Communication Strategy: Family, School, and Community Partnerships by acemyhomework

Communication Strategy: Family, School, and Community Partnerships Part A: Case Study Loko is aged nine years old. She and her parents immigrated from China five years ago. She speaks Chinese at home but is also fluent in English. She is from a poor socioeconomic background. Both her parents are casual workers at a local food processing factory. They hardly attend the parent-teacher conferences as they are busy fending for the family. They hardly assist her with homework because they have a poor educational background. Loko is rated as a belowaverage learner. She has difficulties reading because she has problems identifying speech sounds and can hardly decode letters and words. She, however, has strong visual and spatial reasoning skills, thus she better understands math concepts that are taught through the use of manipulative or visual approaches.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

Nonetheless, she still has challenges understanding concepts of time and sequence. She is, however, obedient and does not break class rules. Her engagement with peers during play is limited, but she appears frightened and remains silent when they are scolded. She is one of the two bilingual children in her class and has a few friends. She hardly initiates play with peers but is an active player when included in a team. She remains silent when asked something she does not know and answers when she is sure about the question. She frequently misses hygiene items and has inadequate meals. Sometimes she appears withdrawn and zoned out during class and disinterested in learning. Her grades have been significantly low, and there is concern that she is not attaining the required learning and development milestones at her level. Part B: Analysis of the Case Study from a Theoretical Basis My view of childhood and learning is that each development stage forms the basis for subsequent learning, and a supportive school and home environment is fundamental in supporting learning (Christiansen et al., 2018). A family's socioeconomic status and support influence the child's learning behavior and academic outcomes (Devenish et al., 2017). The case of Loko is analyzed through the theoretical lens of Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Model, Cultural, community, and educational capital, and evolutionary view. According to VelezAgosto et al. (2017), bioecological development has been advanced by Urie Bronfenbrenner. It posits that the development among humans is a transactional process, whereby the individual's development is influenced by their interactions with various aspects of the environment. Regarding the way children learn, the bioecological model posits that children's relationship with their parents or caregivers significantly influences their learning and development (Murphy, 2020). Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Model

Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory focuses on the child's setting's quality and environment to promote learning (Eriksson et al., 2018). In the case of Loko, who is from a poor socioeconomic background and is facing learning difficulties too as she is below average. The model posits that as the child develops, interactions with the setting become complex, and this complexity could arise as the child's cognition, and physical features develop. In the case of Loko, her learning and understanding are affected by the poor socioeconomic background as she lacks all the resources she needs to enable her to learn. As posited in the model, the individual's environment is categorized into five different levels: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem (Manning, 2019). As affirmed by Bronfenbrenner, Loko's learning and development are affected by all aspects of their environment and the microsystem in the system closest to the person they have direct contact with (Walker et al., 2019). In Loko's case, the microsystem is the home and school environment that affects her learning. Secondly, the mesosystem is comprised of the interactions between the various parts of the microsystem. In Lokos' case, the parents hardly attend the school conferences to learn about her progress, which negatively affects her learning. Loko's parents are not active in her school matters, which negatively impacts her development because the elements in the microsystems are not working together (Manning et al., 2017). Further, the exosystem refers to a setting that does not consider the individual as an active participant but impacts them (Hong et al., 2021). These include decisions that affect the learners but do not impact the decision-making process. An example in Loko's case is her parents' work setting, which is impairing their participation in her learning. The macrosystem includes the attitudes and ideologies of the culture and how they impact learning (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2013). Cultural, Community, and Educational Capital

The child's engagement in learning is considered a critical success factor for learning. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital affirms how the school's management can boost the child's education (Sullivan, 2008). In the case of Loko, she is one of the two multicultural learners in the classroom, and this disadvantages her from learning because of poor cultural capital (Fielding, 2000). There is limited evidence of the child's consideration for her culture as a tool for learning. Fundamentally, the cultural, community, and educational capital approach to children learning is based on the perspective that cultural capital impacts educational inequality since the type of child background determines the learning opportunities available and outcomes (Rogoff et al., 2017). Loko's family engagement in community activities is limited, and there are restricted encounters that promote learning. An Evolutionary View The third model on an evolutionary view regarding children's learning considers multiple perspectives such as memory, perception, and language to promote the learning experience and overall outcomes (Estévez-Mauriz et al., 2020). Loko has poor mastery of language and memory, and these are affecting her academic outcomes. Part C: Application of a Communication Framework The Key Principles That Underpin the Action Plan The fundamental principles underpinning the action plan are focused on building a collaborative framework among all the stakeholders to promote the child's learning (Hong et al., 2017). The communication framework's fundamental principles include developing communication, partnerships, collaboration, decision-making, and school culture to build an action plan for fostering interaction with the parent/s from Loko's case study. The action plan is focused on addressing factors of the bioecological model that are lacking in the child's case,

which is hindering her learning. The plan also includes strategies to integrate cultural, community, and educational capital and processes to develop the child's memory and language (Logan et al., 2017). The Action Plan Itself The action plan entails creating opportunities for the child to learn, enhance collaboration between the stakeholders to promote the child's learning (Ber et al., 2019). The plan entails nurturing a favorable home environment and positive parenting where parents are engaged in school activities such as attending parent-teacher conferences. The program also involves creating a supportive school, work, and religious setting for the child's learning. Lokos' parents will be more engaged in the child's education if their workplace is more accommodative in providing a flexible work environment (Kilpatrick et al., 2020). Neighborhoods and communities can also be engaged in the child's learning when they are allowed to participate in such community-based learning contexts (Harrington et al., 2019). The teacher will include learning activities that promote cultural diversity and inclusion for children from minority ethnic communities such as Loko. Further, the teacher will assign homework tasks that the child will complete with her parents to foster enhanced collaboration in learning. Enacting the Plan The plan will be enacted to address in response to concerns about the student's learning difficulties. Loko's academic performance is below average and has continued to decline. The position is attributed to a lack of a supportive home environment for learning and poor collaboration between the family and community in the child's education (Porter, 2008). Therefore, the classroom teacher will enact the plan in partnership with the school administration devising a plan whereby Loko's teachers participate in her learning. The school offers a

supportive context for learning (Tali Tal, 2004). The child's parents will be invited to school to discuss their child's progress, and the teacher will present the collaborative plan for learning to the parents. The plan will be reviewed from time to time to determine how it impacts the child's learning.

References Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas–Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138, 130-145. Christiansen, A., Hannan, S., Anderson, K., Coxon, L., & Fargher, D. (2018). Place-based nature kindergarten in Victoria, Australia: No tools, no toys, no art supplies. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21(1), 61-75. Eriksson, M., Ghazinour, M., & Hammarström, A. (2018). Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice?. Social Theory & Health, 16(4), 414-433. Estevez-Mauriz, L., Forssén, J., Zachos, G., & Kropp, W. (2020). Let the Children Listen: A

First Approximation to the Sound Environment Assessment of Children through a Soundwalk Approach. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(12), 4185. Devenish, B., Hooley, M., & Mellor, D. (2017). The pathways between socioeconomic status and adolescent outcomes: A systematic review. American Journal of community Psychology, 59(1-2), 219-238. Fielding, M. ( 2000) Community, philosophy and education policy: against effectiveness ideology and immiseration of contemporary schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 15(4), 397-415. Harrington, C. N., Borgos-Rodriguez, K., & Piper, A. M. (2019, May). Engaging low-income African American older adults in health discussions through community-based design workshops. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-15). Hong, J. S., Hunter, S. C., Kim, J., Piquero, A. R., & Narvey, C. (2021). Racial differences in the applicability of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model for adolescent bullying involvement. Deviant Behavior, 42(3), 404-424. Hong, S. B., Shaffer, L., & Han, J. (2017). Reggio Emilia inspired learning groups: Relationships, communication, cognition, and play. Early Childhood Education Journal,45(5), 629-639. Kilpatrick, S., Burns, G., Barnes, R. K., Kerrison, M., & Fischer, S. (2020). Parents matter: Empowering parents to inform other parents of post-year 10 pathway options in disadvantaged communities. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 30(3), 21-35.

Logan, K., Iacono, T., & Trembath, D. (2017). A systematic review of research into aided AAC to increase social-communication functions in children with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(1), 51-64. Manning, R. F. (2017). Place-consciousness and Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model: A discussion of recurring issues that undermine the teaching of indigenous histories in New Zealand and Australian schools. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 46(2), 148. Murphy, M. C. (2020). Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model: a theoretical framework to explore the forest school approach?. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 23, 191-205. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Foreword: Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to frame quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 2-8. Porter, L. (2008). Teacher-parent collaboration: Early childhood to adolescence. Aust Council for Ed Research. Rogoff, B., Coppens, A. D., Alcalá, L., Aceves-Azuara, I., Ruvalcaba, O., López, A., & Dayton, A. (2017). Noticing learners’ strengths through cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 876-888. Sullivan, A. (2008). Cultural capital, cultural knowledge and ability. Sociological Research Online, 12(6), 91-104. Tali Tal, R. (2004). Community‐based environmental education—a case study of teacher–parent collaboration. Environmental Education Research, 10(4), 523-543. Velez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., &

García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving culture from the macro into the micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 900-910. Walker, M., Nixon, S., Haines, J., & McPherson, A. C. (2019). Examining risk factors for overweight and obesity in children with disabilities: a commentary on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework. Developmental neurorehabilitation, 22(5), 359-364.