Acceptability of a Preventative Coping and Connectedness Curriculum for High School Students Entering Accelerated Curricula

Stress Among Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Students

Perceived stress reflects stress experienced subjectively after one’s set of resources to deal with a given challenge are taxed (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), while environmental stressors reflect the cumulative number of objective external events experienced (e.g., death of a family member, family move) that pose a threat to one’s well-being (Grant et al., 2003). The majority of research about the effects of elevated stress among youth has historically focused on adolescents at risk for dropping out of school, and has documented an inverse relationship between stress and quality of mental health (Galaif et al., 2003). Because of these established associations, the effects of stress on AP and IBD students’ mental health have been of interest (Shaunessy et al., 2006; Suldo & Shaunessy-Dedrick, 2013b). These studies showed relative differences between students in accelerated high school courses and general education courses such that AP and IBD students, by comparison, were more academically successful and have fewer in-school behavior problems (Shaunessy et al., 2006; Suldo & Shaunessy, 2013a) and have levels of emotional health (e.g., life satisfaction, internalizing symptoms of distress) that parallel those seen in normative samples of U.S. high school students (Suldo et al., 2018). Nevertheless, students in AP and IB students have significantly higher levels of perceived stress when compared to students in general education, even after accounting for personality and socioeconomic differences (Suldo et al., 2008; Suldo & Shaunessy-Dedrick, 2013).

Stress experienced by AP and IBD students stemmed from a relatively unique source of environmental stressors—academic demands, which referred to an overwhelming academic workload comprised of an extensive daily amount of homework and concurrent complex projects, combined with pressure to succeed (Feld, 2011; Milburn, 2011). In contrast, typical teenagers were more likely to experience academic struggles, including poor grades, challenges with course content, teachers, and a mix of social and transitional issues (e.g., Byrne et al., 2007). The responses to stress that AP and IBD students experience included chronic fatigue (Foust et al., 2008); maladaptive coping strategies, such as sleep deprivation, substance use, cognitive withdrawal, and self-isolation (Milburn, 2011); and emotional distress (Suldo et al., 2009). In prior research of IB and Pre-IB students, greater stress pertinent to academic requirements was strongly associated with more internalizing symptoms of mental health problems, reduced life satisfaction, and more externalizing problems (Suldo et al., 2009). Notably, the magnitude of these correlations was significantly lower among general education students. Such findings suggested that students in accelerated programs may be more sensitive to manifesting adverse effects of stress than peers not pursuing accelerated curricula, underscoring the need for educators to act proactively and provide these learners with skills to avoid the deleterious outcomes associated with stress.

Recent research provided a nuanced understanding of the stress, coping responses, and mental health of AP and IBD students (Suldo et al., 2018). Suldo and colleagues investigated predictors of academic success and mental health of 2,379 AP and IB students in Grades 9–12 from 20 AP and IBD programs in 19 high schools throughout one Southeastern state. The sample included sizeable numbers of students from groups historically underrepresented in AP and IB, with regard to race/ethnicity (i.e., about 12% of participants were African American, 12% Hispanic, and 13% multiracial; the remainder of the students were Caucasian [49%] or Asian [14%]) and socioeconomic status (i.e., 28% were eligible for free or reduced-price meals; about 37% of mothers and 44% of fathers did not have college degrees). Among the findings, most AP and IBD students performed well in their classes (about 75% had a grade point average at or above a “B” average; ≥ 3.0 on a 4-point scale), and by their own accounts, did well emotionally though more students appeared to be at risk for mental health concerns than might be expected given their positive academic adjustment. For example, on measures of general mental health, approximately 35% of the participants did not indicate positive levels of life satisfaction, and about 15% reported elevated symptoms of emotional or behavioral problems (Suldo et al., 2018). Regarding emotional experiences at school, more than 70% of students reported symptoms of school burnout, indicating they felt overwhelmed, inadequate, or cynical about the meaning of school (Suldo et al., 2018).

Factors Associated With Academic Success and Mental Health for Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate Students

Recent research has attempted to discern what factors predict AP and IBD students’ academic success and mental health (Suldo et al., 2018). These predictors included those considered malleable, or those that may be “changed by the education system to improve student education outcomes” (Institute of Education Sciences, 2017, p. iv). The malleable predictors Suldo et al. identified were strategies used by students to cope with academic demands; aspects of students’ engagement within and outside of school; and perceptions of eustress (i.e., “desirable, and advantageous response to a stressor” [Branson et al., 2019, p. 321]) and authoritative parenting. These factors explained variability in AP and IB students’ outcomes (course grades and AP/IB exam performance) even after accounting for the robust effects of prior achievement (academic skills in middle school) and family socioeconomic level (Suldo et al., 2018).

With regard to strategies used by students to cope with academic demands, the category of approach coping was one of the critical predictors of better student outcomes (Suldo et al., 2018). Approach coping included six strategies: (a) time and task management; (b) seeking academic support from educators, tutors, and study groups; (c) seeking support from family; (d) positive thinking and other forms of cognitive reappraisal; (e) turning to spirituality, if applicable; and (f) relaxation (Suldo et al., 2015). In contrast, Suldo and colleagues (2018) identified different ways of coping that predicted poor mental health and/or academic outcomes. These coping strategies included avoidance and isolation. Avoidance strategies include (a) taking shortcuts, such as cheating in class or copying a classmate’s homework; (b) using illicit substances, such as alcohol, drugs, or another person’s prescription medications; (c) excessive sleeping; (d) abandoning schoolwork; and (e) skipping school (Suldo et al., 2015). In previous research of AP and IB students, isolation appeared as a typical form of retreating socially from one’s community, friends, and family to handle one’s problems independently, or to navigate difficulties without the assistance of others (Shaunessy-Dedrick et al., 2015).

In addition to coping, multifaceted student engagement emerged as a significant predictor of better outcomes among AP and IBD students. In particular, positive mental health outcomes and academic success were associated with students’ cognitive engagement and motivation, while affective engagement predicted better mental health outcomes (Suldo et al., 2018). Behavioral engagement, indicated by participation in structured extracurricular activities, yielded more modest associations with life satisfaction and academic outcomes when considered alongside other forms of engagement it promotes such as school connectedness (affective engagement). These findings about predictors of AP and IBD students’ outcomes aligned with previous research documenting motivation (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2013) and cognitive engagement (Robbins et al., 2006) as predictors of positive academic outcomes among college freshmen. Similarly, Blackburn’s (2018) discussion of rigor called for educators to address motivation through prompting students to consider the value of what they are learning.

Need for Affective Curriculum for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Diploma Students

Accelerated high school coursework allows students the opportunity to learn advanced concepts and content while earning college-level credit. Students in accelerated high school courses, such as Advanced Placement (AP) or courses within the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IBD) program, reported enjoying courses that are academically demanding, learning with others who have similar goals and abilities, and learning from educators who provide stimulating learning experiences (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2014). Colleges and universities often recognized AP and IBD coursework as rigorous (Kolluri, 2018; Perna et al., 2015), and, depending on a student’s performance on end-of-course AP or IBD exams, may award advanced standing (College Board, 2021; IBO, 2019). Despite these academic benefits associated with AP and IBD, students enrolled in these courses experience stress, which has been notably greater and qualitatively different from stress experienced by students who do not enroll in accelerated courses (Suldo & Shaunessy-Dedrick, 2013a). These differences in perceived stress between students in accelerated curricula and students in general education coursework are not present prior to high school, but can be detected by the end of the first semester of high school (Suldo & Shaunessy-Dedrick, 2013b).

Academic stress among students enrolled in AP and IBD, as well as the negative consequences of such stress on mental health and academic burnout, has become better understood in recent years (Shaunessy et al., 2006; Suldo & Shaunessy-Dedrick, 2013b). Negative sequelae of stress stemming from heightened academic demands include diminished personal happiness (life satisfaction), chronic fatigue, and reliance on maladaptive coping strategies (Feld & Shusterman, 2015; Foust et al., 2008; Leonard et al., 2015; Suldo et al., 2008, 2015). The absence of an appropriate social-emotional learning program to address the academic and affective needs of AP and IBD students also has emerged as a concern (Suldo et al., 2016). Such a program would prepare students to cope with the demands unique to the AP/IBD context (i.e., academic workload and achievement pressure), would provide instruction in the specific coping strategies and other resilience factors such as student engagement and eustress that predict success among AP/IBD students, and would be developmentally appropriate (i.e., for high school freshmen, as compared to youth starting college at a typical university). Taken together, the elevated, unique nature of AP/IBD students’ stress and potential consequences of unmanaged academic stress underscored the need for a multifaceted universal prevention intervention appropriate for this population.

The factors associated with success in AP and IBD that are arguably the most amenable to classroom-based instruction included skills in coping with academic stressors and/or engaging with school (e.g., managing time, engaging in extracurricular activities). Of the established coping interventions examined in peer-reviewed studies, many focus on perceived stress, which may be elevated for many AP and IBD students due to academic stressors, but few programs directly address management of academic stress or were created for use with high school students (Suldo et al., 2016). In comparison to the limited literature on coping applicable to students in AP and IB, even less was known about how to increase student engagement or motivation during the high school years for individuals not at imminent risk for school drop-out. Notably, none of the existing coping interventions addressed all six effective coping strategies that have been linked with AP, IBD, or Pre-IBD student success (Suldo et al., 2018); instead, interventions focused on a particular aspect of approach coping such as relaxation (e.g., through mindfulness strategies) or time and task management.

In sum, research-based social-emotional curricular supports for high school students in accelerated curricula are limited in the literature. The paucity of these supports was critical given the aforementioned stress elevations among AP and IB students, links between perceived stress and diminished mental health, and links between diminished mental health and reduced academic outcomes, such as GPA (Suldo et al., 2011), and lower rates of post-secondary education (Breslau et al., 2008). Having established a need for curricular supports for high school students in accelerated curricula, a critical next step involved determining if such curricular supports in the form of a universal intervention would be perceived by stakeholders (e.g., students, teachers, counselors, parents, etc.) as an acceptable approach to address this need. In the following section, the construct of curriculum acceptability is discussed.

Curriculum Acceptability

Studies pertaining to intervention development typically focus on the degree to which the intervention addresses a behavior of concern. A critical consideration for any intervention in schools is also an assessment of an intervention’s acceptability prior to implementation (American Psychological Association [APA], 2002; Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2014; Erchul & Sheridan, 2014; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2010). Within the study of social validity, acceptability was the extent to which individuals deem an intervention as acceptable, fair, and reasonable for the problem under consideration (Lakin & Shannon, 2015). Research about treatment acceptability indicated teachers were more likely to choose an intervention if it aligned with their teaching philosophy (Carter & Pesko, 2008), and teachers were more likely to rate an intervention as acceptable if the treatment was minimally intrusive (Carter, 2007), if the intervention procedures were familiar to teachers (Han & Weiss, 2005), and if the intervention was easy to implement (Rademaker et al., 2021). Treatment acceptability has become widely recognized as foundational to “fair and ethical treatment” (Elliot, 2017, p. 271) in the delivery of services for children. Further, soliciting practitioner reactions to interventions were viewed as beneficial in informing the subsequent planning process for treatment implementation and were recognized as a step that can affect treatment fidelity and stakeholder outcomes (Elliot, 2017).

Despite these benefits, investigations of social validity—particularly acceptability—have not been as widely explored in the literature (Hurley, 2012; Tsai & Kern, 2020), as have effects of interventions. Researchers (Carter, 2007; Strohmeier et al., 2014) have lamented the fact that such investigations were rarely the primary goal of research, which they viewed as a missed opportunity since explorations of social validity—including acceptability—“can provide researchers with valuable information regarding the sustainability potential of the intervention” (Rademaker et al., 2021, p. 2). While acceptability can be assessed prior to and following intervention implementation, all too often, researchers have assessed acceptability after an intervention has been deployed and finalized (Carter & Wheeler, 2019; Hurley, 2012). Waiting until the intervention was finalized to solicit this critical input about the intervention can “seem too little too late since it is important to involve important stakeholders, like teachers from the beginning, and not after the job is already done” (Rademaker et al., 2021, p. 3). In this paper, at multiple points in the implementation process of the intervention we explored stakeholders’ views of whether the intervention was appropriate for addressing accelerated students’ academic stress and reasonable for use in high school classrooms (Carter, 2007).

Historically, acceptability research has been conducted in what (State et al., 2017) termed an indirect manner with mostly elementary school teachers. State and colleagues emphasized that there are no studies to date that documented teacher ratings throughout the process of intervention implementation. Whereas State and colleagues’ work focused on adolescent social and emotional behavior, their observations have relevance beyond their discipline. A limitation of State and colleges’ work was that while high school students were recipients of a behavioral intervention, only teachers’ perspectives were solicited about the acceptability of the intervention, when in fact students’ views may have added a critical dimension to the understanding of acceptability.

Evaluations of acceptability via participant and stakeholder ratings have been recommended to gain a broad understanding of the intervention (Lakin & Shannon, 2015). Raters may have included students, parents, teachers, administrators, and others associated with those implementing or receiving the intervention, all of whom may have viewed the intervention differently. Increasingly, researchers included voices other than, or in addition to, the teacher in examining aspects of social validity. For example, Worthen and Luiselli (2017) investigated high school students’ satisfaction and approval of a 10-week mindfulness intervention program, and (Tomaino et al., 2021) examined aspects of social validity through surveying parents and educators of students with severe developmental disabilities and high behavioral needs about the feasibility and effectiveness of distance learning programs during COVID-19.

Study Purpose

To address the social-emotional needs of AP and IBD students addressed in the literature, we designed an affective classwide intervention that targets ninth-grade students enrolled in accelerated courses and piloted this intervention in two schools. Hereafter, we discuss the classwide intervention as a curriculum because of its classroom context. This pilot stage was intended to inform us of the acceptability of the curriculum based on input from multiple reviewers prior to, during, and following the pilot intervention. This pilot stage served as an informational development stage in the curriculum design process that preceded a subsequent larger efficacy study (in progress; also see Ferron et al., 2021). In this pilot stage, we answer the question: Do stakeholders see this curriculum as an acceptable investment of instructional time in supporting high school students in accelerated curricula?

Setting

The social-emotional curriculum consisted of a classwide intervention (i.e., a universal intervention) for ninth-grade students enrolled in AP and Pre-IB Diploma courses and was comprised of 12 50-minute modules as well as a follow-up intervention specifically for accelerated students who needed more one-on-one support (i.e., a selective intervention) in managing academic stressors. We selected ninth-grade students for the intervention based on the input of our local educational partners, which included district leaders, educators, and students involved with AP and IBD. Students, especially, emphasized the need for early intervention as students entered these accelerated programs and encountered academic stress during the first semester of high school. A long-term plan for AP and IBD student support included annual booster sessions to reinforce the central underpinnings, though these were not the focus of this paper.

Following an ecological model of environmental supports for students (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Kelly, 1966), the classwide program included training of AP and Pre-IBD teachers in the philosophy and co-facilitation of the classroom intervention with the intervention development team. The teacher training materials mirrored those of the student curriculum in content, skills, activities, and media, and included facilitation guidance, notes about empirical research support for program content, and optional learning extensions. In tandem with the classwide program, parents were offered two information sessions after school hours that provided an overview of the goals of the student program and information on cultivating a home environment to promote student success. This pilot study was part of a larger, multi-year study. During this pilot year, we implemented the newly developed intervention in two school settings and we sought user feedback about the curriculum; in a subsequent year, we conducted an efficacy study involving more school sites and classrooms and investigated the effects of the curriculum on targeted outcomes. This paper focuses on the acceptability of the classwide curriculum (i.e., intervention) during the pilot year.

Development of a Preventative Coping and Connectedness Curriculum for Accelerated High School Students

Development of the classwide curriculum occurred in four stages: (a) conceptualization, (b) development, (c) refinement, and (d) reduction. These stages evolved specific to the project goals; a work plan developed by the research team, a partnering school district, and stakeholders at four district schools; and cooperation among the research team and various stakeholder groups. Students were introduced to advanced content on coping and engagement not typically examined within the high school curriculum (e.g., recognizing eustress; investing in and initiating relationships; and recognizing one’s role in making concerted plans to manage stressors). The curriculum also included a discussion of prior research findings and a tutorial on statistical correlations to provide students with a foundational understanding of the basis for the coping strategies discussed. In this sense, the content of the curriculum was above grade level due to the reading level of the materials as well as the depth and complexity of the issues and content explored. Scholars in gifted education have emphasized that advanced content and concepts are appropriate for learners who demonstrate the need for above-level academic opportunities (Callahan, 2006; Callahan et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2007; VanTassel-Baska, 2001). Furthermore, the curriculum meets the NAGC (2019) Curriculum Planning and Instruction Standards, as it provides “advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, and complex content,” and addresses both cognitive and affective needs of gifted learners (p. 10). The curriculum also included interdisciplinary connections and advanced processes, as well as opportunities for metacognition, all of which can be meaningful elements of curriculum for gifted learners (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006).

To the greatest extent possible, the curriculum maintains a balance between active and didactic learning experiences, the inclusion of collaborative problem-solving, group tasks, and individualized learning experiences to maintain student interest and challenge as appropriate for the intervention content and the students’ developmental levels and abilities (VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Twelve modules, each approximately 50-minutes, also aligned with the recommended practices for social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula in that the learning experiences were sequential, active, focused, and explicit (SAFE; Durlak et al., 2011). Students learned about strategies identified through research with AP and IBD students (Suldo et al., 2018) that have been shown to be effective (approach strategies) and ineffective (avoidance, isolation/handle problems alone) ways to cope with academic demands. Students rehearsed these through role plays, discussion, and self-assessment. Table 1 presents module titles and objectives for the curriculum, titled Advancing Coping and Engagement (ACE).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Advancing Coping and Engagement (ACE) Universal Curriculum Modules and Objectives.

#	Module title	Module objectives
1	Adjusting to AP/IB	Identify sources of stress, how it affects the body and mind.
		Identify advantages of AP/IB from former AP/IB students.
2	Factors Related to AP/IB Students’ Success, Spotlight on Coping and Engagement	Identify the factors that affect a student’s path towards success.
		Define academic coping: behaviors, styles, and usefulness.
3	School Engagement: Increasing Pride in your School and AP/IB Program	Increase school pride by identifying the positive aspects of their school.
		Identify the connection between personal goals and AP/IB classes.
4	School Engagement: Relationships with Teachers, Peers, and Others at School	Determine the benefits of forming affective connections at school.
		Initiate and maintain relationships with their teachers and peers.
5	School Engagement: Investing in Extracurricular Activities	Identify the benefits of participating in extracurricular activities.
		Identify extracurricular activities in which students can become involved.
6	Coping with Academic Stress: Time and Task Management (Organizing Your Task List)	Identify stressors, and use a problem-solving process to select effective coping styles; Identify time and task management strengths and weaknesses.
		Learn and practice using 5 of 6 core strategies (e.g., organize, list, prioritize).
7	Coping with Academic Stress: Focusing on the Work and Limiting Procrastination	Learn how to stay focused on academic tasks and limit procrastination.
		Develop a personal time and task management action plan.
8	Coping with Academic Stress: Seeking Support from People at Home, School, and Spiritual Community	Understand importance of turning to others when feeling stressed.
		Develop strategies for seeking support from multiple sources.
		Identify barriers to support seeking, learn how to overcome these obstacles.
9	Coping with Academic Stress: Relaxation and Positive Thinking	Understand multiple relaxation techniques useful in regulating emotions.
		Use positive thinking strategies when faced with academic stressors.
10	Coping with Academic Stress: Limiting Use of Ineffective Coping Styles	Understand negative consequences associated with ineffective coping.
		Develop strategies for changing ineffective coping behaviors.
11	Promoting Eustress and Review of Coping and Engagement Tools	Understand positive and negative aspects of stressors.
		Apply the problem-solving process to common stress situations.
		Learn strategies for savoring successes.
12	Strengths, Values, and Goals	Identify one’s signatures strengths and personal values.
		Generate a plan for attaining future goals by using ACE program targets.

Refinement of the Advancing Coping and Engagement Curriculum

Multiple informants provided feedback on the ACE modules during the development stage in year one (2015–16). Informants included students (n = 181), teachers (n = 23), and parents (n = 13) of students attending two schools (Schools A and B in Table 2), as well as two consultants with content expertise in coping and student engagement. As shown in Table 2, a diverse sample of students took part in the development work; more than half of student participants at each school identified as members of minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Student focus groups generated feedback about module content, wording, and learning experiences. Students particularly valued the inclusion of authentic teaching cases. Both teachers and parents identified “The Coping Chart” (see Figure 1) as a helpful tool for summarizing effective and ineffective responses to academic stressors. Building on feedback received from all stakeholders, the design team created additional teaching cases and updated the student materials, teacher facilitator guide, and associated instructional materials, including additional information about using the Coping Chart (see Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Demographics of School Populations and Student Participants in the Development and Implementation of the ACE Program.

Variable	Curriculum Development (2015–16)				Curriculum Implementation (2016–17)
	Total School Population		Student Participants		Total School Population		Student Participants
	A (N=2,278)	B (N=1,697)	A (N=102)	B (N=79)	C (N=1,639)	D (N=2,355)	C (N=155)	D (N=176)
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Female	51.4	51.7	63.7	67.1	52.0	51.3	59.4	60.2
FRL	47.8	75.0	-	-	43.9	21.2	-	-
Race/Ethnicity	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White	43.7	9.3	46.1	20.2	46.8	63.1	48.1	61.1
Hispanic	37.8	54.7	15.7	53.2	22.8	23.6	22.7	24.0
Black	5.4	29.2	10.7	20.2	14.5	6.3	1.9	3.0
Asian	7.7	1.4	23.5	<1.0	7.4	2.4	15.6	3.6
Multiracial	5.0	5.2	-	-	8.2	4.2	9.7	6.6
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	-	-	<1.0	3.8	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0
American Indian/Alaska Native	< 1.0	< 1.0	-	-	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0	<1.0
Other	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.3	0.6

Note. FRL = Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. For Curriculum Development Year 1, 10 students did not complete the race/ethnicity questions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Coping chart for high school students in AP/IB classes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Responding to academic stress: Coping behaviors and styles (additional information for back of coping chart).

Procedures for the Pilot Study

We partnered with two different high schools (C, D) in the same district to implement the ACE curriculum in 2016–2017. In July 2016, we provided a two-day summer institute for 11 educators from Schools C and D to review the ACE curriculum. Following this professional development/training, ACE was implemented at each site during the fall semester in 15 classes (6 Pre-IBD in School C, with 3 classroom teachers; 9 AP in School D, with 2 teachers) that served predominantly ninth-grade students ¹ . In line with the sequence of modules displayed in Table 1, we implemented the first 10 Modules throughout the fall semester (August–November), followed by Modules 11 and 12 at School C in late November. School D was unable to redirect additional instructional time for Modules 11 and 12. Modules were facilitated on a weekly basis, primarily on Tuesdays or Wednesdays according to the school’s alternating day schedule (School C) or on Thursdays (School D). In a given week, each module was repeated 15 times, with different combinations of research team members and teachers taking lead and support roles in the delivery of content. In each combination of three adults, delivery was led by one of four members of the university research team (a faculty member in gifted education, two post-doctoral fellows in school psychology, and a doctoral student in school psychology). The classroom teacher co-facilitated by contributing to discussions and activities. The third adult present was an additional research team member (doctoral students and a university faculty member in school psychology) prepared to co-facilitate and provide individual assistance to students as needed but who primarily observed student reactions to activities. Immediately after delivery of a module, students provided acceptability data via surveys (discussed below).

We also invited all parents of students in the 15 classes to attend two parent information meetings. We held Parent Session 1 in September, approximately one month after the beginning of the academic year, then Parent Session 2 about two months later (November). During Session 1, we provided parents an overview of the purpose and features of the ACE curriculum, while in Session 2 we shared information about parenting practices and home environments associated with student mental health and academic success.

Participants

The 11 educators who took part in the summer institute included 6 AP and IBD teachers, 3 school mental health staff, and two Assistant Principals of Curriculum. Five teachers sought student participation and parent permission from all ninth-grade students enrolled in a state-approved Pre-IBD course, Inquiry Skills (School C), or AP Human Geography (School D). We invited students who returned signed parent consent forms to take part in the portions of the larger study that involved collection of personal and confidential data (e.g., assessment of student mental health and academic outcomes across time, as analyzed in studies reported elsewhere [O’Brennan et al., 2020; Parker et al., 2019; Suldo et al., 2019]) while all students in the classrooms where ACE was implemented were invited to provide anonymous feedback on their perceptions of the curriculum. A total of 331 ninth-grade students agreed to participate in the larger study (participation rate = 93.0%; 3.6% of parents declined consent; 3.4% of students did not return parent consent forms). As shown in Table 2, about 48% and 61% of student participants were White while more than half of participants from School C and 39% of participants from School D were from minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Seventeen parents attended Session 1 and 18 parents attended Session 2.

Measures of Acceptability of the Advancing Coping and Engagement Curriculum

Leading practitioner and professional organizations recommended that researchers consider acceptability as a part of their evaluations of interventions (APA, 2002; CEC, 2014; NASP, 2010). Acceptability refers to the way in which an intervention’s procedures were judged to be “appropriate, fair, reasonable, or intrusive” (Finn & Sladeczek, 2001, p. 63). NASP’s (2010) guidelines indicated that researchers examine acceptability at multiple points in the development and application of an intervention, including the planning stage, implementation, and evaluation. Likewise, CEC’s (2014) recommendations for acceptability focused on the subjective ratings of the intervention.

To develop tools for participants to use to rate acceptability, we reviewed existing measures of acceptability, such as the Treatment Evaluation Inventory (Kazdin, 1980), the Intervention Rating Profile (Witt & Elliott, 1985), the Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire (TAQ, Hunsley, 1992), and the Usage Rating Profile-Intervention (Chafouleas et al., 2009). We then developed an item pool for use in data collection as described below. The procedures we used to generate and review the items were critical in supporting the content validity of the acceptability measures (American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council of Measurement in Education 2014).

Our acceptability measures were administered to various stakeholder groups at points before, during, and after implementation of the ACE curriculum. The survey questions are listed in Tables 3 and 4. All items used a response scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). To gather feedback from administrators, teachers, and school mental health staff after they participated in the summer institute, we developed a 10-item survey to assess their perceptions of the (a) the student curriculum’s suitability and potential effectiveness (5 items), and (b) acceptability of the materials used in this teacher training (5 items). Classroom teachers who then experienced full implementation of the ACE student curriculum were re-administered the 5 items that assessed their perceptions of the student curriculum’s suitability and potential effectiveness. To gather feedback from parents after they participated in a parent information session, we developed 5 items that assessed their perception of the appropriateness of the intervention, and likelihood of students using the concepts and skills learned. To gather feedback from students throughout the implementation of the ACE curriculum, we assessed students’ acceptability of content and perceived effectiveness of each module (3 items); students evaluated the extent to which the material presented was easy to understand and appropriate for the time allotted, and the likelihood of using the skills inside and outside of school.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Student Acceptability of the ACE Program: Ease of Understanding (Q1), Amount of Material Appropriate for Timeframe (Q2), and Likelihood of Using Concepts and Skills Learned (Q3).

	School
C						D
Module	Q	N	M	SD	N	M	SD	d
1. Adjusting to AP/IB	Q1	156	4.54	0.52	235	4.51	0.62	0.05
	Q2	156	4.32	0.77	235	4.45	0.64	−0.19
	Q3	156	3.82	0.90	234	3.83	0.85	−0.01
2. Factors Related to AP/IB Student Success: Coping and Engagement	Q1	104	4.46	0.56	280	4.45	0.64	0.02
	Q2	104	4.37	0.58	280	4.38	0.71	−0.01
	Q3	104	3.93	0.90	277	3.84	0.89	0.10
3. Increasing Pride in Your School and AP/IB Program	Q1	97	4.21	1.05	132	4.42	0.94	−0.21
	Q2	97	4.18	1.03	131	4.39	0.90	−0.22
	Q3	97	3.80	1.08	130	4.04	0.97	−0.24
4. Relationships with Teachers, Peers, and Others at School	Q1	123	4.37	1.03	166	4.31	1.03	0.06
	Q2	121	4.27	1.03	166	4.11	1.09	0.15
	Q3	121	3.98	1.06	166	3.87	1.09	0.10
5. Investing in Extracurricular Activities	Q1	106	4.02	1.26	112	4.29	0.99	−0.24
	Q2	105	4.15	1.17	114	4.25	1.01	−0.09
	Q3	104	3.75	1.33	114	3.97	1.06	−0.18
6. Time and Task Management (Part 1: Organize Your Task List):	Q1	87	4.39	1.08	105	4.28	1.08	0.10
	Q2	87	4.28	1.04	105	4.14	1.11	0.13
	Q3	87	4.06	1.20	100	4.12	1.10	−0.05
7. Time and Task Management (Part 2: Limiting Procrastination)	Q1	90	4.29	1.06	83	4.49	0.57	-0.23
	Q2	90	4.24	1.10	83	4.36	0.82	−0.12
	Q3	90	4.06	1.21	82	4.35	0.76	−0.28
8. Seeking Support from People at Home, School, and Spiritual Community	Q1	88	4.31	0.95	88	4.26	1.01	0.05
	Q2	89	4.25	1.08	88	4.03	1.08	0.20
	Q3	90	4.03	1.17	87	3.87	1.04	0.14
9. Relaxation and Positive Thinking	Q1	89	4.42	.98	96	4.32	0.99	0.10
	Q2	87	4.54	.82	96	4.20	0.98	0.38
	Q3	89	4.21	1.13	95	4.23	0.91	−0.02
10. Limiting Use of Ineffective Coping Styles	Q1	92	4.36	.98	115	4.47	0.75	−0.13
	Q2	91	4.38	.98	117	4.39	0.79	−0.01
	Q3	91	4.12	1.11	115	4.20	0.87	−0.08
11. Promoting Eustress and Review of Coping and Engagement Tools	Q1	95	4.32	.91	-	-	-	-
	Q2	96	4.30	.92	-	-	-	-
	Q3	96	3.94	1.12	-	-	-	-
12. Strengths, Values, and Goals	Q1	69	4.49	.90	-	-	-	-
	Q2	69	4.28	1.15	-	-	-	-
	Q3	69	4.32	1.02	-	-	-	-

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Mean Educator and Parent Acceptability Ratings of ACE Program Student and Teacher Materials.

	School staff at teacher training	Parents at parent session 1	Parents at parent session 2	Teachers in AP/pre-IBD curriculum classrooms
	N =11	17	18	4
The ACE curriculum for students…
… is appropriate for a variety of students taking AP classes or in IBD program [I think my son/daughter will like the curriculum]	5.00 (0.00)	4.40 (0.84)	4.25 (0.68)	4.25 (0.96)
… should be effective in helping AP/IB students [my son/daughter] cope with stress	5.00 (0.00)	4.60 (0.70)	4.00 (0.82)	4.50 (0.58)
… should be effective in helping AP/IB students [my son/daughter’s] increase their student engagement	4.91 (0.30)	4.50 (0.71)	4.13 (0.81)	4.25 (0.96)
… should be effective in improving AP/IB students [my son/daughter’s] academic achievement	4.82 (0.40)	4.70 (0.48)	4.06 (0.85)	4.25 (0.50)
… should be effective in improving AP/IB students [my son/daughter’s] emotional well-being [happiness]	5.00 (0.00)	4.60 (0.70)	4.13 (0.81)	4.50 (0.58)
The teacher materials…
… focusing on students’ sources of stress are appropriate for AP/IB teachers	4.91 (0.30)	---	---	---
… focusing on successful and struggling AP/IB students are appropriate for AP/IB teachers	4.91 (0.30)	---	---	---
… focusing on effective coping strategies for students are appropriate for AP/IB teachers	4.91 (0.30)	---	---	---
… focusing on ineffective coping strategies for students are appropriate for AP/IB teachers	4.91 (0.30)	---	---	---
… focusing on school connectedness for students are appropriate for AP/IB teachers	4.91 (0.30)	---	---	---

Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Response scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Higher scores represented higher acceptability. In the top portion of this table, words presented in brackets illustrate how survey items were modified for use with parents.

Acceptability Ratings Before Implementation of Advancing Coping and Engagement

After they participated in the summer professional development training, administrators, teachers, and school mental health staff indicated a high level of initial acceptability for the ACE curriculum based on their familiarity with the rationale, learning objectives, content, activities, materials, and examination of the student curricula during the summer institute. As shown in Table 4, mean ratings for the five items ranged from 4.82 to 5.0. Ratings also indicated a very high level of acceptability for the teacher materials with all average ratings exceeding 4.0.

Acceptability Ratings During Implementation of Advancing Coping and Engagement

We continued to monitor both parents’ and students’ acceptability ratings of the ACE curriculum during implementation. As shown in Table 4, responses provided immediately following both parent information sessions indicated that parents had a high level of acceptability of the student program. For each item, average ratings were equal to or exceeded 4.0.

As shown in Table 3, scores reflected a high acceptability of the intervention curriculum among the AP and IB students who participated in an ACE module. For each of the 10–12 Modules, the mean score within each curricular group exceeded 4.0 for items about the ease of understanding of the material presented, and the appropriateness of the activities for completion in a class period. Regarding their likelihood of applying the content of a given module inside and outside of school, both groups of AP and IBD students had positive appraisals of Modules that focused on developing coping skills involving time and task management (Module 6, Module 7) and relaxation and positive thinking (Module 9) as well as identifying and limiting use of ineffective coping responses (Module 10). For IBD students (School C), average ratings of usability exceeded 4.0 for modules focused on developing coping skills involving seeking social support (Module 8) or identifying one’s strengths, values, and goals (Module 12). For AP students (School D), the average rating of usability exceeded 4.0 for Module 3, which focused on building connections through increasing pride in one’s school and academic program. Ratings of usability for the remaining modules ranged from 3.75 (Module 5—building connections through investing in extracurricular activities) to 3.98 (Module 4—building connections through investing in relationships with people at school), which were still above the neutral point and quite close to the desired threshold of 4.0.

Acceptability Ratings After Implementation of Advancing Coping and Engagement

We continued to address acceptability of the curriculum post implementation from the four classroom teachers who had participated in the summer institute and hosted facilitators from the university research team in their classrooms. At this point, the teachers had not only become familiar with the curriculum during the summer institute and observed the implementation of the intervention, but they also had been privy to student discussions of the intervention both during the class and when the facilitator was not present. At the conclusion of the program, teachers maintained high acceptability of the ACE curriculum (see Table 4). For each item, average ratings were equal to or exceeded 4.0.

Limitations

This study involved samples of students from four schools who were interested in participating in a study of AP and Pre-IBD students. These participants provided valuable insights about the curriculum and were an integral part of the intervention development process; however, students who participated may have been those who inherently saw the value of research as well as the importance of learning to cope with stress and navigate difficulties following academic challenges or setbacks. Acceptability will be most evident when we learn if teachers—provided with the curriculum described here—actually use it, and if evidence of the efficacy of the curriculum can be documented. Further, the majority of teachers, and parents who participated in the curriculum development identified as white females. In contrast, the racial diversity in student samples from schools A, B, C, and D is a strength of the study. It should be noted that because student acceptability ratings were anonymous to facilitate honest responding, it is not possible to determine if students from minoritized groups (e.g., Black or Hispanic students) had unique perceptions of the curriculum.

Implications for Future Research

This study from a pilot stage describes the development, implementation, and acceptability of a newly developed curriculum designed to provide ninth-grade AP and pre-IBD students with skills in managing academic stress through coping and engagement. To determine how the curriculum affects students’ academic performance and mental health, additional research is needed and some is underway (in progress; Ferron et al., 2021). This pilot study involved the collection of primarily quantitative acceptability data during implementation. Future studies may expand the evaluation of acceptability to include qualitative and quantitative data as well as formative and summative measures. In keeping with the aforementioned ecological model, parents’ perspectives about how students are responding to the curriculum at regular, repeated intervals during implementation would allow for additional insight, and additional data collection, such as coping and engagement journals maintained by students, may shed light on the frequency, application, and utility of these skills among AP and pre-IBD students. Pending support for positive impact of the ACE curriculum on student success, future research should also develop strategies for disseminating intervention training and implementation materials to the intended end users—educators of AP and IB students. The design and development work described in this manuscript reflects the initial stages of a multi-year process to develop authentic, acceptable, and applicable materials that were tailored to the specific educational experiences of students in accelerated courses.