Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Ubiquitous mobile educational data management by teachers, students and parents: Does technology change school-family communication and parental involvement?


Digital educational data management has become an integral part of school practices. Accessing school database by teachers, students, and parents from mobile devices promotes data-driven educational interactions based on real-time information. This paper analyses mobile access of educational database in a large sample of 429 schools during an entire academic year. Using learning analytics approach, the study compares students, their mothers’ and fathers’ mobile logins onto the database between schools with frequent, occasional, and no mobile (i.e., computer only) teacher access. In addition, this paper explores gender differences in parental involvement through mobile monitoring of their children’ function in school. The results supported both study hypotheses. (1) Mobile accessing of the database by teachers promoted mobile accessing of the database by their students, mothers, and fathers. It seems that ubiquitous mobile data management is a modeling process in which students and parents learn from teachers. (2) Compared to fathers, significantly more mothers used the mobile school database. Moreover, among parents-uses, mothers accessed educational data of their children significantly more frequently than fathers. The results suggest that mothers are still more actively involved than fathers in mobile monitoring of how their children function in school. The results are discussed in terms of School Community of Innovation model and technological determinism approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Avidov-Ungar, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2011). The islands of innovation model: opportunities and threats for effective implementation of technological innovation in the education system. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 363–376.

  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood. Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

  3. Benamotz, R., & Blau, I. (2015). Implications of teacher-student relationships via a social network on teaching, learning, and classroom atmosphere (pp. 3082–3085). Las Vegas, US: In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.

  4. Blau, I. (2011). Application use, online relationship types, self-disclosure, and internet abuse, among children and youth: implication for education and internet safety programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45, 95–116.

  5. Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2009). Synchronous online discussions: participation in a group audio conferencing and textual chat as affected by communicator’s personality characteristics and discussion topics (pp. 19–24). Lisbon, Portugal: In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Education - CSEDU’09.

  6. Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2012). How do personality, synchronous media, and discussion topic affect participation? Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 12–24.

  7. Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2010). Studying invisibly: media naturalness and learning. In N. Kock (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology and information systems research: A new approach to studying the effects of modern technologies on human behavior (pp. 193–216). New-York: Springer.

  8. Blau, I., & Hameiri, M. (2010). Implementing technological change at schools: the impact of online communication with families on teacher interactions through learning management system. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6, 245–257.

  9. Blau, I., & Hameiri, M. (2012). Teachers-families online interactions and gender differences in parental involvement through school data system: do mothers want to know more than fathers about their children? Computers & Education, 59, 701–709.

  10. Blau, I., & Hameiri, M. (2013). Mobile school data management by teachers and families: Innovative practices for changing educational institutions? Paper presented at the international conference of “technology, innovation and social change”. Tata Institute of Social Science. India: Mumbai.

  11. Blau, I., & Neuthal, T. (2012a). Tweeting educational technology: a tale of professional community of practice. International Journal Cyber-Society and Education - IJCSE, 5(1), 75–80.

  12. Blau, I., & Neuthal, T. (2012b). Twitter as a platform for an Israeli community of information science professionals. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 177–186.

  13. Blau, I., & Peled, Y. (2012). Teachers’ openness to change and attitudes towards ICT: comparison of laptop per teacher and laptop per student programs. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 8, 73–82.

  14. Blau, I., & Presser, O. (2013). E-leadership of school principals: increasing school effectiveness by a school data management system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1000–1011.

  15. Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2016). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture: the perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9456-7.

  16. Blau, I., Mor, N., & Neuthal, T. (2009). Open the windows of communication: promoting interpersonal and group interactions using blogs in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 233–246.

  17. Blau, I., Mor, N., & Neuthal, T. (2013). Interacting for learning: digital portfolios for a learning community in a university course. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 241–255.

  18. Blau, I., Peled, Y., & Nusan, A. (2014). Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge in one-to-one classroom: teachers developing “digital wisdom”. Interactive Learning Environments. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.978792.

  19. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011a). Collaboration and psychological ownership: how does the tension between the two influence perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 14, 283–298.

  20. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011b). Media choice for intra-school communication: the role of environment, user, and medium. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(4), 337–360.

  21. Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 159–201.

  22. Dror, Y., Gershon, S., & Blau, I. (2012). Learning with technology: A survey of Israeli youth on the role of technology in teaching and learning. Research report. The College of Management Academic Studies. Rishon Le-Zion, Israel. Retrieved Mar 29, 2016 from http://www.colman.ac.il/research/research_institute/Israel_project_Digital/Documents/Israelis_digital_eng_.pdf

  23. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22.

  24. Fishel, M., & Ramirez, L. (2005). Evidence-based parent involvement interventions with school-aged children. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 371–402.

  25. Forkosh-Baruch, A., Mioduser, D., & Nachmias, R. (2010). Cross-case analysis of innovative pedagogical practices using technology, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education Technology and Computer - ICETC (pp. 603–607). China: Shanghai.

  26. Fuchs, I. (1995). Change - a way of life in schools. Tel-Aviv: Cherikover publishers [in Hebrew].

  27. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 24–28.

  28. Hango, D. (2007). Parental investment in childhood and educational qualifications: can greater parental involvement mediate the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage? Social Science Research, 36, 1371–1390.

  29. Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 624–636.

  30. Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership matters. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

  31. Harris, A., Jones, M., & Baba, S. (2013). Distributed leadership and digital collaborative learning: a synergistic relationship? British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 926–939.

  32. Ho, L.-H., Hung, C.-L., & Chen, H.-C. (2013). Using theoretical models to examine the acceptance behavior of mobile phone messaging to enhance parent-teacher interactions. Computers & Education, 61, 105–114.

  33. Jamerson, J. (2013). E-leadership in higher education: the fifth “age” of educational technology research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 889–915.

  34. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). Effects of parental involvement and family structure on the academic achievement of adolescents. Marriage & Family Review, 37, 99–116.

  35. Kaplan Turan, N. (2004). Parental involvement, self esteem, and achievement among junior high-school students. Doctoral Dissertation: Department of Education, University of Haifa, Israel [in Hebrew].

  36. Lamb, M. E. (2010). How do fathers influence children’s development? In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of father in child development (5th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

  37. Lewin, C., & Luckin, R. (2010). Technology to support parental engagement in elementary education: lessons learned from the UK. Computers & Education, 54, 749–758.

  38. Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership the uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 581–597.

  39. Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works, striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

  40. Moorman Kim, E., Coutts, M. J., Holmes, S. R., Sheridan, S. M., Ransom, K. A., Sjuts, T. M., & Rispoli, K. M. (2012). Parent involvement and family-school partnerships: Examining the content, processes, and outcomes of structural versus relationship-based approaches. Meta-analysis. Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools (CYFS). Retrieved Mar 29, 2016 from http://cyfs.unl.edu/docs/working_papers/CYFS_Working_Paper_2012_6.pdf

  41. Nye, D. (2007). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  42. Peled, Y., Blau, I., & Grinberg, R. (2015). Does 1:1 computing in a junior high-school change the pedagogical perspectives of teachers and their educational discourse? Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning-IJELL, 11, 257–271.

  43. Perelman (2014). What are the relationships between teachers’ engagement with management information systems and their sense of accountability? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 217–227.

  44. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 ed.). New York: Free Press.

  45. Rosenthal, T. L., & Bandura, A. (1978). Psychological modeling: Theory and practice. Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: An Empirical Analysis, 2, 621–658.

  46. Selwood, I., & Visscher, A. (2007). The potential of school information systems for improving school performance. In N. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of education systems. Berlin: Springer.

  47. Selwyn, N. (2015). Data entry: towards the critical study of digital data and education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 64–82.

  48. Selwyn, N., Banaji, S., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C., & Clark, W. (2011). Providing a platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school learning platforms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 314–323.

  49. Shamir-Inbal, T. & Blau, I. (in press). Developing digital wisdom by students and teachers: the impact of integrating tablet computers on learning and pedagogy in an elementary school. Journal of Educational Computing Research.

  50. Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Bovaird, J. A., & Kupzyk, K. A. (2010). Parent engagement and school readiness: effects of the getting ready intervention on preschool children’s social-emotional competencies. Early Education and Development, 21, 125–156.

  51. Taylor, R. T. (2010). Leadership to improve student achievement: focus the culture of learning. Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 7(1), 10–23.

  52. Turner, E. (2010). Technology use in reporting to parents of primary school children. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 40(3), 25–37.

  53. Weiser, O., Blau, I., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2016). The role of pedagogy, media, and students’ personality in synchronous learning: Comparing face-to-face and video conferencing participation. In Proceedings of the 10th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference- INTED2016 (p. 5005). doi: 10.21125/inted.2016.0226. Valencia, Spain.

  54. Williamson, B. (2015). Digital education governance: data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy, (ahead-of-print), 1–19. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1035758.

  55. Yoder, J. R., & Lopez, A. (2013). Parent’s perceptions of involvement in Children’s education: findings from a qualitative study of public housing residents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30(5), 415–433.

  56. Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

  57. Zuckerman, O., Blau, I., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2009). Children’s participation patterns in online communities: an analysis of Israeli learners in the scratch online community. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 263–274.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Ina Blau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blau, I., Hameiri, M. Ubiquitous mobile educational data management by teachers, students and parents: Does technology change school-family communication and parental involvement?. Educ Inf Technol 22, 1231–1247 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9487-8

Download citation


  • Ubiquitous mobile educational database
  • Teachers, students, and parents
  • Gender differences in mobile parental involvement
  • Distributed leadership and accountability
  • School Community of Innovation model
  • Technological determinism