Australia’s national education evidence body

Detailed methodology (PDF, 699KB)

About the guides

The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) has released practice guides for practitioners about engaging with families to support children's early learning and development and students' learning outcomes. 

This detailed methodology describes the processes we followed to synthesise the available research evidence on family engagement for learning. A simplified description of this process is also available. 

What process did we use to create the guides?

The practice guides are based on findings from a rapid review process conducted by AERO. This process builds on work previously carried out by the Education Endowment Foundation ('the EEF review') (Axford et al., 2019).1

Rapid reviews offer a methodologically rigorous way to synthesise research evidence in a timely and efficient manner (Garritty et al., 2021). While rapid review methodologies are used extensively in health to summarise bodies of research evidence, they are not yet a common practice within education research translation (White, 2021; Cirkony et al., 2021).

The specific steps involved in planning, collecting and reporting for this rapid review are:

1. Planning

Using the EEF search as a starting point: 

  • refining the research question and defining key terms
  • refining the eligibility criteria
  • developing the search strategy

2. Collecting

  • Carrying out the searches
  • Screening studies (first by title/abstract and then by full text) 
  • Carrying out quality assessments of included studies
  • Carrying out data extraction from the included studies

3. Reporting

  • Synthesising 'promising' and 'not promising' approaches from the included studies to provide clear and accessible practitioner guidance

What types of studies were eligible for inclusion?

We searched for research evidence to address the following research question:

What is the best current evidence on the practices and approaches early childhood education and care (ECEC) and school practitioners can use to promote and support family engagement in children’s learning?

Inclusion and exclusion criteria by population, activity, setting, study design, publication details and outcomes are listed in Table 1. These criteria were adapted from those used by the EEF (see Appendix B).

For this review:

“family engagement” is defined as the process of staff at early childhood services or schools working together with family members to support their child’s early learning and development or student learning outcomes.

“practitioners” are defined to include ECEC educators, teachers and leaders/directors, as well as school teachers, mid-level leaders and leaders.

Table 1: Eligibility criteria 

Theme We included studies with all of these features We excluded studies with any of these features
Population Families with children currently enrolled in an ECEC or school setting:

  • “Families” includes biological parents, legal guardians, adoptive parents, kin carers and out-of-home (foster) carers
  • “Children” are those aged between3-16 years2

Note: Studies that focussed on children with special educational needs (for example, children with disability, Autism or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) or were specific to particular population groups outside Australia (for example, Latinx and African-American families in the USA) were eligible for inclusion.
However, given the practice guides are intended to be applicable across a range of contexts, these studies were filtered out during the screening process for potential use at a later date.

Families without children currently enrolled in an
ECEC or school setting (including families with
out-of-school youth)
Families without children aged 3-16 years
Activity (intervention) Activities delivered in or by ECEC centres or schools that are designed to promote family engagement or support parenting practices associated with positive learning outcomes in the ECEC centre, school or home setting:

  • “Activities” include approaches, programs, practices, structures and processes
  • Activities must be primarily delivered by ECEC or school practitioners (including directors/leaders).

Note: Automated text messaging or communication services are eligible for inclusion.

Nutrition or physical activity interventions

Clinical treatments, health services and psychosocial interventions (for example, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy)

Child welfare interventions (for example, Family Group Conferencing and reunification programs)

Community outreach interventions

Private tutoring programs

Adult education courses or classes delivered
primarily by external specialists (for example,
clinical psychologists)

System-level interventions

Financial interventions, including school
voucher programs

Legislative interventions

Activities delivered by other school or
early childhood personnel (for example,
school nurses)

After-school programs for school students (that is, interventions requiring ongoing student attendance outside usual school hours)

Interventions delivered directly by researchers
or research assistants

Setting ECEC centre/school or home setting

High-income country (as classified by the World Bank)

Specialised types of ECEC centres/schools not replicated in Australia, including:

  • Head Start (USA)
  • KIPP schools (USA)
  • Sure Start (UK)
  • Community partnership schools

Homeschool settings

Therapeutic settings

Hospitals including hospital schools

Prisons or juvenile detention centres

Middle-income or low-income countries
(as classified by the World Bank)

Study design Umbrella reviews (reviews of reviews)
Meta-analyses
Systematic reviews
Scoping reviews
Primary studies with causal evidence
of impact (using experimental or quasiexperimental
designs)
Dissertations that are umbrella reviews or
meta-analyses and otherwise meet the
inclusion criteria
Selected grey literature
Primary studies without causal evidence of
impact, including studies that only report on
correlations between family engagement or
parenting practices and child learning outcomes
(that is, that do not involve an intervention)
Dissertations that are primary studies
Other types of reviews
Implementation studies only (for example,
studies examining enablers and barriers only)
Reviews examining risk and protective
factors only
Reviews examining perspectives or opinions
on family engagement only
Protocol papers
Studies testing the development of instruments
Book chapters
Conference publications
Publication details Published since 2017 (except if included in the
EEF review)
Published in English
Published before 2017 (except if included in the
EEF review)
Published in languages other than English
Outcomes The study must examine at least one of
these outcomes:

  • any early learning and development outcomes for children (including literacy, numeracy and social-emotional outcomes and developmental milestones)
  • any learning outcomes for students including school readiness and academic attainment (for example, formal tests, exams, grades and other measures of knowledge and skills)
  • related learning outcomes (for example, attendance, engagement with school life, motivation, attitudes to learning, behaviour).

The study may also examine one or more of these outcomes:

  • student wellbeing outcomes (for example, mental health, health)
  • family engagement outcomes (for example, communicating with children, creating a positive home learning environment, attending school activities)
  • family wellbeing
  • educator attitudes, knowledge or skills.
Studies that do not examine at least one of the primary outcomes, including studies that
instead examine:

  • participation in higher education
  • transition to adulthood
  • violent behaviour (including bullying, cyberbullying, dating violence and family violence)
  • risk-taking behaviour (for example, substance abuse and criminal activity)
  • health outcomes (for example, nutrition, physical activity and sexual health)
  • internalising problems (for example, anxiety and depression)
  • externalising disorders (for example, conduct disorder and oppositional behaviour)
  • studies that examine family or practitioner outcomes only.

Where and how did we source the studies?

Our search strategy closely followed that of the EEF review, although fewer databases were searched given the scope and purpose of our review.

Table 2 lists the 5 databases used for this review. These were selected from the list of databases in the EEF review based on their relevance to the Australian context and availability. Search terms for each of the databases closely matched those used in the EEF review (with some adjustments to the limits on years and languages). Search terms are set out in Appendix C.

Database searches were carried out by AERO with assistance from The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) team in Melbourne. Search results were collated and converted into a standard Excel format. Screening was carried out by an AERO Senior Researcher, with queries about specific articles decided by the project team.

Table 2: Databases

Database Date searched Number of results
Australian Education Index 23 July 2021 174
Education Research Complete 10 July 2021 813
ERIC 21 June 2021 660
PsycINFO 9 July 2021 529
Scopus 6 July 2021 79

How many studies did we include, and how did we synthesise the findings?

From an initial search locating 2,254 papers, 14 papers (5 meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and 9 primary studies) met the inclusion criteria. These were supplemented with 8 meta-analyses and systematic reviews from the original EEF review, the EEF review itself, and a meta-analysis on shared reading identified through a small additional targeted search (Noble et al, 2019). In total, 24 studies helped to inform the practice guides. The search process is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram3 in Appendix D. Some additional studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, but may be of particular interest to Australian audiences, are listed in Appendix E.

The practice guides are designed to be concise documents presenting recommendations drawn from the research evidence, rather than a comprehensive summary of all of the included studies.4 For this reason, the project team developed a system for prioritising and synthesising key themes from the studies. This involved:

  1. carrying out  quality assessments of the included meta-analyses and systematic reviews, by applying the same criteria used in the EEF review and considering AERO’s Standards of evidence5
  2. extracting data from the included meta-analyses and systematic reviews
  3. drawing out key themes of ‘promising’ and ‘not promising’ approaches identified in the reviews for ECEC, primary school and secondary school settings. To identify the key themes, greatest weight was placed on meta-analyses and systematic reviews that had higher quality assessments, were more recent, and described the strength of evidence of included primary studies as high. Potential themes were also considered for their relevance to the Australian context.
  4. referring to primary studies when key themes required further illustration or explanation. These primary studies were identified either directly through the search or through the included meta-analyses or systematic reviews.

What other processes did we use to produce the guides?

To ensure that findings from the review were presented in a useful way, we formed a small project advisory group. The group consisted of accomplished practitioners from ECEC, primary school and secondary school nominated by the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). The group were consulted 3 times to provide input on:

  • the relevance of the research evidence identified through the search process
  • the structure, format and wording of the guides (to ensure they are clear, accessible, useful and relevant for practitioners)
  • ideas for future resources to accompany the guides. 

We also sought insights and feedback from ACECQA, AITSL, the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY), 3 peak bodies (the Australian Council of State School organisations, the Australian Parents Council, and Catholic School Parents Australia) and various state and territory jurisdictions.

AERO's practice guides are designed to be clear, concise, relevant to a range of ECEC and school contexts, and relevant to practitioners with different roles. As such, they are designed to be a starting point. We hope you find them useful in your work with families, and welcome any feedback.

References

Axford, N., Berry, V., Lloyd, J., Moore, D., Rogers, M., Hurst, A., Blockley, K., Durkin, H. and Minton, J. (2019). How can schools support parents’ engagement in their children’s learning? Evidence from research and practice. London: Education Endowment Foundation. (‘EEF review’)

Cirkony, C., Rickinson, M., Walsh, L., Gleeson, J., Salisbury, M. & Cutler, B. (2021). Reflecting on the conduct of rapid reviews for educational research. Educational Research. (Forthcoming).

Education Endowment Foundation (2019). Working with parents to support children’s learning (Guidance Report). London: Education Endowment Foundation. 

Evidence for Learning (2019). Working with parents to support children’s learning (Guidance Report). Sydney: Evidence for Learning. 

Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22. 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 71.
 

White, H. (2020). ‘The global evidence architecture in health and education: A comparative scorecard’. In Gorard, S. (Ed.), Getting Evidence into Education: Evaluating the Routes to Policy and Practice (1st ed.). Routledge, 20–33. 

Appendix A: Included studies

Note: Studies cited in the practice guides are indicated by an asterisk (*). For a description of studies cited in the practice guides (including additional primary studies identified through the reviews listed below), see the Annotated reference list.

Umbrella reviews meta-analyses and systematic reviews

*Grindal, T., Bowne, J. B., Yoshikawa, H., Schindler, H. S., Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2016). The added impact of parenting education in early childhood education programs: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.018

*Higgins, S., & Katsipataki, M. (2015). Evidence from meta-analysis about parental involvement in education which supports their children’s learning. Journal of Children’s Services, 10(3), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-02-2015-0009
 

Kim, J. S., & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The Effects of Summer Reading on Low-Income Children’s Literacy Achievement From Kindergarten to Grade 8: A Meta-Analysis of Classroom and Home Interventions. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 386–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483906

Lowe, K., Harrison, N., Tennent, C., Guenther, J., Vass, G., & Moodie, N. (2019). Factors affecting the development of school and Indigenous community engagement: A systematic review. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00314-6

McDonald, S. (2019). Kindergarten Parent Engagement and Student Reading Literacy in Title I Schools: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Synthesis. Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=fse_…

*Noble, C., Sala, G., Peter, M., Lingwood, J., Rowland, C., Gobet, F., & Pine, J. (2019). The impact of shared book reading on children’s language skills: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100290

*O’Connor, A., Nolan, A., Bergmeier, H., Hooley, M., Olsson, C., Cann, W., Williams-Smith, J., & Skouteris, H. (2017). Early childhood education and care educators supporting parent-child
relationships: A systematic literature review. Early Years, 37(4), 400–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1233169

See, B. H. (2015a). Identifying the most promising parental involvement interventions with impact on learning outcomes for primary school-aged children (1st report). School of Education, Durham University. www.dur.ac.uk/resources/education/SuttonTrustReportScopingreview1.pdf

*See, B. H. (2015b). Identifying the most promising parental involvement interventions with impact on learning outcomes for primary school-aged children (2nd report). School of Education, Durham University. www.dur.ac.uk/resources/education/SuttonTrustReportScopingreview2.pdf

See, B. H. & Gorard, S. (2013). What do rigorous evaluations tell us about the most promising parental involvement interventions? A critical review of what works for disadvantaged children in different age groups. London: Nuffield Foundation. www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/What_do_
rigorous_evaluations_tell_us_about_the_most_promising_parental_involvement_interventions.pdf

*See, B. H., & Gorard, S. (2015). Does intervening to enhance parental involvement in education lead to better academic results for children? An extended review. Journal of Children’s Services, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-02-2015-0008

*See, B. H., Gorard, S., El-Soufi, N., Lu, B., Siddiqui, N., & Dong, L. (2021). A systematic review of the impact of technology-mediated parental engagement on student outcomes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.10 80/13803611.2021.1924791

*Sheridan, S. M., Smith, T. E., Moorman Kim, E., Beretvas, S. N., & Park, S. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Family-School Interventions and Children’s Social-Emotional Functioning: Moderators and Components of Efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 296–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318825437

*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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09509-w

Primary studies (early childhood education and care) 

*Burgoyne, K., Gardner, R., Whiteley, H., Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2018). Evaluation of a parent-delivered early language enrichment programme: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(5), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12819

*Cabell, S. Q., Zucker, T. A., DeCoster, J., Copp, S. B., & Landry, S. (2019). Impact of a Parent Text Messaging Program on Pre- Kindergarteners’ Literacy Development. AERA Open, 5(1), 233285841983333. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419833339

*Neumann, M. M. (2018). The effects of a parent–child environmental print program on emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 16(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X18809120

*Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Boise, C. E., Moen, A. L., Lester, H., Edwards, C. P., Schumacher, R., & Cheng, K. (2019). Supporting preschool children with developmental concerns: Effects of the Getting Ready intervention on school-based social competencies and relationships. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 48, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.03.008

*Soto, X., Seven, Y., McKenna, M., Madsen, K., Peters-Sanders, L., Kelley, E. S., & Goldsteina, H. (2020). Iterative Development of a Home Review Program to Promote Preschoolers’ Vocabulary Skills: Social Validity and Learning Outcomes. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 51(2), 371–
389. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00011

*Teepe, R. C., Molenaar, I., Oostdam, R., Fukkink, R., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Helping parents enhance vocabulary development in preschool children: Effects of a family literacy program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.03.001

*York, B. N., Loeb, S., & Doss, C. (2019). One Step at a Time: The Effects of an Early Literacy Text-Messaging Program for Parents of Preschoolers. Journal of Human Resources, 54(3), 537–566.
https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.54.3.0517-8756R

Primary studies (primary school)

Nichols, S., & Hill, S. (2020). New Word Hunters: A family engagement strategy to extend Year 1 children’s vocabulary. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 43(2), 129–140.

Primary studies (secondary school) 

Santana, M., Nussbaum, M., Carmona, R., & Claro, S. (2019). Having Fun Doing Math: Text Messages Promoting Parent Involvement Increased Student Learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(2), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1543374

Appendix B: How we built on the existing evidence base 

Existing EEF process

In 2019, the EEF published an evidence review and guidance paper on how schools can support parental engagement in their children’s learning (Axford et al., 2019). One component of the project involved synthesising international evidence on “activities delivered in or by schools and early years settings that promote and support [effective parenting] practices, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

The review identified 10 relevant reviews and 71 primary studies not already included in the systematic reviews. Of these, the 9 most relevant reviews and 47 most relevant primary studies were included in the synthesis.

AERO process

Rather than duplicate this work, AERO drew upon the search strategy and findings developed by the EEF when identifying research evidence to inform its practice guides for practitioners. This allowed AERO to include relevant research published since 2017.

Where possible, the search strategy remained closely aligned with the EEF search strategy. However, some important adjustments were made to:

  • ensure the practice guides could be quickly produced and made available to practitioners
  • focus particularly on research evidence relevant to Australian settings
  • reflect the increasing recognition of working with “families” rather than “parents”.

These adjustments are set out in Table 3.

Table 3 Detailed adjustments in the review processes

Theme EEF review This review
Purpose To produce a comprehensive evidence review
and guidance paper on how schools can
support parental engagement in their children’s
learning. The project included two “systematic
rapid reviews” – one on parenting practices, one
on activities to promote parent engagement –
as well as fieldwork about existing practices in
UK schools
To efficiently produce concise (2-4 page)
practice guides for Australian practitioners
Research question What is the best current international evidence
on parental engagement in children’s learning?
Specifically, what activities delivered in or by
schools and early years settings promote and
support effective parenting practices, particularly
for children from disadvantaged backgrounds?
(Research question 1b)
What is the best current evidence on the
practices and approaches ECEC and school
practitioners can use to promote and support
family engagement in children’s learning?
Eligibility criteria Studies published from 2013-2017
• Interventions could have taken place in
the UK or internationally
• Studies focusing on children with special
educational needs were not the focus,
although effective practices for this group
were included
• Dissertations searched and screened but
not prioritised for data extraction
• Included Head Start
• Included studies needed to measure
impacts on children’s learning outcomes.
Parent engagement outcomes were
also considered.
• Exclusion criteria not explicitly listed
Studies published from 2017-2021, as
well as systematic reviews and metaanalyses
included in the EEF review that fit
the eligibility criteria for this review
• Interventions needed to take place in
high-income countries (to be comparable
to Australia)
• Studies focusing on children with special
educational needs, and involving specific
population groups outside Australia, were
screened and set aside for separate analysis
at a later date
• Dissertations included in data extraction
if they were meta-analyses or systematic
reviews
• Excluded Head Start
• Specific outcomes must or may be
included, and more specific criteria used
for ECEC outcomes
• Exclusion criteria explicitly listed
Databases

10 databases plus grey literature

Additional databases included: ASSIA, the
British Education Index, ProQuest dissertations,
Social Policy and Practice, and Social Science
Citation Index.

Additional grey literature included searches in
the EEF, Special Schools and Academy Trust,
National College for Teaching and Leadership,
PTA and education authorities.

5 databases selected based on availability and
relevance to Australian education

 

Appendix C: Search terms

Theme Search
Search terms (TI,AB(parent* NEAR/2 (involvement OR engagement OR expectation* OR collaboration OR partnership*))
OR TI,AB(parent* NEAR (engaging or engagement or practices or style* or activities or participation))
OR TI,AB(parent* P/2 (help* OR support*)) OR TI,AB(Involving P/2 parent* ) OR TI,AB(( mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) N/2 (involvement or engagement or expectation* or collaboration or partnership)) OR TI,AB(( mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) NEAR (engaging or practices or activities or style* or participation or supervision) ) OR TI,AB(involving P/2 (mother* or father* or family or families) ) OR TI,AB(involving P/2 (mother* or father* or family or families) ) OR TI,AB(“home learning environment*” )) AND (TI,AB((reading or homework) N/4 (assist* or help*) ) OR TI,AB( Learn* P/3 (talk or read) ) OR TI,AB( school* or classroom* ) OR TI,AB( targets or grades or exam* or scores or qualification* or tests ) OR TI,AB((learning or education* or achievement or academic) P/2 outcome* ) OR TI,AB((Achieve or achieved) P/2 results ) OR TI,AB(literacy or numeracy or math* )) AND (TI,AB(randomized or randomised) OR TI,AB(randomly)
OR TI,AB(groups) OR TI,AB(control or controlled) OR TI,AB(systematic*) OR TI,AB(Searched N/3 (databases
or ERIC or “education research complete” or “education index”) ) OR TI,AB( trial) OR TI,AB(experiment or
experimental ) OR TI,AB((Quasi experiment* or quasi-experiment* or quasiexperiment* ) ) OR TI,AB("time series" ))
Publication details Limit to “yr=2017 – current”
Limit to English

 

Table 5: Search terms for Education Research Complete (via EBSCOhost)

#

Query

Limiters/Expanders

S32

S10 AND S18 AND S30

Limiters - Published Date: 20170101-20211231 Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S31

S10 AND S18 AND S30

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S30

S19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28 OR S29

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S29

TI "time series" OR AB "time series"

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S28

TI ( Quasi experiment* or quasi-experiment* or quasiexperiment* ) OR AB ( Quasi experiment* or quasi-experiment* or quasiexperiment* )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S27

TI ( experiment or experimental ) OR AB ( experiment or experimental )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S26

TI trial OR AB trial

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S25

TI ( Searched N3 (databases or ERIC or “education research complete” or “education index”) ) OR AB ( Searched N3 (databases or ERIC or “education research complete” or “education index”) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S24

TI systematic* OR AB systematic*

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S23

DE "Randomized Controlled Trials"

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S22

TI ( control or controlled ) OR AB ( control or controlled )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S21

TI groups OR AB groups

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S20

TI randomly OR AB randomly

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S19

TI ( randomized or randomised ) OR AB ( randomized or randomised )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S18

S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S17

TI ( literacy or numeracy or math* ) OR AB ( literacy or numeracy or math* )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S16

TI ( (Achieve or achieved) W2 results ) OR AB ( (Achieve or achieved) W2 results )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S15

TI ( (learning or education* or achievement or academic) W2 outcome* ) OR AB ( (learning or education* or achievement or academic) W2 outcome* )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S14

TI ( targets or grades or exam* or scores or qualification* or tests ) OR AB ( targets or grades or exam* or scores or qualification* or tests )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S13

TI ( school* or classroom* ) OR AB ( school* or classroom* )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S12

TI ( Learn* W3 (talk or read) ) OR AB ( Learn* W3 (talk or read) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S11

TI ( (reading or homework) N4 (assist* or help*) ) OR AB ( (reading or homework) N4 (assist* or help*) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S10

S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S9

TI “home learning environment*” OR AB “home learning environment*”

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S8

TI ( (mother* or father* or family or families or caregiver*) W2 help* ) OR AB ( (mother* or father* or family or families or caregiver*) W2 help* )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S7

TI ( involving W2 (mother* or father* or family or families) ) OR AB ( involving W2 (mother* or father* or family or families) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S6

TI ( ( mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) N (engaging or practices or activities or style* or participation or supervision) ) OR AB ( ( mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) N (engaging or practices or activities or style* or participation or supervision) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S5

TI ( ( mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) N2 (involvement or engagement or expectation* or collaboration or partnership) ) OR AB ( ( mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) N2 (involvement or engagement or expectation* or collaboration or partnership) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S4

TI Involving W2 parent* OR AB Involving W2 parent*

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S3

TI ( parent* W2 (help* OR support*) ) OR AB ( parent* W2 (help* OR support*) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S2

TI ( parent* N (engaging or engagement or practices or style* or activities or participation) ) OR AB ( parent* N (engaging or engagement or practices or style* or activities or participation) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

S1

TI ( parent* N2 (involvement or engagement or expectation* or collaboration or partnership*) ) OR AB ( parent* N2 (involvement or engagement or expectation* or collaboration or partnership*) )

Search modes - Boolean/Phrase

Table 6 Search terms for PsycINFO (via OvidSp)

#

Searches

1

parent*.ti,ab.

2

(parent* adj2 (involvement or engagement or expectation* or collaboration or partnership*)).ti,ab.

3

(parent* adj2 (engaging or engagement or practices or style* or activities or participation)).ti,ab.

4

(parent* adj (help* or support*)).ti,ab.

5

(Involving adj parent*).ti,ab.

6

((mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) adj2 (involvement or engagement or expectation* or collaboration or partnership)).ti,ab.

7

((mother* or father* or caregiver* or family or families) adj2 (engaging or practices or activities or style* or participation or supervision)).ti,ab.

8

(involving adj (mother* or father* or family or families)).ti,ab.

9

((mother* or father* or family or families or caregiver*) adj2 help*).ti,ab.

10

home learning environment*.ti,ab.

11

2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10

12

((reading or homework) adj3 (assist* or help*)).ti,ab.

13

(Learn* adj3 (talk or read)).ti,ab.

14

(school* or classroom*).ti,ab.

15

(targets or grades or exam* or scores or qualification*).ti,ab.

16

((learning or education* or achievement or academic) adj outcome*).ti,ab.

17

((Achieve or achieved) adj2 results).ti,ab.

18

(literacy or numeracy or math*).ti,ab.

19

((score or attained or achieved) adj4 tests).ti,ab.

20

12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19

21

(randomised or randomized).ti,ab.

22

randomly.ti,ab.

23

groups.ti,ab.

24

(control or controlled).ti,ab.

25

systematic.ti,ab.

26

(searched adj3 (databases or ERIC or education research complete or education index)).ti,ab.

27

trial.ti,ab.

28

(experiment or experimental).ti,ab.

29

(Quasi experiment* or quasi-experiment* or quasiexperiment*).ti,ab.

30

time series.ti,ab.

31

21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30

32

11 and 20 and 31

33

1 and 14 and 32

34

limit 33 to yr="2017 -Current"

 

Limit to English

 

Table 7: Search terms for Scopus

Theme

Search

Search terms

( ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "parental involvement" AND school* ) ) OR ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "involvement of parent*" AND school* ) ) OR ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "participation of parent*" AND school* ) ) OR ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "parent* participation" AND school* ) ) OR ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "parent* engagement" AND school* ) ) ) AND ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( learning OR results OR tests OR exam* OR numeracy OR literacy OR math* OR reading ) ) AND ( ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( randomised OR randomized ) ) OR ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "systematic review" ) ) OR ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( quasi-experimental OR "time series" ) ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR , 2021 ) OR LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR , 2020 ) OR LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR , 2019 ) OR LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR , 2018 ) OR LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR , 2017 ) )

Publication details

Limit to English

Appendix D: PRISMA flow diagram7

A visual representation of the flow of records through different phases of the AERO family engagement study.

Appendix E: Additional studies of interest to Australian audiences

The studies below were excluded at the full-text screening stage as they did not meet the inclusion criteria for this rapid review. They are listed here as they may be of particular interest to Australian audiences as they illustrate detailed examples of family engagement or early literacy approaches.

Harwood, V., & Murray, N. (2019). Strategic discourse production and parent involvement: Including parent knowledge and practices in the Lead My Learning campaign. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(4), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1571119

Jose, K., Taylor, C. L., Venn, A., Jones, R., Preen, D., Wyndow, P., Stubbs, M., & Hansen, E. (2020). How outreach facilitates family engagement with universal early childhood health and education services in Tasmania, Australia: An ethnographic study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 53, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.05.006

Niklas, F., Cohrssen, C., & Tayler, C. (2018). Making a difference to children’s reasoning skills before school-entry: The contribution of the home learning environment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.001

Renshaw, L., & Goodhue, R. (2020). National Early Language and Literacy Strategy: Discussion Paper. Canberra, Australia: ARACY for The National Early Language and Literacy Coalition. https://earlylanguageandliteracy.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nati…

Stay up to date with AERO research & news

Subscribe form
Back to top