The term multichannel communication is usually used in a technical or marketing context. In this contribution, however, we propose to adopt it to the educational context in order to more adequately capture and understand the intricacy of family-school relations. Digital transformation has not only increased the diversity of available communication channels, including the adaptation of specific channels like messaging apps to the school context. It has also changed the quality of communication and opened new possibilities such as asynchronous exchanges or automated translations. This presentation reports findings from an exploratory study focusing on school websites as one of the first and most common digital communication channels for family-school relations. The interplay of the different channels, in particular the role of the website in this process, will be given special attention.

The importance of family-school relations and its positive effects on children’s developments is well documented (Sheridan & Moorman Kim, 2015), and various concepts focus on this connection, such as Epstein’s (1987) seminal model of overlapping spheres of influence. Overall, these models highlight communication as a key element. Family-school communication can either be perceived as being predominantly one way, i.e., schools meeting their basic obligations of informing parents about specific issues, or two-way, reflecting a partnership between the two parties (Epstein, 1987). The term partnership thereby reflects a shift in the notion of family-school relations towards a more equal footing, an approach which is rarely put into practice (among others: Olmstead, 2013).

Schools and families engage in communication both on an individual and a collective level, using a variety of communication channels such as short messages via general or school specific apps, e-mails, electronic newsletters, or websites in addition to phone calls, analogue notes, and personal contacts (Sacher, 2014). A growing body of literature suggests that digital technologies are changing and improving the way schools and families communicate with media-based contacts being considered to be more efficient, immediate, and convenient (Goodall, 2016; Bordalba & Bochaca, 2019). More specifically, school websites offer several technical features for communication and interaction, such as mail or telephone links, contact forms or chat functions. However, research shows that the potential of such technologies is rarely utilized (Taddeo & Barnes, 2016; Tavas and Bilač 2011).

To date, most of the existing empirical work focusing on the interface of family-school relations and digital media, specifically school websites, has been carried out in Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g., Gilleece & Eivers, 2018; Taddeo & Barnes, 2016). To our knowledge, no such specific studies were conducted in German-speaking countries, particularly Switzerland. More specifically, many existing studies were conducted in the context of free school choice and in countries where schools are obliged to maintain a school website, such as the UK. Contrary to this situation, Swiss schools are not obliged to have a school website and there is no free school choice for compulsory schooling. More generally, policies in Switzerland hardly regulate family-school relationships and the country’s federal structure with its three levels of policymaking contributes to a culture of interaction that is marked by personal beliefs (Ho & Vasarik Staub, 2019).

Therefore, this contribution aims to add to the fragmented body of knowledge on the use of digital media in family-school relations. It describes current practices in the use of websites by Swiss public schools and how they relate to other communication channels employed in family-school relations. We explore how family-school communication takes place through various channels and how these are interlinked. Specifically, we investigate, who (school leaders, teachers, parents) communicates what, using which channel (particularly websites, messages, phone calls, analogue notes), and to what effect.

This research adopts a multi-method approach, drawing on three sources of data: (1) Firstly, 40 school websites from four German-speaking cantons in Switzerland were analysed. The data used for this purpose were PDF-files generated from the entry pages of the respective websites, as well as the contents of the entire website. The categories for the content analysis were developed deductively and inductively following Mayring (2010). Due to the great heterogeneity of the data, the category system was developed throughout the entire analytic process. The deductive categories were based on concepts from web design (Design TLC, 2018), interactivity (Adami, 2015), multimodality (Kress, 2010), and family-school relations (Sacher, 2014). (2) Secondly, we selected eight schools and conducted in depth problem-centred interviews (Witzel, 2000) with the personnel responsible for the respective website. Interview partners mainly included school principals, in some cases also teachers and administrative staff. (3) In order to reflect the two-way nature of family-school communication, we thirdly conducted 34 short semi-standardised interviews with parents from seven schools. All interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis, whereby we again developed the category system based on data and the previously mentioned theoretical concepts. To achieve as heterogenous a sample as possible, we employed purposeful sampling with the aim of achieving maximum variation (Patton, 2015) throughout the study. In doing so, we considered the following variables for the first sample of 40 schools: location of the school (rural, intermediary, urban); structure of the school (number of locations); levels taught at the school (primary only, primary and secondary, secondary only). For the selection of the second sample of eight schools, additional features specific to the website were included, among them the integration of the school website into the municipality’s website, the use of templates, and the presence of specific content, particularly information specifically directed at parents. When selecting parents, our third sample, the consequent implementation of purposeful sampling was not possible as we relied on parents who volunteered to participate in the interviews. We conducted interviews with all parents who volunteered. While the interviews with the school staff were conducted in person, the interviews with the parents were carried out over the phone or using video calls. The interviews with school personnel lasted between 33 and 100 minutes, the interviews with the parents between 15 and 40 minutes. All interviews were transcribed and then analysed with the help of the MAXQDA software.

Schools use a diversity of channels to manage their family-school relations, whereby specific communication channels are often related to specific functions: school leaders mainly employ emails or use the website, teachers rely on messages and phone calls or personal contacts. Together these channels form an intricate structure within which changes related to the use of one channel such as the website have an influence on the use of other channels. All schools use websites as a communication channel for family-school relations. However, it is mostly used for one-way communication and interactivity is not intended, a finding consistent with previous research (Taddeo & Barnes, 2016; Roman & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2015; Tavas and Bilač 2011). Parents appreciate existing multichannel communication and highlight the importance not only of digital and personal communication, but also analogue documents for specific information such as class schedules. These findings are in accord with studies indicating that a diversity of communication methods is needed for a successful communication; there is no one size fits all approach (Christenson, 2003). Although all schools agree that running a website goes without saying (and parents equally consider it a must), we found that clarifying the website’s function and conceptualisation, particularly in relation to other communication channels, was often lacking and family-school relations were rarely systematically elaborated or based upon specific concepts. We argue that schools and/or school leaders in highly diverse contexts shaped by national, regional and local policies need to systematically think about family-school relations. Ongoing technical developments (generation of more data, e.g., through learning management systems; visibility on social media; etc.) will add to the complexity of this task not least of all due to changes in parents’ expectations towards school communication.

Adami, E. (2015). What’s in a click? A social semiotic framework for the multimodal analysis of website interactivity. Visual Communication, 14(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357214565583 Bordalba, M. M., & Bochaca, J. G. (2019). Digital media for family-school communication? Parents' and teachers' beliefs. Computers & Education, 132, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.006 Christenson, S. L. (2003). The Family-School Partnership: An Opportunity to Promote the Learning Competence of All Students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 454–482. https://doi.org/10.1521/SCPQ.18.4.454.26995 Design TLC (2018, July 11). Website Terminology: Learn How To Speak The Language. https://designtlc.com/website-terminology/ Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a Theory of Family – School Connections: Teacher Practices and Perent Involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F.-X. Kaufmann, & F. Lösel (Eds.), Prävention und Intervention im Kindes- und Jugendalter: Vol. 1. Social Intervention: Potential and Constraints (pp. 121–136). De Gruyter. Gilleece, L., & Eivers, E. (2018). Primary school websites in Ireland: How are they used to inform and involve parents? Irish Educational Studies, 37(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1498366 Goodall, J. S. (2016). Technology and school–home communication. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2016.1227252 Ho, E. S. C., & Vasarik Staub, K. (2019). Home and School Relationships in Switzerland and Hong Kong. In S. B. Sheldon & T. A. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Family, School, and Community Relationships in Education (pp. 291–314). Wiley Blackwell. Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. Olmstead, C. (2013). Using Technology to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools. TechTrends, 57(6), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0699-0 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating theory and practice (Fourth edition). Sage. Roman, T. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2015). Comparison of Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Essential Website Features and Elementary Teacher Website Use: Implications for Teacher Communication Practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2015.1092897 Sacher, W. (2014). Elternarbeit als Erziehungs- und Bildungspartnerschaft: Grundlagen und Gestaltungsvorschläge für alle Schularten (2., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783781553408 Sheridan, S. M., & Moorman Kim, E. (Eds.). (2015). Research on Family-School Partnerships Ser: v.1. Foundational Aspects of Family-School Partnership Research. Springer International Publishing AG. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=2096155 Taddeo, C., & Barnes, A. (2016). The school website: Facilitating communication engagement and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12229 Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte Interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Art. 22. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0001228