Based on recent statistics from Pew Research Center (2018b), in 2002, 62% of adults in the United States owned a cellphone, and, in 2011, 35% owned a smartphone. Currently, 95% of adults in the US own a cellphone and 77% own a smartphone. This substantial increase in mobile technology ownership demonstrates the growing presence of technology in our lives. In addition to more people owning cellphones and smartphones, people are increasing the amount of times they access the internet each day. Recent polls found that, in 2018, 26% of adults report being online frequently every day, while in 2015, 21% reported frequent daily usage (Pew Research Center, 2018a). Although younger adults are commonly thought of as the age group seeking out the most screen time, adults aged 30 to 49 increased their frequent daily internet usage from 24% to 36% from 2015 to 2018, and adults aged 50 to 64 increased their frequent daily internet usage from 12% to 17% during this same time (Pew Research Center, 2018a).
Although this growing dependence on technology has been associated with harmful effects such as cyberbullying (Siegle, 2010), the positive benefits that can be gained from increased accessibility to information and resources should not be overlooked. For example, some programs rely solely on technology or minimal support to administer therapy while some clinicians and therapists utilize technology to assist them in their therapeutic practice. For those that use programs to replace the therapist, results from one study have shown that patients who experienced the interactive technology program improved more across stress, depression, and anxiety symptoms as well as in daily functioning than participants who received only information (Proudfoot et al., 2013). For those who use technology in conjunction with conventional therapeutic practices, results from one study found that combining technology with family therapy led to greater decreases in depression symptoms than family therapy alone, however results did vary by ethnicity and participant gender (Eisendorf et al., 2003). In addition to these benefits, the addition of texting features to hotline numbers provides a great prevention resource for individuals, especially for those who are unable to reach out for assistance through a phone call. Although there are many reasons why someone may not be able to seek assistance through a phone call, one article noted that text hotlines are essential for people with hearing impairments and for those who do not feel safe discussing personal information when it could be overheard (Park, 2016). Since hotlines provide vital information and support for a wide range of issues (e.g., depression, trauma, suicidal ideation, domestic violence), and since these issues, especially when left untreated, are linked to suicidal ideation and attempts Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017 (CDC), using technology to increase the availability of resources is essential.
Below are some important numbers to know that provide support via text messaging.
Every texter is connected with a Crisis Counselor, a real-life human being trained to bring texters from a hot moment to a cool calm through active listening and collaborative problem solving. All of Crisis Text Line’s Crisis Counselors are volunteers, donating their time to helping people in crisis.
Please share these so that others are aware of the resources available to assist them.
Crisis Text Line 741741 (HELLO)
HopeLine 919-231-4525 (call or text) 1-877-235-4525 (call or text)
Eisendorf, C., Czaja, S. J., Loewenstein, D. A., Rubert, M. P., Arguelles, S., Mitrani, V. B., & Szapocznik, J. (2003). The effect of a family therapy and technology-based intervention on caregiver depression. The Gerontologist, 43(4), 521-531.
Proudfoot, J., Clarke, J., Birch, M., Whitton, A. E., Parker, G., Manicavasagar, V., Harrison, V., Christensen, H., & Hadzi-Pavlovic, D. (2013). Impact of a mobile phone and web program on symptom and functional outcomes for people with mild-to-moderate depression, anxiety and stress: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 1-12.
Siegle, D. (2010). Cyberbullying and sexting: Technology abuses of the 21st century. Gifted Child Today, 33(2), 14-65.
Bullying is not a new phenomenon, but its presence in our schools and its harmful effects not only in childhood and adolescence but throughout life is one of the most pressing reasons behind finding and implementing successful, sustainable prevention programs. If children do not feel safe in school, how can they be expected to learn? Providing a safe, supportive school environment is crucial in fostering academic and socioemotional success (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). This school environment, also known as school climate, reflects the quality of life experienced while at school and consists of students’, parents’, and other school personnel’s experiences (National School Climate Council, 2012). Research has shown that positive school climates promote academic achievement and social development (McEvoy & Welker, 2000), while negative school climates lead to increased aggression (i.e., bullying, assault), lower levels of academic achievement, and truancy (Astor, Guerra, & Van Acker, 2010). Regarding the prevalence of bullying in schools, recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES] show that, in 2015, approximately 21% of students between the ages of 12 and 18 experienced bullying while at school. Overall, 13.3% reported verbal harassment and 5.1% reported physical harassment. While females reported higher rates of overall bullying, specifically bullying relating to verbal harassment, males reported higher rates of physical assaults. Based on this study, bullying appears to occur more during middle school. Also, Black and White students reported more instances of bullying than Hispanic students.
Although there have been many programs that have worked to address socioemotional concerns in school systems, the majority of these programs have been found to be ineffective for a variety of reasons. However, the Safe and Welcoming Schools project at the University of Georgia focuses on improving school climate using prevention methods that are tailored to the school’s needs, and early findings related to the program’s effectiveness have been encouraging (Raczynski, n.d.).
I would like to invite others to share their experiences with programs that have effectively used prevention to target school climate and/or bullying within secondary schools.
Shana Ingram email@example.com
Astor, R. A., Guerra, N., Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research? Educational Researcher, 39, 69-78.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213.
McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 130-140.
Anna Louise Thompson, MA
University of South Carolina Aiken
Over the past few years, South Carolina has started to implement The Common Core State Standards (CCSS). CCSS is “a set of clear college- and career-ready standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts/literacy and mathematics” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014). This study focuses on the English language arts portion starting in 2011. CCSS began its transition period in South Carolina in the year 2011. This school year, 2013-2014 CCSS is being used for instructional purposes and by next year, 2014-2015, it will be fully executed (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2014). Reading scores have shown a slight improvement during the past 3 years since CCSS has been implemented. In 2011, the growth rating of Aiken in the SC Annual School Report was below the average mean but in 2012 and 2013 the scores improved to above the average mean. Unfortunately, the overall percent scores of South Carolina and Aiken County have been below the national average for the past three years. The majority of students, 39%, tested in public schools in Aiken County were below basic, which is below the average score, in reading. Thirty-four percent of students tested at basic, 25 percent were proficient, which is above the average score, and only 7% tested at advanced, which is the highest level possible, in reading (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2014).
Even though the growth of Aiken County School District showed improvement, there is still much needed work. The growth average of student’ scores reflect improvement from one testing period to the next (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2014). Reading scores in Aiken County increased from 2011 to 2013 from 74.1% to 74.6%, only a .5 difference (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2014). The reading score percent is the reading scores of children, amount correct divided by the total, converted into a percent out of 100 (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2014). The national scores have also increased, but at a higher rate going from 74.3% to 76.9%, a greater difference of 2.6 (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2014). This may imply the CCSS is making an improvement, but not a great enough improvement to really make a difference. By implementing the CCSS, the goal is to have all children learn the same material to give everyone a chance to thrive in the community. It also allows for teachers to understand what all of the children need to learn.
This idea of common standards may not work for all children. Children work and learn at different speeds and ways, which entail not all children learning in the same program. Some children may fall behind in school because they cannot keep up the fast pace of staying with the other classmates. Teachers have certain standards they must implement during the school year in order to follow along with CCSS. The Reading Orienteering Club (ROC) program allows for children who are failing in reading, to learn the basics they need to thrive in this fast paced society. ROC helps children learn how to read and understand what is being read, along with working together as a group to help with behavior problems that may happen in the classroom setting (Clanton & Harpine, 2013).
Family Structure and Literacy
Teachers in the public and private schools interact with the children on an almost daily basis to teach them the needed information to thrive in today’s society. Teachers and parents need to work together in order to help educate children. The family can help influence good learning outcomes. Some children are given more educational experiences through living with more than one parent. Other children have a harder time learning due to ever changing environments such as changing out-of-home placements. One factor in a child’s reading ability may be the type of family structure and environment the children are being raised in.
There are many different aspects to a family structure, many of which involve the specific family members. These include single parent families, families with both biological parents, and even parents whom are not the biological parents. These different family structures, given the right tools, could continue to raise children who show great strides in learning material in school. Family structure in this study is defined by who is in charge of the household. In family settings that have two biological parents, one or both parents have a job and one or both parents help around the house. In family settings where there is only one biological parent, the mother is in charge of the household. When there is no biological parent, the participants were in out-of care homes such as foster homes or organizations that give residency to children up to the age of 21 years old. These children have been court ordered by the South Carolina Department of Social Services or the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice to stay in custodial care.
Literacy includes reading, spelling, and comprehension. Literacy is important especially as a child due to the influence it has on later life experiences including jobs, secondary education, and day to day activities. Literacy affect’s not only a child’s schooling, but also their adult life which may result in poor adult outcomes. Spelling is the skill of putting letters together correctly to form a word and reading is the skill of putting these letter sounds together to read written or printed material aloud (Clanton Harpine, 2013). Comprehension is the ability to understand what is being read and use what is read to: elaborate on material, continue with stories, apply it to today’s world, and complete activities based off reading material (Clanton Harpine, 2013). During Petrill, Deater-Deckard, Schatschneider, and Davis’s adoption study, they realized that the family environment was related to reading results instead of genetics (2005). The current study includes children from several family structures to expand on the thoughts of family environment. Literature has also shown the influence of foster care on children’s literacy knowledge. Zima and associates (2000) acknowledged the fact of other studies showing behavior and academic issues arising from the different types of foster care including “non-kinship family, therapeutic, and group” (p. 89). A few of these foster cares are represented in this present study.
This study describes the outcomes of the ROC, “a year-long group-centered after-school community-based prevention program that emphasizes phonological awareness, reading and writing, spelling, and intensive hands-on instruction” (Clanton Harpine, 2013, p. ix). Group intervention involves children working as a team to complete tasks set before them. Each child is responsible for their own work, but work in groups using the same tools, instructions and helping each other when needed. The ROC uses vowel clustering, the 4-step method, and group-centered prevention interventions to improve the literacy scores and behavior of the children, primarily 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders, of Aiken County in South Carolina. The step method involves having the children: (a) capture tricky words, words they do not know, (b) write the word correctly, (c) look up the words in the dictionary to find the definition, (d) and write sentences using these words (Clanton Harpine, 2013). This lets the children correct themselves, learn a new word, and get a better comprehension of the word. The main goals for this program is for the children to practice “reading, writing, spelling, focusing their attention, comprehension, following step-by-step instruction, learning new words, and practicing a specific vowel cluster for the day” (Clanton Harpine, 2013, xi).
At the ROC, a goal is to bring a child from reading below the appropriate reading level to reading at or above their age level (grade). One study conducted used children from 14 elementary schools (Hatcher et al., 2006). The children were split into two groups. One group received small group intervention for 20 weeks and the other received the intervention for only the second 10 weeks. During the first 10 weeks of the full 20 week program, students improved more than the other children who did not receive the first half of the program (Hatcher et al., 2006). On the other hand the second group who only received the small group intervention during the second set of 10 weeks, caught up to the first group. This may mean the amount of small group intervention does not matter, only that it is utilized. The current study also looks at how long each of the 32 participants stayed in the ROC program and their final scores.
The participants of this study included 32 children who received no compensation or coercion in participating. The children were in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade. There were 15 male participants and 17 female participants. All the participants were enrolled in the Aiken County school system. Twenty-six of these participants were enrolled in public school. One participant was enrolled in a charter school and five were home schooled. Ages ranged from 5 years old to 12 years old. Nine participants were Caucasian, 21 participants were African American and two were of mixed decent. Of the 32 participants, 14 lived with two biological parents, 12 lived with one biological parent, and six lived with no biological parents. Twenty-one students were able to stay in the correct grade level occupied by their age group, while seven were one grade level behind, five were two grade levels behind, and one participant was five grade levels behind.
Materials and Procedure
In order to correctly test the level of each child, the children all completed the same test. The skills were assessed using the Howard Street Tutoring Manual, 2nd ed (2005) by Darrell Morris. The test data on internal reliability, which was 0.85, and validity of test, which was 0.70, was also completed by Morris (Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2007, Morris & Carter, 1997). The children are first tested before the program begins in the fall to get a starting level. Then the children are tested using the same test in the winter as a mid-point test to see any improvement made and any areas that may need more help. Lastly, the children are tested in the spring at the completion of the program for that year to see how far they improved. Thirteen of the children who completed the ROC program continued for an additional 4 months and were tested before the start of the school new year and again for mid-point testing. In cases of repeated testing, testing effects are those in which children score better on later tests, because they have already complected the test previously. There was no testing effect discovered.
Each child was given the same test during the beginning, middle, and end of the ROC program. The test consisted of reading, spelling, comprehension, and sight word sections. Each section was then split into three more sections, which corresponded to 1st grade, 2nd grade, and 3rd grade levels. Scores were organized by reading level and the amount missed, spelling level and the amount missed, sight word level and the amount missed, and the comprehension scores which consisted of the amount missed by the participants. The data was placed into a SPSS file and then compared.
This study is a quasi-experimental study. The dependent variable is completing the ROC program. The two independent variables are the type of family structure and the time of measurement. This study has a mixed design with the independent variable of, time of measurement, and the type of family structure as the between-subject variable. Three different family structures include: two biological parents, one biological parent, and no biological parents. The groups of children who have no biological parents live in a group home setting or foster care. The 32 children who completed the Reading Orienteering Club (ROC) fall under one of these categories of family structure. Fourteen of these children live with two biological parents and 12 children live with only one biological parent. One child lives in a group setting, and five children live in foster homes. Potential confounding variables include the highest level of the guardian’s education, the amount of encouragement received from the school and home environment, the amount of opportunities given to each child, sex of the children, and the race of the child. The types of schooling include: public school, including charter school and home school.
This study tested the hypothesis that children who participated in the ROC and lived with two biological parents would show greater improvement in reading, spelling, and comprehension than children who lived with only one or no biological parent. The second part of this study involved children completing the ROC program for an additional 4 months. These four months corresponded to one semester in a school year. The second null hypothesis of this study was there would be no relationship between ROC literacy scores and the additional participation. The second alternative hypothesis was, children who participated in the ROC for an additional semester would show greater improvement than the children who only participated for a year. Three groups were compared: children with two biological parents, children with one biological parent, and children with no biological parents.
This hypothesis was tested using a repeated measures ANOVA. It was 3 (FSgroup) x 3 (pre, mid, post) using mixed design. Overall, the three groups of children; children with two biological parents, children with one biological parent, and children with no biological parents had similar improvements in all areas. The only exception would be in the test for spelling. The results showed the group of children with two biological parents had the most spelling words correct before, during, and after the ROC program, only slightly better than the rest. Overall, all groups made little progress throughout the program. The children with one biological parent missed the most spelling words during and after the ROC program. The main effect of family structure was significant. None of the interaction effects between time and family structures were significant.
On the other hand, children with no biological parents had the highest reading levels out of the three groups before and during the program. During the final testing session, the children with 2 biological parents surpassed the other three groups with the reading levels, but did not miss the least number of sight words. In the final testing the children with only one biological parent missed the least amount of sight words. Unfortunately, these children missed the most comprehension questions, but the children with two biological parents missed the least number of comprehension questions. These children also had the highest sight word levels throughout the program and missed the least number of sight words, until the very end when the children with no biological parents, missed the least. There was a significant main effect for reading, F(1, 20) = 9.43, p = .006. There was also a significant main effect for spelling, F(2, 40) = 7.00, p = .002. The main effect for comprehension only approached significant, F(2, 38) = 3.01 , p = .061. The last significant main effect was sight words, F(2, 38) = 14.12, p = < .001.
A second aspect of this study involved 13 children who completed the ROC program for 2 years. These 13 children represent the three different types of family structures in this study. Children living with no biological parents started with the highest level for spelling words, next, were children with two biological parents, and children with no biological parents had the lowest level of spelling. After being in the program for 2 years, all of the children had improved in the level of spelling. Also, the children stayed in the same rank as in the beginning which means the children all improved about the same. Another interesting finding is children who had no biological parents missed the least amount of spelling words throughout the entire program. This trend continues through the reading level, the amount of reading comprehension missed, and level of sight words. There was a significant main effect for reading, F(4, 36) = 3.28, p = .022. There was also a significant main effect for spelling, F(4, 36) = 2.97, p = .032. A significant main effect was not found for comprehension, F(4, 36) = 0.99, p = .428. The last significant main effect was sight words, F(4, 32) = 2.70, p = .048. The participants who completed the additional participation in the ROC program showed greater improvement in literacy.
In concern with the original hypothesis of children who participated in the ROC, living with two biological parents would show greater improvement in reading, spelling, and comprehension; the amount of sight words missed showed support. The children who lived with two biological parents went from missing the most sight words, to missing the least amount after the 2 years. The amount of reading missed also supported this hypothesis due to the children living with two biological parents missed the largest number of words while reading in the beginning of the ROC program and then missed the least amount after 2 years.
There was no support for the hypothesis that children who participated in the ROC and who lived with two biological parents would show greater improvement in reading, spelling, and comprehension. All three groups had similar scores for the pretests, midtests, and posttests. There was also no interaction with time and all groups showed similar changes over the course of the program. All the children improved despite their type of family structure; one biological parent, two biological parents, or three biological parents.
There are many reasons for the hypothesis to not be supported. The hypothesis may have been correct but the problem may lie in the study itself. There are many different confounding variables. Some of these include: the sex of the child, any extra help, the type of school, grade, age, race, and the amount of levels held back. Gender was an aspect looked at during this study, in order to help explain the results. A statistical significance was the found for the race of the children living with one biological parent; there were more females than males. Out of these children, more females read better than males.
Concerning the ages of the participants, the participants were the ages of 5 and 8 years old. Of these children, only 3 out of the 17 participants had some sort of after school care which involved which involved community-based and free after-school care for low socio-economic neighborhoods. In fact, one child who was 8 years old, participating from a community-based after-school program made the lowest scores in spelling by missing the most words. Also, one participant who was placed in an out of home placement, made the lowest scores of all the children which made the scores skewed. Concerning the schooling, only five out of the 34 participants were home schooled. These participants were about the same in dealing with overall scores within the group. For future studies, these different confounding variables should be looked into in detail in order to determine which makes the most impact on the child. The concept behind the ROC program is to help all children learn how to read in order to better their lives now and in the future. The ROC program is able to accomplish this goal by having all children start at the same beginning step (E. Clanton Harpine, personal communication, May 8, 2014).
A follow-up study is planned to commence this fall 2014 and results are planned to be reported in TGP.
Clanton Harpine, E. (2013). After-School Prevention Programs for At-Risk Students. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7416-6
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
Gayán, J., & Olson, R. K. (2001). Genetic and environmental influences on orthographic and phonological skills in children with reading disabilities. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 487–511.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., Miles, J. V., Carroll, J. M., Hatcher, J., Gibbs, S., & … Snowling, M. J. (2006). Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading-delay: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(8), 820-827. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01559.x
Petrill, S. A., Deater-Deckard, K., Schatschneider, C., & Davis, C. (2005). Measured environmental influences on early reading: Evidence from an adoption study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(3), 237-259. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0903_4
South Carolina State Department of Education. (2014). Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov
Zima, B. T., Bussing, R., Freeman, S., Yang, X., Belin, T. R., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Behavior problems, academic skill delays and school failure among school-aged children in foster care: Their relationship to placement characteristics. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(1), 87-103. doi:10.1023/A:1009415800475