Parent-teacher communication

Communication between K-12 teachers and parents has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. Parent-teacher communication represents a primary form of parental support or involvement, elements which have recently received much attention given the connections between parental support and academic achievement. In fact, parental involvement at the K-12 level represents a major component in recent education policies at the national level.

Mazer and Blair Thompson (Western Kentucky University) published an article in the April 2012 issue of Communication Education in which they developed a scale to measure parent-teacher communication at the K-12 level. The Parental Academic Support Scale (PASS) was developed to assess the supportive interactions between parents and teachers, including the frequency of specific behaviors associated with parental academic support, parents’ perceptions of the importance of those supportive behaviors, and the modes (e-mail, face-to-face interactions, phone, etc.) of communication that parents commonly use to communicate with teachers. School districts nationwide may find this scale useful in enhancing communication between parents and teachers.

Mazer and Thompson found that parent-teacher communication centers around five different topic areas: academic performance, classroom behavior, child’s academic and social preparation for school, hostile communication between peers, and health related issues. The findings suggest that parents most frequently communicate with teachers about their child’s academic performance. Additionally, Mazer and Thompson learned that parents most frequently chose e-mail to communicate with teachers across all five topic areas. This was somewhat surprising because topic areas such as classroom behavior and hostile communication between peers are fairly complex, often requiring more delicate communication that may be accomplished more effectively via face-to-face communication. While parents used richer modes of communication such as face-to-face and phone communication to talk about behavioral, social, and health related issues to more accurately interpret the content of the messages as well as each other’s reactions, convenience was often an overriding factor in which mode parents selected to communicate with teachers.

Mazer and Thompson’s findings are useful to administrators, teachers, and parents. School superintendents can use the information from this research to advise and train teachers to communicate more effectively with parents. New communication technologies such as iPhones and iPads increase the likelihood that parent-teacher communication will continue to expand. Therefore, it is important for teachers and parents alike to consider the importance of communication in fostering relationships and, most importantly, in enhancing student success and learning.

What Makes Self-Directed Learning Effective?

In recent years, educators have come to focus more and more on the importance of lab-based experimentation, hands-on participation, student-led inquiry, and the use of “manipulables” in the classroom. The underlying rationale seems to be that students are better able to learn when they can control the flow of their experience, or when their learning is “self-directed.”

While the benefits of self-directed learning are widely acknowledged, the reasons why a sense of control leads to better acquisition of material are poorly understood.

Some researchers have highlighted the motivational component of self-directed learning, arguing that this kind of learning is effective because it makes students more willing and more motivated to learn. But few researchers have examined how self-directed learning might influence cognitive processes, such as those involved in attention and memory.

In an article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, researchers Todd Gureckis and Douglas Markant of New York University address this gap in understanding by examining the issue of self-directed learning from a cognitive and a computational perspective.

According to Gureckis and Markant, research from cognition offers several explanations that help to account for the advantages of self-directed learning. For example, self-directed learning helps us optimize our educational experience, allowing us to focus effort on useful information that we don’t already possess and exposing us to information that we don’t have access to through passive observation. The active nature of self-directed learning also helps us in encoding information and retaining it over time.

But we’re not always optimal self-directed learners. The many cognitive biases and heuristics that we rely on to help us make decisions can also influence what information we pay attention to and, ultimately, learn.

Gureckis and Markant note that computational models commonly used in machine learning research can provide a framework for studying how people evaluate different sources of information and decide about the information they seek out and attend to. Work in machine learning can also help identify the benefits – and weaknesses – of independent exploration and the situations in which such exploration will confer the greatest benefit for learners.

Drawing together research from cognitive and computational perspectives will provide researchers with a better understanding of the processes that underlie self-directed learning and can help bridge the gap between basic cognitive research and applied educational research. Gureckis and Markant hope that this integration will help researchers to develop assistive training methods that can be used to tailor learning experiences that account for the specific demands of the situation and characteristics of the individual learner.

Factors to Help Parents and Professionals Recognize Teens in Distress

Suicide is the third-leading cause of death for teens, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Now, a University of Missouri public health expert has identified factors that will help parents, medical professionals and educators recognize teens at risk for self injury and suicide.

“For many young people, suicide represents an escape from unbearable situations—problems that seem impossible to solve or negative emotions that feel overwhelming,” said Lindsay Taliaferro, an assistant professor of health sciences at MU. “Adults can help these teens dissect their problems, help them develop healthful coping strategies, and facilitate access to mental health care so their problems don’t seem insurmountable.”

Taliaferro analyzed data from the 2007 Minnesota Student Survey to pinpoint factors associated with self injury. More than 60,000 Minnesota high school students completed the survey that assessed their health behaviors. Of those who completed the survey, more than 4,000 teens (roughly the same size as the student bodies at two large high schools) reported injuring themselves in the past year. Nearly half of those who reported self injury also had attempted suicide.

“Of the teens who engaged in non-suicidal self injury, hopelessness was a prominent factor that differentiated those who attempted suicide from those who did not have a history of suicide attempts,” Taliaferro said.

Parents, teachers and medical professionals sometimes avoid talking to teens about self harm because they aren’t sure how to help, Taliaferro said.

“Adults don’t need to solve all the teens’ problems, but they should let the teens know they have safe persons they can talk to,” Taliaferro said. “Sometimes just talking about their feelings allows young people to articulate what they’re going through and to feel understood, which can provide comfort.”

Taliaferro recommends that parents strengthen connections with their teens and help foster connections between their children and other positive adult influences.

“One of the most important protective factors against teens engaging in self injury was parent connectedness, and, for females, connections with other prosocial adults also were associated with reduced likelihood of engaging in self injury,” Taliaferro said. “Parents are extremely valuable influences in their children’s lives.”

Although parents play influential roles in teens’ lives, Taliaferro said mental health professionals are the best resources for troubled teens. Medical professionals, such as primary care physicians, can also serve crucial roles by identifying teens who self injure and referring them to community support systems and mental health specialists before their behaviors escalate, Taliaferro said.

The Department of Health Sciences is part of the MU School of Health Professions. Taliaferro’s study, “Factors Distinguishing Youth Who Report Self-Injurious Behavior: A Population-Based Sample,” was published in Academic Pediatrics. She collaborated with researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, the University of Minnesota and the Pennsylvania State University.

New definition of autism in DSM-5 will not exclude most children with autism

Parents should not worry that proposed changes to the medical criteria redefining a diagnosis of autism will leave their children excluded and deemed ineligible for psychiatric and medical care, says a team of researchers led by psychologists at Weill Cornell Medical College.

Their new study, published in the October 1 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, is the largest to date that has tried to unpack the differences between the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorders in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the proposed revision in the fifth edition (DSM-5), which is expected to be published in May 2013. These manuals provide diagnostic criteria for people seeking mental-health-related medical services.

"I know that parents worry, but I don't believe there is any substantial reason to fear that children who need to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, and provided with vital services, will not be included in the new criteria in this updated manual," says the study's senior investigator, Dr. Catherine Lord, director of the Center for Autism and the Developing Brain at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital's Westchester campus, along with its affiliated medical schools Weill Cornell Medical College and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

At issue is whether DSM-5 will "capture" the same individuals diagnosed with different forms of autism by the DSM-IV. The DSM-5 proposal redefines autism as a single category -- autism spectrum disorder (ASD) -- whereas DSM-IV had multiple categories and included Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS).

Critics have particularly worried that among the excluded will be children now diagnosed with PPD-NOS and Asperger's disorder. That isn't the case, says Dr. Lord, who is also a DeWitt Wallace Senior Scholar at Weill Cornell and an attending psychologist at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. The study, the largest to date and arguably, the most rigorous, finds that when relying on parent report, 91 percent of the 4,453 children in the sample currently diagnosed with a DSM-IV autism spectrum disorder would be diagnosed with ASD using DSM-V.

Many of the remaining nine percent would likely be reincluded once a clinician can offer input, says Dr. Lord, who is also a member of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 Neurodevelopmental Disorders Work Group.

The study researchers also concluded that DSM-5 has higher specificity than DSM-IV--in their study, DSM-5 criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications.

Improving the Diagnostic Criteria

The study used three large databases to evaluate DSM-5 criteria in groups of children with DSM-IV clinical diagnoses. The analysis, which included a team of independent reviewers led by the study's lead author, Dr. Marisela Huerta of NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, relied on a standardized 96-item parent report and a clinician-based measure of autism spectrum disorder impairments.

"These two instruments were particularly well-suited for the current study because they include items based on history and current behavior, and they take into account developmental level in their design," says Dr. Huerta, an instructor of psychology at Weill Cornell and a professional associate at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. "This is consistent with DSM-5 criteria, which operationalize symptoms differently for individuals of different ages in order to account for the effect of development on ASD symptoms."

The changes proposed by DSM-5 are designed to better identify autism spectrum disorders and distinguish them from other conditions. According to Dr. Huerta, "The criteria for DSM-5 are actually more inclusive." For example, while DSM-IV criteria require evidence of difficulties related to autism prior to age 3, "DSM-5 says that a child has to show examples of unusual behavior in early childhood, with the idea that there is nothing sacrosanct about your third birthday."

Other changes proposed by DSM-5 include defining autism spectrum disorders by two sets of core features -- impaired social communication and social interactions, and restricted and repetitive behavior and interests. DSM-5 reorganizes the symptoms in these domains and includes those not previously included in DSM-IV, such as sensory interests and aversions.

The overall issue with DSM-IV was "not that a lot of people are diagnosed with autism who shouldn't be, but that there is a lot of confusion because the criteria were not very accurate," says Dr. Lord.

"DSM-5 deliberately added and organized things to try to bring in and better address the needs of people with autism spectrum disorders of all developmental levels and ages -- including girls, who were not represented as well as they should be in DSM-IV," Dr. Lord says. "The goal of DSM-5 is to better describe who has ASD in a way that matches up with what we know from research, which predicts who has the disorder and also reflects what clinicians are actually looking at."

Because of the newness of the proposed criteria, only a few studies have attempted to compare the criteria between the two DSM versions. "Our study is much broader, and it is important to note that we get very similar results when looking at three large data sets that were collected for different purposes, with diverse populations, and for various reasons," says Dr. Lord.

Study Criticizes School Improvement Grant Program

A new brief by Tina Truillo of the University of California at Berkeley and Michelle Renée of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University finds that standardized test scores are not a reliable measure for student growth and are even more problematic as a measure of whether a turnaround was successful or not, because test scores ignore social, civic and broader academic aspects of schooling.

The study found that across the country has found the the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program treats our lowest-performing schools as corporations and fails to engage educators and families in the most racially and socio-economically segregated communities. Their success or failure is tied mainly to the performance of their students on standardized tests, a new research brief finds.

Democratic School Turnarounds: Pursuing Equity and Learning from Evidence evaluated the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, which began under the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind Act and was substantially expanded by the Obama Administration as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

“The market-based character of turnaround policies diverts public attention from fundamental questions about adequate, equitable funding and the insidious effects on schools of socioeconomic and racial isolation,” the authors wrote.

Struggling schools identified in the program – mainly by student test scores – are required to implement one of four intervention models: Turnaround, Transformation, Restart or School Closure. Transformation constitutes 74 percent of the SIG schools, with turnarounds accounting for another 20 percent.

Research has continued to find standardized test scores are not a reliable measure for student growth and are only a snapshot in time. They are even more problematic as a measure for whether a turnaround was successful or not, because test scores ignore social, civic and broader academic aspects of schooling.

“The absence of community voices in the SIG policy and its literature also speak volumes about the lack of democratic input into both the development of these policies and their implementation,” the authors wrote. “The result is a federal program that is based on inconsistent definitions of successful turnarounds, that relies on faulty, test-based measures of effectiveness, and that continues to base high-stakes decisions on these measures.”

CDC study shows 54 percent decrease in teen drinking and driving since 1991

Nearly one million high school teens still drink and drive each year

The percentage of teens in high school (aged 16 and older) who drove when they had been drinking alcohol decreased by 54 percent between 1991 and 2011, according to a Vital Signs study released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nine out of 10 high school teens (aged 16 and older) did not drink and drive during 2011.

“We are moving in the right direction. Rates of teen drinking and driving have been cut in half in 20 years,” said CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “But we must keep up the momentum -- one in 10 high school teens, aged 16 and older, drinks and drives each month, endangering themselves and others.”

For the study, CDC analyzed data from the 1991-2011 national Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS). These national surveys asked high school students if they had driven a vehicle when they had been drinking alcohol one or more times during the 30 days before the survey; CDC researchers focused their analysis on students aged 16 and older.

The study also found that:

- Teens were responsible for approximately 2.4 million episodes of drinking and driving a month in 2011; some engaged in the dangerous behavior more than once a month.
- High school boys ages 18 and older were most likely to drink and drive (18 percent), while 16-year-old high school girls were least likely (6 percent).
- Eighty-five percent of teens in high school who reported drinking and driving in the past month also reported binge drinking. For YRBS, binge drinking means five or more drinks during a short period of time.

“Teens learn from adults,” said Pamela S. Hyde, the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. “That is why it is critically important that parents, teachers, coaches and all caring adults in a young person’s life talk with them early and often about the dangers of underage alcohol use as well as drinking and driving.”

Many efforts have been helping to reduce teen drinking and driving. Some of the proven, effective strategies include the laws in place in every state that make it illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under age 21 and for those under age 21 to drive after drinking any alcohol, plus the graduated driver licensing systems in every state that allow teens to gain privileges, such as driving at night or driving with passengers, over time.

Parents also have a crucial role to play in keeping their teens safe on the road. They can model safe driving behavior and can consider using tools like parent-teen driving agreements with their teens. Safe driving habits for teens include never drinking and driving, following state GDL laws, and wearing a seat belt on every trip.

Report on Success for All for English Language Learners

Success for All® is a program for students in pre-K through eighth grade that focuses on reading, writing, and oral language development. Using a whole-school improvement approach, the goal of the program is to have all students, including English language learners, reading at grade level by the end of the third grade. Does research evidence show that the program really works for English language learners?

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 30 studies of the impact of Success for All® on English language learners that were published or released between 1983 and 2012 (including 13 studies that have been released since the previous intervention report was published in July 2007). After reviewing all 30 studies, the WWC found that none meet WWC evidence standards. Therefore, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Success for All® on English language learners. Additional research is needed to determine if the program works for these students.

Read the full report.