The Communication Barriers Between Teachers and Parents in Primary Schools
The Communication Barriers Between Teachers and Parents in Primary Schools
The Communication Barriers Between Teachers and Parents in Primary Schools
Fatma OZMEN
Cemal AKUZUM
Muhammed ZINCIRLI
Gulenaz SELCUK
Suggested Citation:
Ozmen, F., Akuzum, C., Zincirli, M., & Selcuk, G. (2016). The communication barriers
between teachers and parents in primary schools. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 66, 26-46
http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.66.2
Abstract
Problem Statement: In educational institutions, the effectiveness of
communication between teachers and parents, in terms of student
achievement and attendance, has a great importance. Parent-teacher
communication provides multi-faceted benefits to teachers, the school,
and parents as well. However, various obstacles hinder the realization of
effective parent-teacher communication in school settings.
Purpose of Study: The main purpose of this study is to determine the
communication barriers between parents and teachers, based on the views
of primary school teachers. This study is seen as important since it
addresses the barriers in communication, which is seen as vital for
achieving educational aims effectively. Effective communication provides
achievement and improvement by providing support to parents, students,
teachers, and schools and promoting appropriate environments.
Method: This research is a survey type descriptive study. Due to the
stratified and random type sample formation, 850 teachers were
considered to be taken into the research sample; however, 514 of the
distributed questionnaires were found valid. The data collection tool used
‡This paper was presented at the Ist Eurasian Educational Research Congress.
Prof. Dr., Trakya University, [email protected]
Corrsponding author: Asst. Prof. Dicle University, [email protected]
Doctoral Student. Fırat University Institute of Education Sciences,
[email protected]
Teaching Assist., Celal Bayar Univesity, [email protected]
28 Fatma Ozmen, Cemal Akuzum, Muhammed Zincirli & Gulenaz Selcuk
Introduction
In fulfilling an efficient education in education organizations, communication not
only among the school managers, teachers, and students, but also with students’
parents bears a great importance. Especially communication between teachers and
parents regarding students’ performance in the class bears vital importance in better
understanding students’ problems, increasing parents’ support in education,
performing effective counselling and guidance, and ultimately increasing students’
motivation and success.
The existing parent-teacher communication studies generally approach the issue
from two aspects. The first covers teacher-parent relations and contributions of
parents to school communities and organizational activities, whereas the second one
covers studies about parents’ support of students’ academic development (Rogers et
al., 2009). Consequently, teacher-parent relations bear an increasing importance for
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 29
Cultural differences can create communication barriers if the teachers reflect their
own cultural perspectives while interacting with the parents from a different
language and culture (Colombo, 2004). In order to deal with this potential
miscommunication, teachers should begin a quest for knowledge to help them
understand their students’ parents’ language and cultural differences (Lai &
Ishiyama, 2004). Along with gaining knowledge of cultural features, trying to
understand cultural differences and values seems to be important from the aspect of
dealing with communication barriers (Karadeniz, 2015; Kasahara & Turnbull, 2005).
Negative school experiences of parents can also constitute a barrier in their
communication with teachers. Schools should be able to provide guidance service to
help parents to manage these kinds of psychological problems (Finders & Lewis,
1994; Hartman & Chesley, 1998). This guidance service should encourage the parents
to seek help and get information related to the issues they worry about, to
understand the improvement level of the class, to grasp the teachers’ approach to
education, and to learn how to behave under what conditions. Providing the parents
with this kind of knowledge can create dual effects by decreasing parents’ negative
thoughts about school on one hand and increasing their interest in the school on the
other (Graham-Clay, 2005).
Economy-related issues and time constraints are seen among the elements that
hinder effective communication. It is reported that especially working parents do not
have enough time to cooperate with school. Besides, since most of the school-parent
meetings converted into money demanded places, most of the parents from poor
economic conditions refrain from attending these meetings (Finders & Lewis, 1994;
Seyfullahogullari, 2012; Terek et al., 2015). To cope with this, teachers can conduct
surveys to determine the work schedules of the parents at the beginning of the school
year; they can even inform parents about how and when they can communicate with
teachers. A study should be conducted on how the communication hours can be
made flexible to enable parents to attend the school or class meetings (Molland,
2004).
Also, lack of technology can limit communication opportunities. The new
technologies that provide convenience, efficiency, and effectiveness in knowledge
transfer have an important force in the development of parent-teacher
communication (Zieger & Tan, 2012). However, teachers shouldn’t think that all
parents have access to such technology, and so, they should investigate whether they
can benefit from the new technology. On the other hand, most teachers and parents
are still unable to make use of technology efficiently, and they give weight to
traditional paper-and-pencil-based communication (Graham-Clay, 2005).
Using technical terminology in communication with parents at the school level
seems to pose a general communication barrier. Teachers should observe their own
speech and make sure that they omit educational jargon from written
communications. If it is a must to use technical terms, the meaning of them must be
explained. Messages that are given to the parents in face-to-face communication
32 Fatma Ozmen, Cemal Akuzum, Muhammed Zincirli & Gulenaz Selcuk
should not be above the parents’ understanding capacity (Williams & Cartledge,
1997).
As a result, efficient communication is necessary for creating school-parent
cooperation and increasing parent contribution. Teachers should not only be skilled
in the art of teaching, but also should improve their knowledge and skills towards
efficient communication with the parent community. There are numerous
communication means that teachers can benefit from, such as internet technology,
private interviews, conferences, group meetings, and the like. Teachers should strive
to develop communication strategies, new cooperative communication methods
should be established, and these efforts should reflect a planned approach (Graham-
Clay, 2005).
Caspe (2003) argues that teacher training and professional development
programs must actively support improvement of teachers’ communication skills.
Implicit in the wish for improving teacher-parent communication is the expectation
that parent attendance will contribute to the improvement of student success and
realization of an efficient education (Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Virginia Department of
Education, 2002). Studies about strengthening teacher-parent communication show
that it can increase students’ success in school and prevent the occurrence of
disciplinary problems in the school as well (Aslanargun, 2007).
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the communication barriers between
parents and teachers based on the views of primary school teachers in terms of
various variables.
Method
Research Model
The research is a survey type descriptive study. Descriptive studies aim to
explain the interaction between situations by regarding their relation with previous
events and conditions (Kaptan, 1998). In this context, it was tried in this study to
describe the factors that prevent teacher-parent communication.
Research Sample
The space of the study consisted of 3,968 teachers who worked at 317 elementary
schools within the boundaries of Elazig city during 2011–2012 academic year. The
sample size was calculated as 350 with a reliability level of 95% based on Cochran’s
(1962) formula. A total of 15 schools were chosen randomly, with three schools from
each of the five education districts in Elazig city center. In addition, a total of six
schools—two randomly chosen schools from each randomly chosen three central
towns—from the central town set were included in the sample. Thus, questionnaires
were distributed to a total of 806 teachers from 21 elementary schools. 514 of the
returned questionnaires that were filled properly were taken into consideration by
the study (Table 1).
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 33
Table 1.
The Schools Included in the Sample and the Numbers of Returned Questionnaires
Number of
Number of
Primary Schools Returned
Teachers
Questionnaires
Salim Hazardagli 64 25
Bahcelievler Bahcelievler 65 42
24 Kasim 10 11
Vali Lutfullah Bilgin 48 30
Firat Yahya Kemal Beyatli 36 23
45 39
School Districts
Palu YIBO 15 10
Palu
Palu Yavuz Selim 17 14
Karakocan Nuri Özaltin 24 15
Karakocan
Karakocan Cengiz Topel 23 15
Total 21 806 514
The distribution of the teachers according to their genders indicates that 42.2% of
the sample are female teachers and 57.8% are male. Regarding the branch variables,
77.4% of the teachers are in social sciences, 14.8% are in physical sciences, and 7.8%
are in arts/special talents. By work year variable, 56.8% of teachers have “5 or fewer
years,” 37% have “6–15 years,” and 6.2% have “6 and more years” (Table 2).
34 Fatma Ozmen, Cemal Akuzum, Muhammed Zincirli & Gulenaz Selcuk
Table 2.
Demographic Qualifications of Teachers Who Participated in the Study
Demographic Qualifications Groups N %
negative connotations, and the reverse scoring for the positive ones. On the basis of
these dimensions, the responses of the subjects were computed regarding the mean
ranks as ≥ 4.20 always, 4.19 ≥ ≥ 3.40 generally, 3.39 ≥ ≥ 2.60 sometimes, 2.59 ≥
≥ 1.80 rarely, and ≤ 1.79 never.
Data Analysis
Data obtained from research were first entered to SPSS (Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences) package software, and the demographical features of the sample
group were analyzed by means of this software. Pursuant to the results of
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Z test for normal distribution, the Levene test for the
homogeneity of the scale, independent t test for gender variable, ANOVA for branch
variable, Kruskal-Wallis H test for work years of the subjects at schools, and the
Least Significant Difference (LSD) test and Mann-Whitney U test for assessing the
meaningful differences were computed.
Results
On the basis of the teachers’ opinions and with the purpose of determining the
preventive factors for the realization of efficient communication between teachers
and parents, the obtained findings are interpreted below.
Results and Interpretations Related to Gender Variable
Pursuant to the independent sample’s t test, there is no significant difference
between female ( A =3.68) and male teachers’ ( B =3.62) [t(512) =1.29, p>.05] views
regarding “personal” barriers (parents’ prejudices towards school, illiteracy of
parents, concern about hearing negative comments about children, parents’ problems
with school management, and so on). This finding indicates that, although female
teachers have encountered more personal barriers, male and female teachers are
exposed to a similar number of personal obstacles at the “generally” level. Other
“socio-cultural” barriers (parents’ religious affinity, poor socio-economic conditions,
low level of education, parents’ tendency to find their children very successful);
“accessibility” barriers (not stating the needs and opinions openly, not paying
attention to the teacher, inaccessibility of parents when they are needed, insufficient
amount of time devoted to the parents, not talking easily with the parents about their
children at any time); and “field and status”-related barriers (distance of residential
address of the parents, the lack of appropriate spaces in the school to talk with
parents, social status differences between teachers and parents, working at the same
school with some parents, and so on) have been experienced at the “rarely” level
without any significant difference (Table 3).
36 Fatma Ozmen, Cemal Akuzum, Muhammed Zincirli & Gulenaz Selcuk
Table 3.
Data Distribution According to Gender Variable on the Basis of Dimensions
Dimensions Groups N S sd t p
*p<.05
Table 4.
Data Distribution According to Branches Variable on the Basis of Dimensions
Source Significant
of Sum of Mean Difference
Dimensions Groups N Variance Squares SD Square F p (LSD)
Between
A) Social 2.071 2 1.036
398 3.62 Groups
Sciences
B) Physical
Personal 76 3.67
Sciences 2.90 .06
Barriers Within
C) Fine 182.794 511 .358
Groups
Arts/Special 40 3.85
Talent
Total 514 3.65 184.865 513
Between
A) Social 2.754 2 1.377
398 2.33 Groups
Sciences
Socio-
B) Physical
Cultural 76 2.24 A-C
Sciences 3.25 .04*
Barriers Within B-C
C) Fine 216.288 511 .423
Groups
Arts/Special 40 2.56
Talent
Total 514 2.34 219.041 513
Between
A) Social 1.377 2 .689
398 2.09 Groups
Sciences
B) Physical
Accessibility 76 2.23
Sciences 2.51 .08
Barriers Within
C) Fine 140.358 511 .275
Groups
Arts/Special 40 2.12
Talent
Total 514 2.11 141.735 513
Between
A) Social .406 2 .203
398 2.45 Groups
Sciences
Field and B) Physical
76 2.45
Status Sciences .72 .49
Within
Barriers C) Fine 143.454 511 .281
Groups
Arts/Special 40 2.55
Talent
Total 514 2.45 143.859 513
*p<.05
Results and Interpretation Regarding Work Year Variable
The analysis of the data revealed that teachers’ opinions relating to “personal”
barriers differed significantly by their work years in school [χ2(2) =19.318, p< 0.05]. As
a result of multiple comparisons that were performed through a Mann-Whitney U
test, this difference seems to occur in groups that have “5 years and less” and “6–15
38 Fatma Ozmen, Cemal Akuzum, Muhammed Zincirli & Gulenaz Selcuk
years” of work in the school. This finding shows that teachers’ years of work in the
school have an impact on the rate of their encountering personal barriers. When the
mean rank of the groups is regarded, it is seen that the “5 years and less” work year
group encounters the most barriers, and it is followed by “6–15 years” and “16 years
and more” groups respectively.
It is understood that there is no significant difference related to other “socio-
cultural,” “accessibility,” and “field and status” related barriers. However, it is seen
that teachers with “5 years and less” work years have encountered socio-cultural
barriers at the highest level; this is followed by teachers with “16 years and more”
and “6–15 years” of work experience. Further, teachers with “16 years and more” of
work experience have encountered accessibility barriers the most, and it is followed
by teachers with “5 years and less” and “6–15 years” work year experience. Related
to “field and status” barriers, it is seen that teachers with “5 years and less” work
experience have encountered the most barriers, followed by teachers who have “6–15
years” and “16 years and more” work experience (Table 5).
Table 5.
Data Distribution According to Work Year Variable on the Basis of Dimensions
Significant
difference
Mean (Mann
Dimensions Work Experience N Rank sd χ2 P Whitney U)
A) 5 years and less 292 282.14 A-B
Recommendations
School managers and teachers should have knowledge about the socio-economic
and cultural structure of parents’ environments in order to increase communication
with them. Besides, school managers and teachers should develop an open-door
policy for parents and the parents should be encouraged to visit the school as much
as possible. Thus, while parent support can be obtained more easily on one hand, the
cooperation opportunities will be created on the other to improve the students in all
aspects.
Schools should plan parents’ meeting at the beginning of the instructional year,
announce the meeting schedule and agenda to parents, and secure a suitable place,
time, and environment for meetings.
In this study, personal barriers were mentioned at the “generally” level. In order
to eliminate personal barriers, prejudices towards the school and teachers should be
eliminated, and a relationship that is based on mutual trust and tolerance should be
developed.
In establishing communication with parents who do not have the ability to speak
Turkish well, the assistance of other school members should be obtained, in case the
class teacher is incapable of understanding them. The meeting time with parents
should be arranged pursuant to parents’ availability and should be used efficiently.
In order to eliminate communication barriers that art/special talent branches
teachers encounter, the importance of these branches for personal development
should be explained well, and psychological consultancy and guidance should be
obtained on this subject. The assistance of experienced teachers to the novice teachers
should be ensured in establishing a good communication between parents and
teachers. Besides traditional communication methods such as face-to-face and
written communication, electronic communication (mobile phones, social network,
and computer environment) should be utilized efficiently as well.
Under the leadership of the National Education Ministry and universities,
various informative and educational programs with the goal of improving teacher-
parent communication should be organized.
In order to perform teacher-parent communication efficiently and develop a
sustainable cooperation, a schoolwide mechanism should be built where preventive
factors to efficient communication are identified and ways to overcome them are
sought systematically.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 41
References
Acikalin, A., & Turan, S. (2015). Okullarda etkili iletisim [Effective communication in
schools]. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
Aslan, B. (1984). Relationships between school and family at primary education level in
central districts of Ankara. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hacettepe
University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
Aslanargun, E. (2007). The review of literature on school-parent cooperation and
students’ school success. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, (18), 119-135.
Aytac, T. (2000). Egitim yönetiminde yeni paradigmalar: Okul merkezli yonetim [A new
paradigms in educational administration: School-based management].
Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
Basaran, S., & Koc, F. (2000). Ailenin cocugun okuldaki egitimine katilim sorunlari ve
katilimin saglanmasi icin alternatif bir model [Participation issues of families to
education in the school and an alternative model for enabling families to
participate to education]. Ankara: MEB Department of Educational Research
and Improvement.
Bursalioglu, Z. (2008). Okul yonetiminde yeni yapi ve davranis [New structures and
behaviors in school management]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
Buyukozturk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabi [Handbook of data
analysis for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
Caspe, M. S. (2003). How teachers come to understand families. The School Community
Journal, 13(1), 115-131.
Celik, N. (2005). The problems faced in school-parents relationship. Unpublished Master's
Thesis. Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul.
Cengil, M. (2016). Youth and inter-family communication-The Case of Çorum
Anatolian Religious Vocational High School. Hitit University Journal of Social
Sciences Institute, (1), 119-136.
Cevis, M. (2002). The evaluation in ideal and practical level by administrators, teachers and
parents of school-family cooperation at the primary schools in Denizli. Unpublished
master’s thesis. Pamukkale University Institute of Social Sciences, Denizli.
Ceylan, M., & Akar, B. (2010). Evaluation of teachers’ and parents’ views on school-
family cooperation in high schools (Karacasu High School given as example).
Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of Institute Social Sciences, 2, 43-64.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd Ed.). New York: Wiley.
Colombo, M. W. (2004). Family literacy nights…and other home-school connections.
Educational Leadership, 61(8), 48-51.
Finders, M., & Lewis, C. (1994). Why some parents don’t come to school. Educational
Leadership, 51(8), 50-54.
42 Fatma Ozmen, Cemal Akuzum, Muhammed Zincirli & Gulenaz Selcuk
Ogan, M. (2000). School, the communication between-family association and the parents,
expectations of parents (The cases of Omer Seyfettin high school and Hamdullah
Suphi primary school). Unpublished master’s thesis. Ankara University
Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
Olcer, N., & Kocer, S. (2015). Organizational communication: A survey on the
academic staff at Kocaeli University. Global Media Journal TR Edition, 6(11),
339-383.
Ozel, A., Bayindir, N., & Ozel, E. (2014). Barriers preventing parents from receiving
educational feedbacks about their children according to classroom teachers: A
city sample of Kutahya. Anthropologist, 17(1), 183-189.
Ozyurek, L. (1983). My child’s teacher (a little review about the relationship between
parent-teacher). Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal,
16(2), 61-76.
Porsuk, A. (2010). Denizli elementary school administrators' opinions on problems faced
during school-family relations. Unpublished master’s thesis. Pamukkale
University Institute of Social Science, Denizli.
Rogers, M. A., Theule, J., Ryan, B. A., Adams, G. R., & Keating, L. (2009). Parental
involvement and children’s school achievement. Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, 24(1), 34-57.
Sabuncuoglu, Z., & Gumus, M. (2008). Orgutlerde iletisim [Communication in
organizations]. Ankara: Arikan Publishing.
Saritas, M. (2005). Ogretmen veli gorusmelerinin yonetimi [Management of parent-
teacher interviews]. In: M. Sisman & S. Turan (Eds.), Sınıf yonetimi [Classroom
management] (pp. 233-262). Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
Schussler, D. L. (2003). Schools as learning communities: Unpacking the concept.
Journal of School Leadership, 13(5), 498-528.
Sever, S. (1998) Language and communication (effective oral and written expression).
Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal, 31(1), 51–66.
Seyfullahogullari, A. (2012). A Research study on the expectations of parents from
kindergartens. The Journal of Marmara Social Research, (2), 1-15.
Sisman, M., & Turan, S. (2004). Egitim ve okul yonetimi [Education and school
managemet]. In: Y. Ozden (Ed.), Egitim ve okul yoneticiligi [Education and
school leadership] (pp. 99-146). Ankara: Pegem A Publications.
Terek, E., Nikolic, M., Gligorovic, B., Glusac, D., & Tasic, I. (2015). The impact of
leadership on the communication satisfaction of primary school teachers in
Serbia. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 73-84.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331.
44 Fatma Ozmen, Cemal Akuzum, Muhammed Zincirli & Gulenaz Selcuk
Atıf:
Ozmen, F., Akuzum, C., Zincirli, M., & Selcuk, G. (2016). The communication barriers
between teachers and parents in primary schools. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 66, 26-46
http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.66.2
Özet
Problem Durumu: Eğitim kurumlarında etkili eğitimin gerçekleştirilmesinde
okullardaki yönetici, öğretmen ve öğrenciler yanında öğrenci velileriyle kurulan
iletişim büyük önem taşır. Özellikle sınıf içindeki öğrenci performansına ilişkin
öğretmen ve veliler arasında kurulan iletişim öğrenci sorunlarının daha iyi
anlaşılması, velilerin eğitime olan desteklerinin artırılması, etkili yönlendirme ve
rehberlik yapılması ve nihayet öğrenci güdülenmesinin ve başarısının artırılmasında
yaşamsal önem taşır. Etkili iletişim, güçlü okul-aile işbirliğini yaratmak ve veli
katılımını artırmak için gereklidir. Öğretmen sadece öğretme sanatında beceri sahibi
olmamalı, aynı zamanda kendi veli topluluğuyla etkili iletişime yönelik bilgi ve
becerisini de geliştirmelidir. Öğretmenlerin yararlanabileceği internet teknolojisi,
velilerle özel görüşmeler/konferanslar ve okul ile ev iletişimine yönelik birçok
iletişim olanağı vardır. Öğretmenler, velilerle iletişim kurmak için, iletişim
stratejilerini ve işbirlikli yeni iletişim yöntemlerini kullanma konusunda çaba sarf
etmeli ve bu çabalar planlı bir yaklaşımı yansıtmalıdır.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 45