joint position statement released by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Fred Rogers Institute (formerly the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media) [7] recommended informed decision-making, evidence-based practice, and thorough investigation of technology in early education. This statement specifically recommended investigation of advancements that support parent–educator communication, yet this remains limited and is often outdated [4]. With continued technological advancements, further investigation is needed for newer mobile technologies, such as texting and tablet applications [2,3,4]. Additionally, since many related technological and educational studies have focused on academic achievement and classroom participation in school settings [8], related examination of technology platforms that foster supportive and collaborative relationships in ECEC settings is required. Therefore, the current research was intended to investigate how technology, specifically communication applications, could enhance parent–educator communication in these settings.
To initiate this investigation, discussions with a communication software provider in the province of Ontario, Canada, were conducted in early 2018 as part of recruitment support in early learning settings in which staff were in the process of implementing said software. Participants were recruited among parents who had children enrolled in these schools and who had accessed services at these sites before the application was implemented; these inclusion criteria allowed for the investigation of changes in parent–educator communication. The research was timely, as the use of communication software in early learning settings was not yet pervasive, and many sites were questioning the benefits and challenges of its adoption.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Parent–Educator Communication

Developing an understanding of technology as a platform for parent–educator communication in ECEC requires insight into the typical communication needs and processes. Contemporary pedagogy recognizes the powerful influence of families on young children’s learning and honours their right to be engaged in meaningful ways in ECEC programs [9]. Embedded into Ontario’s Code of Ethics for Registered Early Childhood Educators (RECEs) are the “Responsibilities to Families”, which state that “RECEs build and maintain responsive and collaborative relationships with families. These relationships are based on mutual trust, openness, and respect for confidentiality. RECEs work in partnership with families, sharing knowledge and resources to support the well-being and learning of children. RECEs recognize and respect the uniqueness and diversity of families. They provide meaningful opportunities for families to engage in and contribute to the learning environment and their child’s experiences [10] (p. 7). As such, bidirectional communication between families and educators is a core component of educators’ pedagogical goals and professional practice”.
Parent–educator communication within ECEC settings usually occurs at specific times of the day, such as during face-to-face contact at morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times [11,12,13,14]. Though important, these exchanges can be limited by language barriers [12,15], educator availability, second-hand parent–parent passing of information, and parental schedules [16]. The recommendations for improving parent–educator partnerships include fostering ongoing and continuous communication processes, open and bidirectional communication, and supporting parents, as stated previously [13,17], yet parents and educators often lack consistent and clear knowledge of what occurs in the environments of childcare versus at home [18]. This lack of clear communication can leave parents relatively uninformed as to relevant details about their children’s well-being (e.g., food served, naptime parameters), leading to missed opportunities for collaboration and engagement with educators [13,19]. Accordingly, fluent parent–educator communication would imply strengthening parental program-related knowledge [20]. Finding the most effective methods to meet these goals requires that educators and adjunct ECEC program staff consider the various resources needed to support meaningful parent–educator communication.
Drugli and Undheim [18] investigated these communication junctures and their potential to build partnerships between parents and educators. Using interview data from a sample of 41 parents and 35 educators and applying a grounded theory approach, they found that, although all parties seemed primarily satisfied within the relationship, neither party had clear knowledge of what was occurring within either environmental context cited previously (childcare or home). While these findings cannot be generalized, they could suggest that, when no alternative forms of daily communication are offered, these typical periods of parent–staff contact relate more to the exchange of information related to the health and well-being of the children during their time in either environment, such as sleeping and eating patterns or overall disposition. While families are generally pleased with the care arrangements they are receiving, they tend to be less than fully informed as to the particular details of care that may be most relevant to their children’s well-being [18], and therefore opportunities for collaboration and engagement might be missed.
Therefore, the current knowledge on communication practices suggests that, while parents and educators feel somewhat satisfied with the overall communication processes, there is a limited amount of shared understanding of children’s experiences. In the interest of improving the communication processes that are typical in early learning and care settings, there may be an increased capacity for both shared understanding and parent–educator partnerships. Research into parent–educator communication and related technology within elementary and secondary school systems would provide further insight into the potential for computer-mediated communication to improve the collaboration and partnerships between parents and educators. Understanding the opportunity for technology to be a viable platform for parent–educator communication requires insight into the communication needs and processes that are typical in early childhood education.

2.2. Technology Use in the Early Years

Research into electronic communication technology use in early education has considered a variety of perspectives, including those of children, educators, and families. Researchers have considered the appropriateness of technology usage with young children, including developmental appropriateness [21], technology integration into daily practice [22,23], and incorporation into children’s play and learning [24,25,26]. Researchers have also investigated educators’ acceptance of technology, the factors that increase technological use [27], and the impact of professional development opportunities for technological practice [22,28]. Finally, researchers have examined parent involvement and student success in both elementary and secondary schools, including the use of technology to increase parental engagement in learning [29] and as a tool for parent–educator communication [30,31,32]. Yet, there is a distinct gap in the literature when it comes to early learning settings.
Currently, most of the related research focuses on an admixture of both elementary and secondary school settings; thus, the literature pertaining to parent–educator communication in early learning sectors is limited, while offering some understanding of practices [11,16,27,30,31,32]. Furthermore, the communication needs are different in the former settings, which are more driven by school achievement than ECEC environments are, since the content often relates to student participation, accountability for reaching learning objectives, and the expectations of students [8]. ECEC settings consist of more collaborative partnerships between children, parents, and educators, in which a child’s learning is considered unique and is contextualized between home and school sites. Therefore, the existing literature is insufficient for the examination of early childhood education, as it may deemphasize certain important aspects, and further research is needed to examine the unique differences between these settings and the roles of early childhood educators and teachers.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is one type of technology-supported communication that exists in educational settings. CMC refers to offline activities and the knowledge that is applied in digital form to promote shared understanding and engagement between users [33]. CMC can be used to inform parents of school activities and to support home-based learning [34]. In ECEC, CMC has been identified as an effective strategy for forming collaborative parent–educator partnerships, but several scholars suggest further research is needed [12,35,36]. Avari and colleagues’ [14] recent qualitative investigation of educators’ perspectives of communication with families found that, while educators prefer face-to-face and one-on-one communication when discussing nuanced information, CMC allowed real-time sharing of photos and health information. Additional research should include the identification of the most viable technology platforms for communication between educators and families; supporting educators in making learning visible to families by sharing photos and documents [16]; supporting families in sharing home experiences with educators [35]; supporting the transition from ECEC to grade school [36]; and considering CMC’s potential to support interpersonal relationships.
Communication applications are a form of CMC used within some ECEC settings. HiMama (We acknowledge the problematic and gendered nature of this application’s name and expressed our concerns to the company; the company recently relaunched with a new non-gendered name, Lillio. We also note that this research was not a program evaluation focused on the application, but rather an examination of parents’ perspectives as to how implementing a form of CMC could influence parent–educator communication in ECEC settings.) is a web-based application accessible through tablets, smartphones, and computers, for example. It is asynchronous and time-responsive (i.e., families can choose to use it to best fit their needs) and allows educators to record children’s learning and care routines throughout the day using videos, photographs, and note-taking [37]. At the end of each day, an individual report is sent to parents along with a record of their children’s experiences and learning. Bidirectional communication between families and educators is supported within the application through messaging and commenting features, although some studies indicate that these features are not always utilized as desired by families.

2.3. Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework was utilized for the current study to guide the development of the study and shape the research design [38,39]. A guiding theory provided a lens through which the research questions were examined and utilized as a conceptual framework that informed all aspects of the study [39]. In this work, based on the identification of a research gap related to the use of technology in early learning settings and its impact on parent–educator relationships, a guiding theory on the dimensions of technology was selected [40] to examine the various aspects of technology in the ECEC context.
Although the extant literature examining technology use in the early years is limited, researchers have demonstrated that it can act as a tool to support communication, specifically parent–educator communication [30,31,32] and the sharing of information [14]. Further research is needed, however, to better understand how to most effectively utilize the technology for sharing learning experiences [16], home experiences [35], and building parent–educator relationships [36]. Given the lack of a fulsome understanding of technology in the ECEC context, Carl Mitcham’s conceptual definition for defining and studying technology [40] was utilized as the conceptual framework for this research.
As clarified and explored by Custer [40], Mitcham’s four distinct dimensions of technology are as follows: (1) as an artifact: the collective physical tools designed using human ingenuity, typically to support problem-solving, including improvements in effectiveness and efficiency; (2) as knowledge: the skills and information needed both to make the artifact as well as to use it effectively; (3) as a process: the application of knowledge and artifacts to the actions or activities of daily life and technology’s influence in a social context; and (4) as volition: the power of technology to influence culture and to shape our participation and its use in our daily lives.
This conceptual framework provided clear dimensions for understanding the multiple components of technology, including mode selection (artifact) and knowledge. The research considered how the process may influence both the “meanings” and “practices” associated within early childhood education for both educators and parents, including the examination of changes in communication, training, and expectations for use. The framework also allows for the examination of the potential for technology to have intended and unintended effects on parent–educator communication with attention paid toward perceived barriers and volitions. Furthermore, when applied in the context of parent–educator communication, Mitcham’s framework allows for the recognition of technology as having an active role in creating and sustaining bidirectional communication between users and how this process of exchange affects users. For these reasons, this framework provided a critical foundation for the current research, as it offered a definition of technology that promoted a range of considerations in constructing the research questions, as well as supporting both the survey design and resulting analysis.

2.4. The Current Study

The literature review identified several research gaps, including a lack of focus on early learning settings and the related parent–educator relationships. Accordingly, the objective of this research was to determine how the use of CMC in the form of a specific communication application influenced parent–educator communication practices in ECEC settings in Ontario, Canada. This research focused on ECEC settings that had implemented the HiMama application, as it had an established market worldwide, as well as within Ontario. Four research questions were examined related to the application’s implementation and connected directly to the four dimensions of technology as described by the conceptual framework: (1; artifact) What communication changes did parents experience? (2; knowledge) What training and expectations did parents receive? (3; process) What changes in communication content and quality did parents perceive? and (4; volition) What barriers and volitions were identified by parents?

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

The participants were parents whose children were enrolled in ECEC programs in Ontario in 2018 that used the HiMama application. Additionally, for inclusion within the present study, parents needed to have accessed services at the ECEC setting before the application was implemented. A total of 140 surveys were completed. Most participants identified as mothers (n = 126; 90%) and as the primary contact with their child’s education team (n = 129; 92.8%) and had one (n = 53; 38.1%) or two children (n = 71; 51.1%) under the age of 18. Most participants identified English as their first language (n = 120; 85.7%). In relation to technology, 100% of participants had access to internet services at home and owned a cell phone, with the majority having access to computers (n = 133; 95.0%) or tablets (n = 125; 89.2%) and reporting that they felt extremely or moderately comfortable using technology (n = 133; 95.0%). Their children were enrolled in infant, toddler, and preschool ECEC programs, as well as before-and-after school care, with the majority attending toddler and preschool programs. Prior to their ECEC settings’ implementation of the HiMama application, parents had had 6 months to 5 years’ experience communicating with educators.

3.2. Procedures

The HiMama application was chosen for the focus of the study as, at the time the research was being set up, it was the most commonly used application in early years settings and was in the process of being widely implemented throughout the province, therefore providing access to a broader range of parent users. In addition, the company was responsive to inquiry from the research team about supporting the research, including agreeing to send recruitment emails to their parent user database. Following institutional research ethics board review and approval, participants were recruited from the HiMama Ontario parent user database using a direct invitation email containing electronic links to the project website, online survey, and consent information. All parent users who were registered at Ontario-based sites that had implemented the application were recruited. Participants were offered an incentive to win one of five $25 cash prizes. The surveys were created and collected via Qualtrics, an online survey platform (https://www.qualtrics.com, accessed on 21 November 2023). The email was distributed to a possible 9627 parents across Ontario with children enrolled across approximately 700 sites that used the HiMama application (95% licensed childcare centres, 5% home-based care); however, not all of these parents would have met the inclusion criteria of having accessed ECEC services prior to the implementation of the application. As data regarding how many emails were received and/or opened were unavailable, and there were reported issues with emails being diverted by anti-spam software, the overall response rate is unclear.

3.3. Research Design

A mixed-method approach was employed to assess quantitatively how the use of the technology related to users’ perceptions of change and to assess qualitatively the deeper meanings and experiences of users in relation to those changes. These approaches included the use of close-ended rating scales to assess participants’ perceptions of communication both pre- and post-implementation, as well as open-ended questions to gain insight into the personal experiences of parents with regard to communication processes. A retrospective post–pre design was selected to collect the pre- and post-measures simultaneously, making the process less burdensome for participants, and also to reduce the potential of response shift bias [41,42].

3.4. Measures

The retrospective survey consisted of 47 researcher-created questions: 15 closed-ended, 16 open-ended, 6 blended questions (a combination of closed- and open-ended), and 10 demographic questions (full survey available in Supplementary Materials). A review of the research literature was completed to support the construction and development of the survey; however, despite rapid changes in modes of communication and an increased focus on parent engagement in early learning settings, no research that had used established measurement tools for data collection was found. Many of the variables examined in previous studies were considered within the creation of the survey [18,43]. In addition, the research team’s extensive experience working within early learning settings and with the communication software was a beneficial source of knowledge in designing the survey. As identified by Iarossi in his work on survey construction, both relevance and accuracy are important components of survey question design: “Relevance is achieved when the questionnaire designer is intimately familiar with the questions, knows exactly the questions’ objectives, and the type of information needed” [44] (p. 27). According to Iarossi, accuracy is achieved if information is sought in a manner that is reliable and valid and participants are able to answer accurately. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of response were efforts to support the overall accuracy of the survey design and resulting data.
The questions about the implementation and use of the application were organized into four main sections: (1) changes in various modes of communication; (2) the knowledge, training, and support parents received; (3) use of information and perceptions of quality and content of communication and parent–educator collaboration; and (4) challenges experienced regarding communication processes. The quantitative data analyses involved descriptive statistics and paired sample sign tests of significance using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 25.0). The qualitative data analysis used an inductive six-phase thematic analysis process [45,46]: familiarization with the data, generating initial code, generating initial themes, reviewing themes, naming and defining themes, and reporting. Qualitative data analysis was completed collaboratively [47] with the data being reviewed by both the first and second authors. Coding was completed by the first author in consultation with the second author. The first and second authors then each reviewed the code and independently created themes, which they then discussed and collaboratively named and defined.

4. Results

The findings related to each of the four research questions are presented in this section: (1) What communication changes did parents experience? (2) What training and expectations for use did parents receive? (3) What changes in communication content and quality did parents perceive? and (4) What barriers and volitions did parents identify? Parent participants are identified by “P” and an assigned ID number (from the 140 participants) throughout the results section.

4.1. What Communication Changes Did Parents Experience?

Most parents were moderately to extremely satisfied with HiMama as a communication tool (M = 4.18, SD = 0.87; on a 1–5 rating scale; Figure 1).
The implementation’s relationship with overall trends in use, frequency, and satisfaction was examined for the following eight modes of communication: face-to-face, personal written notes, group written notes, a bulletin board, individual emails, group emails, text messaging, and phone calls. Paired sample sign tests were used to test for median differences in the perceptions of satisfaction pre- and post-implementation. Statistically significant median differences in parents’ perceptions of satisfaction were found for both face-to-face communication and group notes post-implementation (Table 1), with medium effect sizes of r = 0.35 and 0.40, respectively. In addition, decreases in the usage of all communication modes were reported, with the largest change found involving personal written notes.
The thematic analysis demonstrated an overall perception of enhanced and more convenient communication following the implementation that supported the quantitative findings of positive shifts in satisfaction. Participants identified that face-to-face conversation was richer and more intentional due to receiving routine information (e.g., toilet use, eating, sleeping information) as logged on the application. By having information in advance, parents felt prepared to engage in more meaningful conversation: “I’m not asking about what she ate or if she slept. I know that already from the app, so the convo is much more about the quality of her day (the how) versus the logistics (or the what)” (P47). Communication was described as more “personal” (P35) and that it was “nice to not have to discuss more mundane details” (P60). Participants also described easier and more efficient communication: “Using HiMama allows the educators to make notes in real time, so when I check the app, I get continuous feedback. Without the app, often the educators can forget what happened throughout the day. This app allows an additional, easy way to communicate. Also, if my child is absent or late, or if I have any questions, I can post it through HiMama and receive a timely response.” (P105).
Parents noted that the application reduced the demands and stress at pick-up time and allowed them to communicate messages missed during face-to-face communication.
Post-implementation, the use of group notes provided the ability to “supplement information from HiMama; communication about what’s going on at the centre is [now] more consistently communicated” (P115). Some parents indicated the continued value of group notes for monthly calendars, newsletters, and special centres; however, others commented that this communication was now conducted through HiMama. One parent noted that, “previously, the notes were printed and taped to the wall for families to access. With HiMama, the notes are available online—so I actually read them” (P120). Another parent identified the continued value of hard copies which could be posted at home. Bulletin boards were referred to less frequently following implementation: “I actually don’t know if they still use bulletin boards since HiMama, but I haven’t looked in a long time” (P55), yet a few participants identified the continued value of bulletin boards for communication, without using the application to read information on what was happening, without disturbing the program schedule or activities, and for public health information. Although the continuation of group email usage was often identified for sending group newsletters, calendars, reminders, and reports to all families, one participant expressed that “email communication should be done through HiMama. Doesn’t make sense to have multiple modes of communication” (P99).

4.2. What Training and Expectations for Use Did Parents Receive?

When asked about training to support implementation and use, only 7.1% (n = 10) of participants reported receiving training. Training was offered upon initially setting up HiMama accounts or through the ECEC setting, yet most participants received no introduction or training: “I was never told how to use it or what it was being used for. I was just told to download the app” (P126). Only 23.6% (n = 33) of participants indicated that their ECEC setting had usage expectations in place. Analysis of the open-ended responses demonstrated that most expectations were directly related to the minimum standards on the information that parents could expect to receive, such as the quantity of photos (e.g., “one pic per day”, P13), report details (e.g., “at least [a] nap and a meal”, P63), and the intention for use (e.g., “supposed to replace written diaries”, P49). Only two participants shared use expectations that included consideration of parental engagement to support bidirectional communication between parents and educators. One participant shared the very general expectations they received: “We are free to communicate through the platform as we would like. They are generally very open to communication and feedback” (P54).
The need for additional (or any) training was indicated by 37.9% (n = 53) of participants, who desired more knowledge on how to use and navigate the various features of the application. Additionally, participants noted that additional training would best be targeted at both parents and educators within ECEC settings. One participant identified the importance of generating a collaborative understanding in using HiMama across parents and educators: “I think it would be helpful for parents to know how the daycare expects us to interact with the program, as well as how the educators are interacting with it, so that expectations are clear around what information is to be housed and how it is to be accessed” (P96).
Parents expressed a desire for educators to be consistent in their usage and to implement the features, while acknowledging that educators needed more time/support to complete data entry, and that every educator should have access to a tablet to use the application effectively. Participants also noted their desire for clear communication from those supervising the ECEC setting as to how they were going to use it and with regards to the expectations of families.

4.3. What Changes in Communication Content and Quality Did Parents Perceive?

Participants provided information on the content and perceived quality of communication following the implementation of the application. Parents identified the content included in their child’s daily reports and rated the usefulness of this information on a scale from 1 (=not at all useful) to 7 (=extremely useful). Most participants received information on their children’s eating, sleep, use of the toilet, and activities (Table 2). The mean scores for the overall usefulness ratings demonstrated that parents had found the information in all five areas highly useful.
In their open-ended responses, parents recognized the value of being able to access the details of their children’s day, along with content to support parent–child communication, and of gaining knowledge about their children’s learning and development. Accessing this information via the application gave them a “window into a child’s day” (P77), a “sneak peek” (P28), “a snapshot” (P106), and “inside information” (P49) about their children. Photographs and videos were recognized as valued shared information.
Participants also communicated with educators, with 47.1% (n = 66) indicating that they used the app’s messaging capabilities. The content included in this communication mode included items related to illness or absence, concerns, comments on program activities, late arrival, celebrations or special moments at home, and developmental milestones. Most parents checked for updates during the day (60.0%, n = 84); of this group, 41.7% acknowledged checking in “2 or 3 times a day” (Figure 2). Although participants enjoyed receiving updates during the day, there was some concern expressed about the time educators spent on the application as opposed to being with the children. One parent acknowledged this challenge when sharing their experience receiving correspondence from the educators: “I don’t need a play-by-play of my child’s activities and I think this would distract from her interactions with the educators. The educators sent us a very thoughtful email about 3 months after HiMama explaining that they wanted to strike a balance between informing us and also allowing the day to unfold without too much technological intervention. That made a lot of sense to me” (P54).
Overall, parents enjoyed the content shared through the application and reported that the updates had a positive impact on their day and connection, helping them to feel reassured and to trust the care their children were receiving.
To determine the quality of and any perceived change related to the implementation, participants rated four qualities of communication (satisfaction, effectiveness, openness, and responsiveness to written communication) from 1 (=not at all) to 7 (=extremely). There were statistically significant median increases following the implementation for all four qualities (Table 3). The effect sizes for satisfaction, effectiveness, openness, and responsiveness were r = 0.64, 0.54, 0.48, and 0.55, respectively.

4.4. What Barriers and Volitions Did Parents Identify?

Participants identified several barriers to using the application, including daily reports being incomplete, inaccurate, or not timely. One parent commented that the “fill in the blanks” nature of the reporting was a barrier: “When I used to get written notes there were usually stories and elaborations on what was done during the day. With the reports now, it’s very “form” complete. This is what was done, this was the duration it happened and very little personal reflection” (P96).
Participants also identified the lack of consistency across educators’ use and the lack of response to messages sent through the application.
Throughout the qualitative analysis process, comments were coded that could indicate a potential volition caused by the presence of communication technology: 170 comments were coded as indicative of potential volition from 55.0% (n = 77) of the participants. Three themes were found: (1) the ability to balance data entry and child engagement; (2) the lack of consistency in its implementation and daily use; and (3) the use of the tool as a method for monitoring the day while at work and/or increased access to/insight into the child’s life.
In terms of educators’ ability to balance data entry, one parent shared: “I enjoy looking at the pictures that are sent, but I worry that educators will end up spending more time looking at their phone rather than engaging with the children” (P19). Other participants shared similar concerns about the presence of technology leading to conflicting educator focus between being present with the children and capturing the day’s events.
Participants also noted how a lack of consistency in the use of the application created challenges for parents who experienced reporting differences for their multiple children in care or who became dissatisfied when the content changed based on different educators/programs. Poor communication strategies at the educational site or in the educational team may have become further amplified due to the lack of a consistent approach. As one parent shared: “They barely use it. There is little communication. I like the app but they rarely use it for my toddler and it has gone down to nearly never for my preschooler. It has not affected the communication because there was barely any in it to begin with” (P139).
Furthermore, the allure of using new technology may fade, leaving parents questioning its use. One participant commented, “it used to be a great tool, but one-and-a-half years in and there is very little engagement on the center’s part. There is also no encouragement for parents to use it as a tool for communication” (P116). The technology indirectly seems to have set a precedence on the level of detail that may accompany communication. Without clear guidelines and expectations for use, it seems that parents may have experienced frustration.
As previously shared, parents identified many positive aspects of having access to their child’s information through the application; however, it was also apparent that having access to real-time notifications could disrupt work tasks or focus. Furthermore, although the parents enjoyed being able to see what was happening, little consideration was given to the children’s right for privacy. In the current study, parents expressed concerns for their own privacy when using the messaging; however, no concerns reflected the children’s rights for privacy.

5. Discussion

This study is the first one to examine the influence of electronic communication technology on parent–educator communication in the ECEC context, including changes in the modes of communication; changes in the communication processes, quality, and content; and perspectives on collaboration and experiences with technology. Related to the first research question (What communication changes did parents experience?), the findings of statistically significant median increases in parents’ perceptions of satisfaction for face-to-face communication are particularly relevant. Thompson’s study [31] on parent–educator email communication examined both CMC and face-to-face modes of communication, in which participants had an opportunity to communicate both electronically and physically between home and school (in elementary education). Similarly, in this present study, merging both CMC and face-to-face communication processes occurred whereby parents and educators could use both methods of communication directly and simultaneously. Overall, parents found face-to-face communication more intentional, effective, and convenient after its application was implemented. This finding is also supported by previous research that has found teachers recognize the importance of face-to-face methods of communication for parent–educator relationships and intentionally continue to use face-to-face methods, even while also using CMC [11].
In addition, as related to the second research question (What training and expectations for use did parents receive?), this study’s results demonstrated that there had been limited opportunities for training and support in using the application as a communication tool. Training had been rarely utilized and had lacked ongoing support for tool usage. Parents identified their own knowledge gaps, as well as potential areas for learning and development for educators. In adapting to new technology, ECEC settings might in future identify the importance of supporting training for parents and educators during the implementation stage. It is equally important to recognize, however, the need for ongoing training and development. Training should include supporting consistent use across all programs in the site, articulating the level of detail to be included in reports, and considering how to support staff’s motivation for effective use. Given the high turnover rate of families and staff in ECEC settings, it is important that appropriate training and resources are available on an ongoing basis. Additionally, the current study identified the need for ECEC settings to offer clearly communicated guidelines with respect to the expectations for the application’s usage. These expectations should focus on how the applied communication technology could be optimized to meet the functions and goals of CMC by providing clearly defined expectations for parents and educators. These findings mirror the recommendations proposed by Lewin and Luckin [29], who suggested that schools and families need to continually put effort into their use of technology in order for it to be effectively and sustainably implemented.
Related to research question #3 (What changes in communication content and quality did parents perceive?), parents’ use of the information available through the application also confirmed the untapped potential for CMC as a bidirectional communication tool to support parent–educator partnerships. Although educators provided detail about the children’s days (including sleeping, eating, play experiences, photographs), less than half of the parents used the messaging capabilities to engage in bidirectional communication. These findings echo those of Thompson [31], suggesting that the application is being used successfully for instrumental rather than relational correspondence, and those of Avari et al. [14], who found that educators desire more reciprocal interactions when using CMC with families. The lack of bidirectional communication may have reflected differences in parents’ and educators’ communication goals, in that parents may have been satisfied by gaining information and knowledge of their children’s days but that educators may have desired relational correspondence related to their pedagogical aspirations. Similarly, other studies have found that communication between parents and teachers is often one-way, despite the importance of two-way communication [13] and the potential for technology to support it more easily [29]. Although most of the previous studies took place in elementary school environments where correspondence on grading and assignments is common and distinctly different from an ECEC context, there may be commonalities in the patterns of correspondence through CMC across learning settings (ECEC, elementary, secondary). Clearly articulated goals for communication were identified as key components for success in the previous research [29,31] and were also identified as key to the successful use of CMC in ECEC settings. Nevertheless, the parents in the current study were found to have a richer understanding of their children’s early years experiences, in contrast to previous literature on parents’ knowledge and experiences when accessing early learning services [18,19].
Statistically significant median increases, with medium to large effect sizes, were also found in all four aspects of communication quality (satisfaction, effectiveness, openness, and responsiveness). These increases may relate to the intentional use of multiple modes of communication, being more effective in meeting both content and procedural needs. Previous work by Thompson et al. [32] identified mode combination patterns as having promise for supporting parent–educator communication processes. They maintained that pairing synchronous and asynchronous methods allows parents to vary their communication content across richer and leaner modes. When the study was conducted, face-to-face/email communication was the most common mode combination preferred by parents. Similarly, a study by Erdreich [11] found that complementing face-to-face communication with digital communication, such as CMC, supported parent–educator communication and overall beneficial emotional connections between parents and educators. In the current study, the parents reported that HiMama’s implementation allowed for more intentional communication content when given the opportunity for face-to-face communication with educators. Therefore, the promising combination of a communication application (as an asynchronous method) used at high frequency (daily; throughout the day) paired with opportunities for face-to-face communication during pick-up/drop-off times is consistent with the findings from previous research and may offer a powerful mode combination to meet the daily communication needs of parents and educators. This cycle (daily asynchronous–synchronous strategies) being embedded into the daily routines and communication needs of parents and educators may be key to overall effectiveness and success.
As related to research question #4 (What barriers and volitions did parents identify?), the volitional properties of the technology were important to consider and come from its power to influence culture and to shape participation and its use in our daily lives [40]. Although no previous work has investigated the volitions related to CMC in early learning, the current study has identified potential volitions relating to HiMama’s implementation, including concerns about educators’ ability to balance data entry with child engagement, inconsistent implementation and application use, and the need for critical consideration of how the tool increases access to children’s lives. Given the relationship with parent–educator partnerships, further consideration should be given to the expectations and timeliness of communicating content, the responsibilities for balancing data entry/documentation while working with children, accountability for ongoing training, its expectations for use, how to ensure that the technology is not misused as a surveillance measure, and children’s right to privacy (for a discussion of this challenge, see [48]).
Finally, the research in this area often focuses on the content of communication shared through CMC platforms, how users develop and experience relationships through CMC, and the effects of modality switching on relationships [49,50]. In ECEC settings, as in the current study, the goal of CMC may focus less on the establishment of relationships between parents and educators and more on collaboration based on a common relationship with the individual child. These results suggest that the implementation of a communication application may have contributed to positive changes in parent–child relationships, with parents feeling more connected to their children throughout the day and using the information shared to strengthen parent–child communication practices. This finding is consistent with previous research that has found that parent–educator digital communication can support observant intimacy within parent–child relationships through enhanced understanding of a child’s day [11,51]. Perhaps CMC can influence the development of a particular relationship that is the focus of the communication. Accordingly, the richness and intimacy of this approach may relate more to the content and goal of communication (in this case, the child) and less on establishing relationships with educators (relating to the limited use of bidirectional practices by parents). Gaining additional insight into how communication applications can influence and support interpersonal relationships may be a useful direction for further research.

5.1. Strengths and Limitations

One of the primary strengths of this study was its focus on the experiences of parents related to both CMC processes and ECEC services. A second strength is the application of Mitcham’s conceptual definition of technology to the research design, allowing for a multi-layered examination of CMC’s influence in early learning settings. The application of Mitcham’s conceptual definition of technology to supporting the research design included the survey construction, data collection, and analysis. The four components of technology defined by Mitcham facilitated comprehension across various layers to understand the impact that CMC may have within the early learning setting and through the examination of each of the four research questions. By using this framework, the study was able to consider technology in a manner that allowed for a detailed understanding of its potential impact across a range of characteristics of technology. Finally, using an online retrospective survey allowed recruitment to take place simultaneously across a large geographical area. The design was a single-use measure, and participants had the ability to start/stop until completion and access it from anywhere using the Qualtrics software.
The study was limited in its reliance on electronic methods for sampling and survey participation, thereby omitting families accessing ECEC services who may not have had access to or have been comfortable with using technology. Additionally, participant demographic information such as on age, education level, or ethnicity was not collected, so it is unclear as to whether the participants were representative of the broader population of parents accessing licensed childcare. The lack of this particular data, combined with the low response rate, is acknowledged as a threat to external validity. Recruiting parents who were accessing services at the time the software was implemented meant that this study may have missed potential findings of differences in experiences with technology between “early adopters” of the software and those within the sites represented in this study. Newer sites may have been less technologically inclined than those who had adopted it earlier. It is possible that the results related to low levels of training or that the lack of expectations for use may have reflected some sites’ inexperience with using technology, rather than being reflective of the larger early learning and care community. Additionally, as this was not a program evaluation project, specific details were not collected regarding the utilization of the software and/or site-specific implementation issues.
Finally, using a retrospective survey means that the results are reflective of participants’ perceptions of change and not causal relationships, which may have been at risk of social desirability, despite the anonymous nature of the online survey. Although retrospective pretests can address the validity concerns related to response shift bias, there are trade-offs with other forms of bias related to recall concerns, individuals providing socially desirable responses, and other cognitive or emotional effects [52,53]. As it was not possible for prospective pretests to be collected for the purpose of the current study, the focus on “subjective experiences of program-related change” adhered to the recommended uses for retrospective pretests [52]. Additionally, other efforts to optimize the retrospective design were included, such as using a memorable reference point, adapting questions to have a clear connection to the reference point, the inclusion of effect sizes, and triangulation [54]. The inclusion of open-ended questions was also used to promote a deeper understanding of why participants felt that they had experienced the changes that they perceived [55] and allowed for the exploration of their potential impact.

5.2. Implications for Research

Recommendations for future research include the examination of the effect of mode combinations to meet the desired communication needs in the context of early learning and care, including extending Media Richness Theory to incorporate advancements in CMC. Further research on the qualities of combining face-to-face/HiMama communication modes in an early learning setting would be useful in understanding the nature of communication/collaboration within early learning settings. Research should also be conducted to examine further the perspectives of educators and site administrators on the use of CMC technology in supporting parent–educator communication. Recent and emerging research in this area implies that educators desire bi-directional communication with families and the use of CMC to prompt reciprocal interactions, which are complementary to the preferred face-to-face mode of communication [14]. Further research should ideally consider parents’ and educators’ goals for communication and collaboration within early learning settings. Additionally, further examination of the pedagogical aspirations identified within guiding pedagogical documents [9] is required as a foundation for co-constructing parent–educator communication processes that support each party’s goals and expectations for partnership in early learning. Finally, given the volitions identified in this study, additional research is needed to examine potential volitions of CMC in early learning settings.

5.3. Implications for Practice

This research makes a unique contribution to a growing body of research on the application of technology to supporting communication in educational settings, particularly parent–educator communication in ECEC settings. The findings suggest that software developers should consider including further resources for implementation and ongoing training to support ECEC sites, parents, and educators in order to meet their communication goals. Administrators require support to understand the potential impacts when implementing communication technology, and it is crucial to articulate clear use expectations. Communication and usage guidelines should be co-constructed with parents, including an annual process review to support ongoing success. Based on the frequent population shifts in ECEC settings, ongoing training and effective monitoring systems to ensure consistency are critical for the successful application of CMC.
In addition, it is important to acknowledge that certain modes of communication will continue to serve specific purposes, even after CMC technology is introduced (e.g., phone calls for emergencies, monthly newsletters, personal emails to support administrative correspondence related to finances or annual reporting). CMC can serve multiple purposes within family–educator relationships, including sharing children’s learning moments, health information and developmental information, distributing curricular or policy information to families, seeking feedback from families, and reducing paper use, but is not all-encompassing of the communication needs of both parties [56]. Other communication modes will likely still be required within ECEC settings to facilitate strong relationships, convey nuanced information, and ensure the adequate transfer of care between families and educators [11,14,56]. Further, given the extent to which face-to-face communication was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which required most ECEC settings to reimagine communication and connection with families [57] and rely more heavily on CMC [14], this research is particularly relevant in offering insight into the consideration of pairing multiple methods of communication, such as those that may replicate face-to-face communication alongside applications like HiMama. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider how multi-mode CMC strategies can be best implemented, supported, and utilized within ECEC settings.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that HiMama is not the only CMC option for early years settings. This research focused on the advantages of CMC overall rather than this specific application. There are other options for early years settings that are being used very effectively, such as Procare [58], Storypark [59], and Sandbox [60]. Centres considering implementing CMC, should review the various options available to determine their unique needs and explore what features are most important to their communication with parents.

6. Conclusions

This research aligns with the recommendations made by the NAEYC and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media [7] on informed decision-making, evidence-based practice, and the thorough investigation of technology in early education settings, especially in terms of parent–educator communication. This study was the first to look specifically at the software application HiMama. The findings demonstrated that this type of technology has rich potential to increase parents’ knowledge of their children’s daily experiences while in care. Including real-time access to information throughout the day and standardized data reporting were highlighted as eliciting an increase in parents’ knowledge, and this access is especially important when considering that very young children are more limited in their ability to give direct feedback to their parents about their experiences throughout the day. When used in conjunction with face-to-face communication, the application created a daily cycle of synchronous–asynchronous communication methods that demonstrated the promising potential of pairing CMC–face-to-face communication in ECEC settings, in turn allowing for more meaningful face-to-face communication. Although the development of bidirectional parent–educator relationships was not established, consideration of communication technology use in ECEC settings suggests that CMC may be a powerful platform for establishing collaborative parent–educator partnerships if used effectively. The establishment of expectations for use, as well as the co-construction of goals for communication and collaboration developed in partnership with parents, educators, and administrators, may be the first step in meeting the overarching pedagogical goals in ECEC settings.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/educsci14020123/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W. and T.v.R.; methodology, A.W. and T.v.R.; formal analysis, A.W. and T.v.R.; investigation, A.W., T.v.R., K.S. and K.B.; resources, T.v.R.; data curation, A.W. and T.v.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W.; writing—review and editing, A.W., T.v.R., K.S. and K.B.; visualization, A.W.; supervision, T.v.R.; project administration, A.W. and T.v.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This project was reviewed by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board for compliance with the federal guidelines for research involving human participants (REB# 18-02-026).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data are stored in the University of Guelph Research Data Repository. The data stored in the repository are housed at Borealis, the Canadian Dataverse Repository, hosted at the University of Toronto. For information on data access, please contact the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participating parents for their contribution to this work. We also thank HiMama/Lillio for its support with recruitment in this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Blackwell, C.K.; Wartella, E.; Lauricella, A.R.; Robb, M.B. Technology in the Lives of Educators and Early Childhood Programs: Trends in Access, Use, and Professional Development from 2012 to 2014. 2015. Available online: https://cmhd.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1927_1_SOC_ConferenceReport_EarlyChildhood_Final.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  2. Burris, J. Syncing with families: Using technology in early childhood programs. Am. J. Educ. Learn. 2019, 4, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pila, S.; Blackwell, C.K.; Lauricella, A.R.; Wartella, E. Technology in the Lives of Educators and Early Childhood Programs: 2018 Survey. Center on Media and Human Development. 2019. Available online: https://cmhd.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/NAEYC-Report-2019.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  4. Stratigos, T.; Fenech, M. Early childhood education and care in the app generation: Digital documentation, assessment for learning and parent communication. Australas. J. Early Child. 2021, 46, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dillon, M. New App Keeps Durham Parents in the Loop While Kids Are at Daycare. 21 September 2014. Available online: http://www.durhamregion.com/community-story/4869314-new-app-keeps-durham-parents-in-the-loop-while-kids-are-at-daycare/ (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  6. Kashin, D. Digital Documentation: Making Teaching and Learning Visible. Technology Rich Inquiry Based Research. 2 January 2016. Available online: https://tecribresearch.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/digital-documentation-making-teaching-and-learning-visible/ (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  7. National Association for the Education of Young Children; Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College. Position Statement: Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. 2012. Available online: https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/PS_technology_WEB.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  8. Juniu, S. Computer mediated parent-teacher communication. Rev. Electrónica Actual. Investig. En Educ. 2009, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ontario Ministry of Education. How Does Learning Happen? Ontario’s Pedagogy for the Early Years. 2014. Available online: https://files.ontario.ca/edu-how-does-learning-happen-en-2021-03-23.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  10. College of Early Childhood Educators. Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. 2017. Available online: https://www.college-ece.ca/en/Documents/Code_and_Standards_2017.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  11. Erdreich, L. Mediating intimacy: Parent-teacher digital communication and perceptions of ‘proper intimacy’ among early childhood educators. Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ. 2023, 32, 589–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gauvreau, A.N.; Sandall, S.R. Using mobile technologies to communicate with parents and caregivers. Young Except. Child. 2019, 22, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oakes, C.; Staton, S.; Housen, S.; Cooke, E.; Pattinson, C.; Teo, S.; Thorpe, K. “Did my child sleep today?”: Communication between parents and educators in early childhood education and care settings. Child Youth Care Forum 2020, 49, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Avari, P.; Hamel, E.; Schachter, R.E.; Hatton-Bowers, H. Communication with families: Understanding the perspectives of early childhood teachers. J. Early Child. Res. 2023, 21, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oke, A.; Butler, J.E.; O’Neill, C. Identifying barriers and solutions to increase parent-practitioner communication in early childhood care and educational services: The development of an online communication application. Early Child. Educ. J. 2021, 49, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Higgins, A.; Cherrington, S. What’s the story? Exploring parent–teacher communication through ePortfolios. Australas. J. Early Child. 2017, 42, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Reedy, C.K.; McGrath, W.H. Can you hear me now? Staff–parent communication in child care centres. Early Child Dev. Care 2010, 180, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Drugli, M.B.; Undheim, A.M. Partnership between parents and caregivers of young children in full-time daycare. Child Care Pract. 2012, 18, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shpancer, N.; Bowden, J.; Ferrell, M.; Pavlik, S.; Robinson, M.; Schwind, J.; Volpe, E.; Williams, L.; Young, J. The gap: Parental knowledge about daycare. Early Child Dev. Care 2002, 172, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Howe, N.; Jacobs, E.; Vukelich, G.; Recchia, H. Canadian’s parents’ knowledge and satisfaction regarding their child’s day-care experience. J. Early Child. Res. 2013, 11, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rosen, D.B.; Jaruszewicz, C. Developmentally appropriate technology and early childhood teacher education. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 2009, 30, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Keengwe, J.; Onchwari, G. Technology and early childhood education: A technology integration professional development model for practicing teachers. Early Child. Educ. J. 2009, 37, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Donehower, P.C.; Hansen, S.G.; Marelle, C.; Wright, M. Incorporating technology into instruction in early childhood classrooms: A systematic review. Adv. Neurodev. Disord. 2023, 7, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aubrey, C.; Dahl, S. The confidence and competence in information and communication technologies of practitioners, parents and young children in the Early Years Foundation Stage. Early Years Int. Res. J. 2014, 34, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fox-Turnbull, W. Enhancing the learning of technology in early childhood settings. Australas. J. Early Child. 2019, 44, 76–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Neumann, M.M. Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Early Child. Res. Q. 2018, 42, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ho, L.H.; Hung, C.L.; Chen, H.C. Using theoretical models to examine the acceptance behavior of mobile phone messaging to enhance parent-teacher interactions. Comput. Educ. 2013, 61, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chikasanda, V.K.M.; Otrel-Cass, K.; Williams, J.; Jones, A. Enhancing teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge and practices: A professional development model for technology teachers in Malawi. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2013, 23, 597–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lewin, C.; Luckin, R. Technology to support parental engagement in elementary education: Lessons learned from the UK. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 749–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bosch, N.; Bosch, S.; Cline, K.; Hochhalter, S.; Rieland, A.; Takekawa, E.; Walther, T. The Effects of Parent-Teacher Communication Using Digital Tools in Early Elementary and Middle School Classrooms. 2017. Available online: https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/231/ (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  31. Thompson, B. Characteristics of parent-teacher email communication. Commun. Educ. 2008, 57, 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Thompson, B.; Mazer, J.P.; Grady, E.F. The changing nature of parent–teacher communication: Mode selection in the smartphone era. Commun. Educ. 2015, 64, 187–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Strømsø, H.I.; Grøttum, P.; Lycke, K.H. Content and processes in problem-based learning: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2007, 23, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Blau, I.; Hameiri, M. Ubiquitous mobile educational data management by teachers, students and parents: Does technology change school-family communication and parental involvement? Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 1231–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lin, J.; Litkowski, E.; Schmerold, K.; Elicker, J.; Schmitt, S.A.; Purpura, D.J. Parent-educator communication linked to more frequent home learning activities for preschoolers. Child Youth Care Forum 2019, 48, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rimm-Kaufman, S.E.; Pianta, R.C. Family-school communication in preschool and kindergarten in the context of a relationship-enhancing intervention. In Early Education and Development; Denham, S.A., Ed.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2006; pp. 287–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. HiMama. About the HiMama Product, n.d. Available online: https://www.himama.com/about (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  38. Passey, D. Theories, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, models and constructs: Limiting research outcomes through misconeptions and misunderstandings. Stud. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2020, 1, 95–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Varpio, L.; Paradis, E.; Uijtdehaage, S.; Young, M. The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Acad. Med. 2019, 95, 989–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Custer, R.L. Examining the dimensions of technology. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 1995, 5, 219–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Klatt, J.; Taylor-Powell, E. Quick Tips #29: When to Use the Retrospective Post-then-Pre Design. Program Development and Evaluation University of Wisconsin-Extension. 2005. Available online: https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/files/2016/04/Tipsheet29.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  42. Klatt, J.; Taylor-Powell, E. Using the Retrospective Post-then-Pre Design, quick Tips #27. Program Development and Evaluation University of Wisconsin-Extension. 2005. Available online: https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/files/2016/04/Tipsheet27.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  43. Thompson, B.; Mazer, J.P. Development of the Parental Academic Support Scale: Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Commun. Educ. 2012, 61, 131–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Iarossi, G. The Power of Survey Design: A User’s Guide for Managing Surveys, Interpreting Results, and Influencing Respondents. World Bank. 2016. Available online: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-6392-8 (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  45. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  47. Fernald, D.H.; Duclos, C.W. Enhance your team-based qualitative research. Ann. Fam. Med. 2005, 3, 360–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lindgren, A. Ethical issues in pedagogical representations of children in digital technology. Int. J. Early Child. 2012, 44, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McEwan, B. Modality switching to modality weaving: Updating theoretical perspectives for expanding media affordances. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 2021, 45, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pang, A.; Shin, W.; Lew, Z.; Walther, J.B. Building relationships through dialogic communication: Organizations, stakeholders, and computer-mediated communication. J. Mark. Commun. 2018, 24, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hsu, P.C.; Chen, R.S. Analyzing the mechanisms by which digital platforms influence family-school partnerships among parents of young children. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hill, L.G.; Betz, D.L. Revisiting the retrospective pretest. Am. J. Eval. 2005, 26, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Taylor, P.J.; Russ-Eft, D.F.; Taylor, H. Gilding the outcome by tarnishing the past: Inflationary biases in retrospective pretests. Am. J. Eval. 2009, 30, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schwartz, C.E.; Sprangers, M.A.G. Guidelines for improving the stringency of response shift research using the thentest. Qual. Life Res. 2010, 19, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kanevsky, L. Assessing Students’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Instructional Interventions with Post-Pre Surveys. Simon Fraser University Faculty of Education and Institute for the Study of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines. 2016. Available online: https://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/istld/documents/Post-Pre_Kanevsky_handout.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  56. Hatzigianni, M.; Stephenson, T.; Harrison, L.J.; Waniganayake, M.; Li, P.; Barblett, L.; Hadley, F.; Andrews, R.; Davis, B.; Irvine, S. The role of digital technologies in supporting quality improvement in Australian early childhood education and care settings. Int. J. Child Care Educ. Policy 2023, 17, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chen, J.J.; Rivera-Vernazza, D.E. Communicating digitally: Building preschool teacher-parent partnerships via digital technologies during COVID-19. Early Child. Educ. J. 2023, 51, 1189–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Procare Solutions. Available online: https://www.procaresoftware.com/ (accessed on 18 January 2024).
  59. Storypark. Available online: https://ca.storypark.com/ (accessed on 18 January 2024).
  60. Sandbox Software. Available online: https://www.runsandbox.com/ (accessed on 18 January 2024).
Education 14 00123 g001
Figure 1. Parents’ satisfaction ratings for HiMama.
Figure 1. Parents’ satisfaction ratings for HiMama.
Education 14 00123 g001
Education 14 00123 g002
Figure 2. Frequency of daily check-ins to child’s HiMama account during the day.
Figure 2. Frequency of daily check-ins to child’s HiMama account during the day.
Education 14 00123 g002
Table 1. Changes in usage and satisfaction with communication modes.
Table 1. Changes in usage and satisfaction with communication modes.
Communication ModeUsage FrequencyRelated Samples Sign TestzSatisfaction Median Scores
nprenpostPositive DifferenceNegative DifferenceNo DifferencemdnΔmdnpremdnpost
Face-to-face1321284011773.92 ***0.333.884.21
Personal written notes924392321.810.233.844.28
Group written notes9571182513.35 ***0.313.724.04
Bulletin board939076770.000.033.563.60
Individual email523753290.350.084.034.11
Group email574011380.000.004.054.05
Text messaging950140.004.400.204.11
Phone calls786541594.394.340.890.05
*** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Content inclusion rates for HiMama daily reports.
Table 2. Content inclusion rates for HiMama daily reports.
Content Category Usefulness Rating a
n%MSD
Eating12387.95.771.45
Sleeping11079.16.251.12
Toileting8862.96.081.27
Mood6446.05.751.35
Activities12287.15.941.34
a Rating scale: 1 = not at all useful to 7 = extremely useful.
Table 3. Changes in ratings of communication quality measures.
Table 3. Changes in ratings of communication quality measures.
Communication QualitynRelated Samples Sign TestzMedian Scores
Positive DifferenceNegative DifferenceNo DifferencemdnΔmdnpremdnpost
Satisfaction1409615297.59 ***1.005.106.04
Effectiveness1408720336.38 ***0.805.006.00
Openness1395911695.62 ***0.006.006.00
Responsiveness86436375.14 ***0.505.006.00
*** p < 0.001.
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

Wilke, A.; van Rhijn, T.; Squires, K.; Barton, K. Digital Bonds: Exploring the Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication on Parent–Educator Relationships in Early Childhood Education and Care. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020123

AMA Style

Wilke A, van Rhijn T, Squires K, Barton K. Digital Bonds: Exploring the Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication on Parent–Educator Relationships in Early Childhood Education and Care. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(2):123. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020123

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wilke, Ann, Tricia van Rhijn, Kimberly Squires, and Kim Barton. 2024. "Digital Bonds: Exploring the Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication on Parent–Educator Relationships in Early Childhood Education and Care" Education Sciences 14, no. 2: 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020123

APA Style

Wilke, A., van Rhijn, T., Squires, K., & Barton, K. (2024). Digital Bonds: Exploring the Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication on Parent–Educator Relationships in Early Childhood Education and Care. Education Sciences, 14(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020123

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