1. Objectifs

Intentions :
The goal of this study was «to compare [the] SIFC [school-immigrant family-community] collaborative practices.» (p. 78)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«While recognizing that each of the three groups has its own characteristics, we hypothesize that there were significant differences between these three groups of interest and therefore asked the following specific research questions: Is there a difference between these groups with regard to SIFC collaboration and do these collaboration practices vary depending on the participants’ sociodemographic and socioprofessional variables?» (p. 78)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«All of the participants volunteered for this study (N = 55) and included 12 school members, 24 community representatives, and 19 immigrant families residing outside of the Montréal area.» (p. 79)

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«Our findings show that the school and community participants in our study exercised communication, decision making, and at-home learning more than they did volunteering, collaboration, and parenting. That said, all three groups declared having participated in SIFC collaboration practices according to Epstein’s model (2001), despite the absence in this model of references to such contexts as immigration, inequality, and diversity (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). It goes without saying that the notion of SIFC collaboration conveys its own specific context. Indeed, each province in Canada has its own legislation, regulations, and respective realities regarding immigration. In Québec, for example, there is much debate regarding the wearing of religious symbols in public. Schools are concerned by these issues and are connected to all societal changes. Despite the fact that the school and community participants acknowledged the usefulness of SIFC collaboration […] our results show a low level of collaboration, with some practices being sometimes used and others rarely used. Indeed, this finding corroborates those of Griffin and Steen (2010) who showed that many school counselors do not participate enough in SFC collaborations, as well as those of Larivée et al. (2019) who observed weak SFC collaboration practices in a successful school.» (p. 86)