Martine van der Pluijm

73 Creating partnerships – a formative evaluation Table 3.3 shows that practically all teachers convincingly implemented the first three design principles and applied the tools. All teachers gathered information about parental backgrounds (educational levels, literacy skills, home language) and used the class inventory list to assess the HLE of the pupils. Three teachers (1, 5, and 9) managed to fully assess the nature of verbal parent-child interactions (e.g., richness of language use, language activities) that were included in the class inventory list. However, most teachers needed more knowledge and support to implement the principle. We therefore arranged more (2 to 4) coaching cycles than initially planned. All teachers developed and executed plans with SFP procedures for their classroom (e.g., informal contacts, introductory conferences, weekly parent-child activities). Most teachers managed to establish reciprocal relationships with parents. They showed inviting behavior in informal contacts with parents but needed more (2 to 4) coaching cycles than planned. Teachers were more open when parents entered the classroom when bringing their child (being visible for parents, making eye contact, greeting both child and parent). Teacher 9 and 10 did not set up introductory conferences with parents to build reciprocal relationships. These teachers worked at a school that did not include these conferences as part of school policy and lacked the necessary conditions (e.g., no extra time or support). Not all teachers were able to successfully implement the last two design principles and use the tools. Eight teachers (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10) arranged regular interactive parent-child activities and used the parent-child activity checklist. Two teachers (5, 6) did not implement this design principle and decided to stop further participation. These teachers had fewer parents in their classroom with very low education levels (29% respectively 14% with primary school and less) compared to populations of the other teachers (at least 35%). One teacher (8) did not feel comfortable in his new role of actively engaging parents. The other seven teachers implemented the design principle as intended, including explaining to parents why and how the activity could be stimulating for children and modeling. However, most teachers had to overcome two major barriers. First, some teachers had initial feelings of hesitation and uncertainty to start explaining and modeling to parents. Second, we observed that, although the seven teachers reported that they had adapted their parent-child activities to the needs of lower-educated parents’ needs, they decreased their use of these tailored parent-child activities during the testing afterwards. We noticed that teachers needed more encouragement to develop suitable parent-child activities. After extra coaching, the seven teachers developed activities that were more adapted to the parents and children (e.g., Memory). In some classrooms, these activities were less related to the home environment. Regarding the fifth design principle, seven teachers (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10) showed the intended behavior and used the guidelines. One teacher (10) showed less modeling behavior to stimulate interaction. Instead, she directed children and parents to choose books to talk about and explained why talking about books contributed to children’s language development.