Abstract
In the last issue of Volume 41, I am pleased to present two research reports and two program descriptions. In the first of two research reports, Lee and Bernstein describe a qualitative secondary data analysis for a study of the narrative writing progress of upper elementary students in rural schools. The parent study compared students working online in pairs with those working alone. Counterintuitive findings from the parent study prompted these authors to return to the original data to understand the unexpected results. The qualitative analysis of student online writing products, student peer feedback, and teacher interviews supported understanding of the findings of the parent study. The authors provide suggestions for writing instruction and technology support for skilled and struggling writers in rural settings, which often present unique challenges relative to geographic isolation and students with a wide range of abilities due to low enrollment.
Decker, Feigel, Foster, and Kepl present findings from an interview designed to elicit family perceptions of young children with exceptionalities as transitions occur over time. The aim was to determine how to (a) support families and (b) foster child and family well-being. The researchers interviewed 28 parents across a rural state about their experiences, analyzed responses, and reported three common themes:
Change is constant.
Positive relationships support changing needs and priorities.
Parents need more support, information, or access to services or providers.
The authors note how rurality adds some challenges to parents’ experiences with transition. They also describe recommendations for empowering families, providing more access and/or removing barriers to services, and building family efficacy through family-focused services.
Next, Ortogero, Barcarse, and Ray describe the creation of a professional development (PD) course designed to curb the negative impact that a shortage of qualified special education teachers (SETs) in rural Hawai’i has on students with disabilities. Course programming was aligned to SET preparation coursework, targeted at the ongoing PD needs of beginning rural SETs, and grounded in the literature on SET retention. Seven licensed educators and their mentees participated in the course. To determine effects of the program on mentoring beginning SETs, data were collected using surveys, knowledge assessment, culminating reflections, and course evaluations. The authors discuss outcomes gleaned from the data as well as implications for practice.
To close this issue, Sundeen describes a technical assistance arrangement initiated between a rural educational service agency and a local university for the purpose of improving inclusion rates and access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. The author provides details of the collaboration and descriptions of two major project stages. Summaries of data collected from special educator and general educator surveys are included as well as discussion about educator trainings delivered, collaboration opportunities provided, and administrative supports incorporated into efforts to increase inclusion in a meaningful way for students in five target schools.
I would like to thank all the authors who contributed to Volume 41, Issue 4. I hope you enjoy this new issue and will be able to use some of the ideas in your own community of practice.