Poppy Nash, Ph.D Departments of Psychology & Education University of York [email protected]

Poppy Nash, Ph.DDepartments of

Psychology & EducationUniversity of York

[email protected]

The YeSS! Project [Year Seven Support]Supporting vulnerable learners in

their transition to secondary school:A randomised controlled trial

A randomised controlled trail

Acknowledgements Professors Charles Hulme and Margaret Snowling, and Dr Lisa

Henderson, Dept of Psychology, University of York Dr. Barry Wright, Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,

Selby & York PCT Chris Teesdale, Behaviour Support Unit,

City of York Council J. Hartley, P. Henman, J. Kerridge, J. King, L. Lacey & S. Wilkins

City of York Council Dr. Jackie Lown, Educational Psychology Service,

Formerly City of York Council & University of Sheffield Sam Dunderdale, Cross-Phase Behaviour & Attendance

ConsultantCity of York Council

Overview

Outline of YeSS! Project

Findings pertaining to mental health indicators

Preliminary implications of findings

Future directions – what next?

Who are ‘vulnerable learners’?

For purpose of this project, ‘vulnerable learners’ refer to those who continue to struggle at school with academic and/or social aspects of education ie:

Need regular help with literacy and/or numeracy Language impairment Negative attitude towards school and learning Difficulties relating to peers/people in general Risk of being bullied (eg seen as ‘easy’ target) Shy and lacking in self-confidence

NB: No reference to those with disruptive behaviour

Supporting vulnerable learners in transition to secondary school

The need to support vulnerable learners in moving to secondary school, highlighted in evaluation of Year 6 Transition small group work in York primary schools(Nash, 2005 - City of York Council)

Whilst Transition groups in primary schools proved very effective in preparing children to transfer to secondary school, recommended that such support needs to continue in new secondary school environment, at least during children’s first term (Year 7, Autumn, aged 11-12)

Vulnerable Learners Individuals with academic difficulties are at increased

risk of social-emotional and behavioural difficulties (eg Maughan & Carroll, 2006; Terras et al., 2009)

Reported relationships between language difficulties and internalizing problems eg anxiety, depression and social withdrawal (eg Carroll et al., 2005; Lindsay & Dockrell, 2000)

Children may be especially vulnerable at times of transition...

YeSS! project Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded 18-month project

(May 2009–October 2010), to evaluate effectiveness of small group, school-based intervention programme to support vulnerable learners in transition to secondary school

10-week intervention developed by Poppy Nash and Chris Teasdale (Behaviour Support, City of York Council)

Programme piloted in 3 York secondary schools in 2007 with promising results (Nash, 2008)

Research questions – YeSS! project

1. What is impact of Year 7 intervention programme on

children’s resiliency for coping with change & challenge?

2. What is impact of Year 7 intervention programme on children’s mental health (symptoms of depression and/oranxiety)?

YeSS! project intervention programme Equips participants with strategies and skills to enable

them to cope with challenges of secondary school, ie emotional literacy, use of positive self-talk, problem-solving & relaxation techniques

Examples of positive & helpful self-talk: “I can do it!” “I’ll give it my best shot” “I tried really hard”

Examples of negative & unhelpful self-talk: “I’m rubbish at sport” “I’m so nervous” “I know I messed it up”

YeSS! project intervention programme

By enabling children to identify and change nature of negative messages they give themselves, possible to promote more positive self-perceptions, especially regarding attitudes towards learning and experiences of school and increasing self-confidence

Outline of 10-week small group intervention

Weeks 1-3: Transition to school – Managing change

Week 4: Introducing self-talk (messages we give ourselves)

Weeks 5-7: Recognising helpful & unhelpful messages we give ourselves, especially at school

Week 8-9: Choice & changing our habits

Week 10: I’m in charge of me!

Intervention programme incorporates Secondary SEAL learning outcomes for Year 7, Theme 4: Learning About Me

Design – randomised controlled trial 10 N. Yorks secondary schools, 3 groups per school

(n=247) Maximum 10 children per group (30 children per

school) Primary schools & secondary schools involved in

recruitment Parent and child consent obtained Two staff members per school trained to deliver

programme

Intervention Group

• n=82• 48 Males; 34 Females• Age 11.08-12.06• Mean age 11.52 (0.30)

Waiting List Control Group


Untreated Control Group


Participants – SEN Register

School Action

School Action Plus

Statement None

Intervention[n=82]

23.8% 10.0% 7.5% 58.8%

Waiting List[n=82]

33.3% 11.1% 4.9% 50.6%

Untreated[n=83]

26.5% 15.7% 0% 57.8%

Total[n=247]

27.9% 12.3%% 4.1% 55.7%

Participants: Identified Needs

Groups Numeracy/Literacy

Speech/Language

Negative Attitude to School

Peer relationship problems

At risk of beingbullied

Shy/Low self-confid.

Intervention Group[n=82]

66.7% 10.3% 12.8% 29.5% 30.8% 46.0%

Waiting Controls[n=82]

74.0% 14.8% 14.8% 28.4% 25.9% 43.2%

Untreated Controls[n=83]

66.3% 13.3% 9.6% 26.5% 22.9% 42.2%

Total[n=247]

69% 12.8% 12.4% 28.1% 26.4% 43.8%

Assessment across Year 7: Time 1-4

T1 •Pre-intervention assessment•September 2009

T2 •Post-intervention assessment•December 2009

T3 •Follow-up end of Spring term •March/April/May 2010

T4 •Follow-up end of Summer term•July 2010

Measures of resiliency & mental health indicators

- Sense of Mastery (MAS, Prince-Embury - RSCA)- Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ-R)- Moods and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ)- Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC-10)- Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ - Child)- Life At School Profile (LASP – Nash)

Cognitive skills- One minute maths test (addition & subtraction)- Brief spelling test (orthographic choice – 20 items)- British Picture Vocabulary Scales (BPVS – 38 items)

Children’s Communication checklist (CCC2)

Assessment battery

Symptoms of Depression (SMF) - all participants

1 2 3 40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

InterventionWaiting Untreated

Time point

Mea

n sc

ore

- SM

F

ANCOVA - T2 controlling for T1: F (2, 183) = 0.60, p > .05

ANCOVA - T3 controlling for T1: F (2, 186) = 0.23, p > .05

Symptoms of Depression (SMF)

ANCOVA (T3 controlling for T1)Group: F (2, 186) = 0.53, p > .05Gender: F (1, 186) = 0.24, p > .05Group x Gender: F (2, 186) = 4.08, p < .01


MALE FEMALE

1 2 3 40123456789

InterventionWaiting ControlUntreated Control

Time point

Mea

n Sc

ore

- SM

F

1 2 3 40123456789

10


Time pointM

ean

Scor

e -

SMF

Symptoms of Depression (SMF)

T1 T2 T30123456789

Males


Time Point

Mea

n Sc

ore

SMF

T1 T2 T30123456789

10

Females


Time Point

Mea

n Sc

ore

SMF



SMF – Item 8 ‘I hated myself’

ANCOVA (T3 controlling for T1)Group: F (2, 201) = 4.19, p < .05Gender: F (1, 201) = 0.19, p > .05Group x Gender: F (2, 201) = 5.15, p < .01

ANCOVA (T3 controlling for T2)Group: F (2, 192) = 4.30, p < .05Gender: F (1, 192) = 0.45, p > .05Group x Gender: F (2, 192) = 4.58, p < .05

T1 T2 T30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Females

InterventionWaiting ControlsUntreated Controls

Time PointM

ean

Scor

e!Ite

m 8

(SM

F)

T1 T2 T30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Males

InterventionWaiting ControlsUntreated Controls

Time Point

Mea

n Sc

ore

Item

8 (S

MF)

Correlations between outcome measuresMAS SELF MAS ADP LASP MASC SMF SDQ

Emotion

MAS Opt .67*** .58*** .54*** .03 -.40*** -.18**

MAS SELF - .65*** .61*** .03 -.27*** -.14*

MAS ADP - - .64*** .12 -.31*** -.12

LASP - - - .19** -.26** -.04

MASC - - - - .29*** .55***

SMF - - - - - .58***

Feedback from children

When asked how intervention had helped them, vast majority of children in both groups identified their increased self-confidence

Others mentioned opportunity to make friends and to share worries, eg one child said that programme had “got my worries over”

Continuity of programme in schools

All group facilitators reported that they found implementing the programme a positive and worthwhile experience

All schools involved in project have chosen to continue to run intervention programme after completion of project, some using it with older students

Implications of findings – some reflections

Need to ask why Groups A and B receiving school-based intervention, didn’t show greater benefits of being part of a nurturing and supportive group, irrespective of nature and content of intervention

Fact that ‘group benefit’ not clearly evidenced by the project, suggests that other factors may be in operation, e.g. experience of being withdrawn from usual curriculum timetable, itself may have ethical and social issues for participants concerned.

If this means antagonistic students are reluctant and unreceptive participants, overall effectiveness of intervention could be compromised (eg Shochet et al., 2001)

Implications of findings – some reflections

Whilst RCTs remain ‘gold standard’ for evidence-based research in education, how can we as researchers resolve apparent ‘clash’ of fundamental principles between differing priorities of:

- RCT methodology => randomisation + outcome

- Therapeutic group work => group dynamics + processes (ie with hand-picked participants)

Chalk and Smith (1995) identify group process rather than session content as of primary importance in group work

With hindsight, may have been more productive to randomise groups, rather than randomise individuals to the three groups

Implications of findings – some reflections In school-based interventions, critical distinction must be

made between programmes which are: skills-based (eg literacy/numeracy/language) ‘therapeutic’ in nature (eg changing perceptions/feelings)

Skills-based interventions are well-suited to particular demands of RCTs, as manualised/scripted interventions, ie can train school staff in specifics of delivering programme (eg Hatcher et al., 2006)

In contrast, psychosocial or psycho-educational interventions focus on responsive and dynamic group work, ie =>therapeutic games (eg Cheung, 2006)=>emotional coaching (eg Hromek, 2006)

What next?

This study is amongst first RCTs in UK, to investigate whether school-based, targeted intervention can increase psychological resilience of vulnerable learners during their first year at secondary school

Project has highlighted fundamental challenges in conducting: School-based transition research School-based RCT which are ‘therapeutic’ in nature

Now need to build on this experience with new project looking at resiliency of those at risk of exclusion/already excluded from school

To conclude ...

To date, intervention appears to be most effective for: Females Addressing socio-emotional needs => self-confidence and friendships

Reduction in symptoms of depression especially self-loathing, suggests intervention programme implemented in Year 7 Autumn term, plays some part in raising self-respect and enhancing self-perception of female participants

Literature suggests rising incidence of early adolescent depression (eg Gray, 2010), where girls especially prone to external locus of control and negative attributions. Year 7 intervention programme offers a means of addressing and changing these negative thought patterns, as evidenced by the findings to date

Thank you for listening!

Poppy Nash, Ph.D Departments of Psychology & Education University of York [email protected]

Documents

Transcript of Poppy Nash, Ph.D Departments of Psychology & Education University of York [email protected]