The Current Status of the Work of The National Research Center on Rural Education Support
description
Transcript of The Current Status of the Work of The National Research Center on Rural Education Support
The Current Status of the Work of The National Research Center on
Rural Education Support
Tuesday, November 8NREA Annual Convention
Tucson Arizona
Kirsten Kainz, Jonathan Banks, Allen Murray
The National Research Center on Rural Education Support
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
National Research Center on Rural Education Support
The Early School Transition Collaborative
NRCRES: Early School Transition Collaborative
Lynne Vernon-Feagans, PIKirsten Kainz
Barbara WasikJoe Sparling
Kate GallagherSteve Knotek
Marnie GinsbergPledger FedoraSteve Amendum
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to improve the teaching strategies of rural kindergarten and first grade teachers in the areas of literacy and behavior management, with specific focus on children who have been identified as struggling learners. Our professional development focuses on Collaborative Consultation
Justification for Focus on Rural Schools• 40% of public schools are in non-metro areas
• Rural schools generally have fewer resources
• Rural teachers indicate that distance is a factor that prevents them from pursuing professional development opportunities
• Rural schools often have the inability to attract and retain high quality teachers
• Economic strategies have resulted in the closing of community schools that have forced many children to ride buses long distances.
• Most of the research about children at risk for poor school outcomes is based on studies of urban children
• Almost half of all poor children live in rural areas.
• Children in non-urban areas on average are more poor than children in urban areas
• There is some evidence that there may be different risk and protective factors in urban versus rural areas
Percent of Children Living in Poverty by Metro/Nonmetro
Risk & Protective Factors Associated with Non-Urban Life
• More maternal depression• More tobacco use• More alcohol and prescription drug
abuse• Less access to health and mental
health services• Less access and availability to
childcare• Longer distances to work and
childcare• Less access to public transportation• Fewer good jobs
Less exposure to random violent crimeMore single family homes More homes and land owned by familiesMore access to extended familyStronger connections to religious institutionsGreater sense of community
The Family Life Project: Families and Children in Rural America
• 16.5 million program project (NICHD)• Following a birth cohort of every baby born to
mothers who reside in 3 poor rural counties in North Carolina and 3 poor rural counties in Pennsylvania (oversampling for poverty and ethnicity).
• Families are followed intensively over the children’s first three years. We are in the process of applying for the renewal of the grant to follow the children into school
Why focus on the transition to school in rural areas?
• Research has shown that the first few years of school are critical for children’s later school success (Vernon-Feagans, 1996, 2004; Alexander& Entwisle, 1992)
• Children in rural areas are often “known” by teachers
• Children in rural areas have less access to resources before formal schooling
• Children in rural areas often have a rich and supportive family life that is not understood by schools
Why focus on struggling learners?
• Struggling learners are usually the ones that do not make expected progress (Pianta, 2001; Meisels, 2001)
• This emphasis on struggling learners has been highlighted through disaggregated data mandated by NCLB
• Teachers report these struggling learners are the
children who have the least success in learning and behavior.
• Teachers often attribute poor learning by students on the children’s behavior and/or their home situation.
Why focus on literacy and behavior?
• Research and teacher reports suggest that children’s behavior can facilitate or hamper learning (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
• Reading becomes the foundation for subsequent academic learning (Snow, Burns & Griffin; Vernon-Feagans, 1996)
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 high risk(6 teachers)
30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk
Year 124 teachers(n = 240)
Year 224 teachers(n = 240)
Kindergarten 1st Grade Kindergarten 1st Grade
Exp
erim
enta
lC
ontr
ol
Teacher Outcomes
• Improved literacy resources in the classroom• Improved behavior management in the
classroom• Improved literacy teaching strategies for
struggling learners• Improved teacher/child relationship with
struggling learners• Improved perceptions of teaching• Improved overall teaching strategies
Children’s Literacy Development
Vocabulary (PPVT-III)Oral Language (Wordless Picture Book Activity)Print Awareness (Concepts about Print)Sublexical Skills (CTOPP)Word ID ( WJ-DRB: Word Attack & Letter Word/ID)Reading Rate (Qualitative Reading Inventory)Reading Comprehension (Qualitative Reading Inventory)
Children’s Behavior
Problem Behaviors (Classroom Behavior Inventory)Engagement (One-on-One Observation)Independence (Classroom Behavior Inventory)Affect (One-on-One Observation)
Child Outcomes
Project REAL:The Rural Early Adolescent Learning Program:
Tom Farmer
Patrick Akos
Diane Gut
Jill Hamm
Carol Malloy
Judith Meece
Allen Murray
Laura Kovalchick
Victoria Scheaffer
Jana Thompson
Background • Carolina Longitudinal Study (4th grade into adulthood)
--Correlated risks linked to low achievement, school failure, and dropout --Supportive teacher relations and school engagement as protective
factors
• School Engagement Project / Developmental Pathways of Rural African American Youth (5th grade into high school)--Deep South, extremely high poverty (over 50% below poverty level) --Reflected findings of the CLS
• Project BEST – Transition to middle school • Rural Competence Support Program – Inservice/consultation
• Intervention Specialist Training – 50% annual turnover
Project Aims
• To promote rural students’ academic achievement and school adjustment during early adolescence by addressing academic, behavioral, and social factors
• To support rural teachers with high concentrations of subgroups of students who are at-risk of achievement difficulties (e.g., poverty, special education, minority, ESL)
• To promote parental involvement and support
Initial Research Sites • Two rural districts in Appalachian Mountains
--Virginia, West Virginia--20% below poverty, over 50% free & reduced lunch --Significant depopulation in last decade (closing of mines)
--High concentrations of low-achieving youth (not making AYP)
• Two Intervention and two control middle schools
--11 feeder elementary schools --Equivalent on standardized tests and other key variables--Randomly selected to condition--Correlated risks
End of Year Grade by Aggression
91.8 90.8 91.1
86.8 87.8 87.3
82.2 83.3 82.5
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Boys Girls Total sample
End
of y
ear g
rade
, per
cent
Low aggression
Average aggrression
High aggression
End of Year Grade by Social Affiliation
84.1
87 87.8 87.489.3
91.7 90.8
86.285.1
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Boys Girls Total sample
End
of y
ear g
rade
, per
cent
Low social aff iliation
Average social aff iliation
High social aff iliation
End of Year Grade by Popularity
83.3
86.184.8
87.9 88.3 88.2
91.990.5
88.8
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Boys Girls Total sample
End
of y
ear g
rade
, per
cent
Low popularity
Average popularity
High popularity
End of Year Grade by Parent and Child Factors
81.7 82.2 81.1
87 87.9 86.8
92.4 92.6 93
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Parentcommunicationw ith teacher
Parentmonitoring ofhomew ork
Completeshomew ork
End
of y
ear
grad
e, p
erce
nt
Rare
Sometimes
Often
Intervention Components
• Academic Engagement Enhancement
• Competence Enhancement Behavior Management
• Social Dynamics Training
• Parent Involvement
• Needs of Latino/a immigrant youth
Intervention Delivery• REAP leaders – Summer Institute
• Inservice training
• Directed consultation – weekly teams alternating between academic and social / behavioral
• Parent Involvement – (in development, planning to have 2-3 meetings around parent generated issues)
Research Design • Randomized control trial
• Phase 1 (years 1 and 2)--Dual cohorts in VA & WV--Face-to-face in year 1, phasing to technology delivery
• Phase 2 (years 2 and 3)--Single cohorts in Midwestern states (year 2)--Single cohorts in Southern states (year 3)--Face-to-face (summer institute) and technology
(videoconferencing)
• Phase 3 (year 4)--Single cohorts in Western states--technology delivery for all components
Planned Research Sites
• Phase 1 – Virginia and West Virginia
• Phase 2 – Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Carolina
• Phase 3 – Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Texas
Distance Education Program
Wally HannumJim Barber
William VealJonathan BanksMichelle Phillips
DE Year One Activities
1. Staffing & Capacity Building 1. Staffing & Capacity Building
2. Literature Review 2. Literature Review
3. Survey of Distance Education 3. Survey of Distance Education
4. Planning Research4. Planning Research
Literature Reviews
• We are currently working on three literature reviews– History of Distance Education and Distance
Education technologies in Rural K-12 – Distance Education issues and problems in
rural K-12 – Effectiveness of Distance Education in rural
K-12
What We Found
• Descriptions, project reports, opinions
• Few well-conceived, scientifically-based studies using randomly assigned participants
• Often objective or standardized outcome measures were not employed
• More postsecondary than K-12 studies
• Variety of DE types
What’s Lacking
• Enough sound experimental studies
• K-12 studies
• Rural school studies
• Studies of DE pedagogy
Survey of Distance Education Use
• Who uses DE?
• What courses?
• What technology?
• How successful?
• Additional needs?
• Barriers?
Sample
• REAP– Rural low income– Small rural
• Random sample 10% – 415 school districts– 394 participated
• 294 SRSA• 100 RLIS
AL-4
AR-14AZ-8
CA-10CO-12
CT-2
MD
FL-3
GA-8
IA-13
ID-5
IL-20IN-2
KS-16KY-7
LA-2
ME-4
MI-11
MN-9
MO-19
MS-11
MT-14
NC-4
ND-17
NE-19
NH-2
NJ
NM-6
NV-2
NY-9
OH-9
OK-31
OR-9
PA
SC-4
SD-11
TN-6
TX-45
UT-1
VA-1
WA-10
WI-4
WV-1
WY-2
HIAK-5
DE
RI
MA
VT-2
Participating States with Participation Numbers
Key Findings
• 68% use Distance Education
• 70% report need for Distance Education
• Content areas– Math– Foreign language– English– Science
Key Findings II
• Technology– Two-way video– Web-based
• Barriers– Difficulty scheduling– District does not see DE as priority– Lack of trained personnel– Difficulties in implementing DE
Planning Research
How can we use Distance Education effectively to improve achievement in rural schools?
• Listening to rural communities
• Review of DE research
• National study
• Randomized controlled trials
Research Design
• We are in the planning stages of the research design.
• The results of the survey and the literature reviews will help to guide our design.
• We are looking at sites in the North East, Midwest, West, South West, and South East in order to have a national focus.
Possible Locations & Partnerships
• New England• Southeast• Intermountain• Midwest• Southwest
Year Two Activities
1. Design Research 1. Design Research
2. Identify Participating Sites2. Identify Participating Sites
3. Secure Necessary Funding 3. Secure Necessary Funding
4. Prepare for Implementation4. Prepare for Implementation