The responses show that the identified family members are GMCs, because they have some level of mathematics background. This means that for a family member to act as a GMC they should have some level of mathematical proficiency and rural families, especially parents, are always perceived to lack this proficiency (Ndlazi 1999; Msila 2012). Epstein and Salinas (2004) argue that family involvement and learners’ attitudes and behaviour towards their school activities are directly proportional to each other. This means an increase in parental involvement in educational activities can play a role in shaping learners’ behaviour during the process of teaching and learning in the classroom.
Strength-Based Paradigms: Families
In terms of mathematics learning, the information provided by the learners show clear roles played by their family members in their learning of mathematics, which in turn shape the promotion of positive attitudes and enhance meaningful learning of mathematics for the learners. From learners’ information, those with existing support and motivation from family members not only show the ability to learn mathematics, but show positive experiences and attitudes towards learning the subject, which is often overlooked in local research. The findings from the infor- mation provided by learners show that in cases where learners encounter unfavourable learning experiences within mathematics classrooms, at home these could be countered through family support and motivation to learn. Thus, the involvement of family in learners’ learning of mathe- matics helps learners to engage in the learning processes at school with positive experiences. In relation to rural education, the findings are broadly in harmony with suggestions made by Moletsane (2012) that rural areas should not be viewed through deficit lenses, instead through strength-based paradigms. The information provided by both parents and learners illustrate that in rural areas there are people who are edu- cated and have the ability to assist learners with subjects such as mathe- matics, a reason learners perform successfully and develop positive attitudes towards education. In view of the above discussion, there is a need to conduct research that examines learners’ experiences of learning within rural areas and schools, and consequently how rurality shapes learners’ learning and in turn their academic performance. Furthermore, research should also be conducted with parents within rural areas to gain an understanding of their perceptions of education, because consciously or subconsciously they do play a role in influencing their children’s inter- ests to attend school and participate in learning.
References
Atchoarena, D., & Gasperini, L. (2003). Education for rural development towards new policy responses. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) UNESCO.
Balfour, R. J., Mitchell, C., & Moletsane, R. (2008). Troubling contexts: Toward a generative theory of rurality as education research. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 3, 3.
Balfour, R. J. (2012). Rurality research and rural education: Exploratory and explanatory power. Perspectives in Education, 30(1), 9–18.
Bronfenbrenner, E. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by design and nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
De Vos, A. S., Delport, C. S. L., Fouché, C. B., & Strydom, H. (2011). Research at grass roots: A primer for the social science and human professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Ebersohn, L., & Ferreira, R. (2012). Rurality and resilience in education: Place- based partnerships and agency to moderate time and space constraints.
Perspectives in Education, 30(1), 30–42.
Epstein, J. L. (2013). Ready or not? Preparing future educators for school, fam- ily, and community partnerships. Teaching Education, 24(2), 115–118.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004). Partnering with families and communi- ties. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 12–18.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2002). Family, school, and community part- nerships. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting, 407–437.
Hlalele, D. (2012). Social justice and rural education in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 30(1), 111–118.
Human Sciences Research Council, Nelson Mandela Foundation, Education Policy Consortium (South Africa) & Education Policy Consortium (South Africa). (2005). Emerging voices: A report on education in south African rural communities. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Kainuwa, A., & Yusuf, N. B. M. (2013). Influence of socio-economic and edu- cational background of parents on their children’s education in Nigeria.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3, 10), 1–10), 8.
Masinire, A., Maringe, F., & Nkambule, T. (2014). Education for rural develop- ment: Embedding rural dimensions in initial teacher preparation. Perspectives in Education, 32(3), 146–158.
Mbabazi, P. (2015). In quest of understanding more about rural poverty and an adaptable rural growth among rural poor households in Rwanda: New reali- ties, new choices for tomorrow. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5, 7.
Mbhiza, H. W. (2017). A critical exploring of grade 10 rural learners’ experiences and attitudes towards learning mathematics in Acornhoek classrooms, Mpumalanga province. Doctoral dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Mestry, R., & Grobler, B. (2007). Collaboration and communication as effec- tive strategies for parent involvement in public schools. Educational Research Review, 2(7), 176.
Moletsane, R. (2012). Repositioning educational research on rurality and rural education in South Africa: Beyond deficit paradigms. Perspectives in Education, 30(1), 1–8.
Msila, V. (2012). Black parental involvement in south African rural schools:
Will parents ever help in enhancing effective school management. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(2), 303–308.
Mukeredzi, T. G. (2013). Professional development through teacher roles:
Conceptions of professionally unqualified teachers in rural South Africa and Zimbabwe. Journal of Research in Rural Education (Online), 28(11), 1.
Myende, P. E. (2015). Tapping into the asset-based approach to improve aca- demic performance in rural schools. Journal of Human Ecology, 50(1), 31–42.
Ndlazi, S. M. (1999). An investigation of parental non–involvement in the gover- nance of a Duncan Village school and its implications for the management of the school: A case study. Unpublished Master’s treatise, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nkambule, T. C. (2017). Student teachers’ perceptions of a Wits rural teaching experience project: What to learn and improve. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(1), 191–206.
Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. M. (2013). The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills. MDRCapter 9aaq21: Places Mandela never reached: rural schools surviv- ing against all odds.