Martine van der Pluijm

76 Chapter 3 hectic work with children. Eight teachers considered reciprocal relationships to be feasible, but two teachers (8, 10) were less positive regarding feasibility. They explained that they had older pupils (aged 7 and 8, grade 2) that usually came to school without their parents. Due to this situation, teachers had little opportunity to have informal dialogues with these parents. Another teacher in grade 2 (teacher 4) did not experience this limitation. Although arranging regular interactive activities with parents required teachers to overcome barriers, most teachers evaluated this fourth principle as compatible, feasible, and relevant. Most teachers were used to inviting parents in their classroom and felt that these activities improved their existing practice (e.g., higher numbers of parent involvement, more focus). Two teachers (8, 10) experienced the principle as less compatible and feasible. One teacher (10) mentioned that it was more difficult to guide children in this age group (grade 2) when their parents were in the classroom. The other teacher (8) decided to stop participating because he did not feel comfortable in actively engaging parents. Six teachers reported that stimulating the language strategies, the fifth design principle, was compatible, feasible, and relevant. Teacher (10) evaluated the compatibility and feasibility less positively for the same reason as above. She did however value the relevance of this principle. Perceived successfulness of the prototype After implementation of the fifth principle, seven teachers evaluated the successfulness of the prototype. All teachers experienced substantial improvements in their SFPs on language support. Examples of progress weremore intentional partnerships, more meaningful exchanges with parents about child support, more parental support to interact with the child, and more confident children. A teacher: “ I see parents who come here every week. We have the same aims; we want to support their child in communicating. And I see children growing during these moments.” The teachers who implemented the complete version of the prototype reported that its principles and tools contributed to their performance in their daily practice as a teacher. A teacher (7) said: “It’s my daily routine, but better.” Another teacher (9) said: “ It gives me words to tell what I do or want to do. ” However, some teachers struggled. They became more aware of the diversity of parents’ backgrounds and the complexity of the partnership. A teacher: “ I see parents who talk more with their child, which is progress. But I also see where parents come from. They aren’t used to the role we ask them to play. They need time to get used to that role.” Suggestions for optimization of the usability Teachers suggested improving the usability of the prototype by adjusting their school intake procedure and focusing more on parental backgrounds and their HLE (first design principle). Teachers also suggested using the class inventory list again later during the school year to complement initial overviews with new impressions about the HLE. Most teachers felt that intentional SFP procedures (second design principle) should be part of school policy and could