Training rural educators in Kentucky through distance learning: Impact with follow-up data

Rural Special Education Quarterly, Fall 2002 by Grisham-Brown, Jennifer, Collins, Belva C

Nearly all respondents (80%) indicated that they came to campus at some point while taking courses through the TREK projects. The reasons stated for coming to campus included attending class (68%), meeting with faculty (43%), using the library (36%), meeting with advisors (11%), completing class projects (7%), getting books (4%), filling out paperwork (4%), and meeting with thesis chairs (4%).

Funding issues. Students were asked if they received tuition assistance through grants supplied by the University to cover the cost of their coursework. Eighty-two percent of them indicated that they did, and another 29% indicated that they received tuition assistance from other sources, such as the state traineeship program. When asked if they would enroll in distance education coursework without tuition assistance, a majority of the respondents (71%) indicated that they would.

Impact Data

In order to determine the impact of the TREK projects on services to children with disabilities, a series of questions were asked on the survey. The first set of questions related to the use of best practices highlighted throughout the TREK projects. These practices included inclusion, functional curriculum, functional/ecological assessment, community-based instruction, positive behavioral support, person-centered planning, errorless learning procedures, data-based decision making, transdisciplinary teaming, family-centered programming, activity-based instruction and longitudinal programming for transition. Students were asked to indicate (a) if they used the practice before taking TREK coursework, (b) if they used the practice after taking TREK coursework, (c) the number of children affected by using the practice (if they used it), and (d) the number of adults with whom they shared the information. Next, students were asked to indicate any systemic changes at their place of employment that they perceived being a result of the knowledge and skills they gained from being involved in the TREK project(s). Table 1 shows the number of students who indicated they were using the practices before and after they took TREK-DL coursework and also the number of children and adults impacted by the TREK-DL program.

Use of best practices. It is worth noting that the majority of the respondents (i.e., greater than 50%) said that they were not using 50% of the practices before taking coursework (i.e. functional/ecological assessment, community-based instruction, person-centered planning, errorless learning procedures, family-centered programming, and longitudinal programming for transition). As well, the remaining 50% of the practices were not being used by 21%-46% of the respondents (i.e., inclusion, functional curriculum, positive behavioral support, data based decision making, transdisciplinary teaming, and activity-based instruction).

Students were then asked if they were used the practice after taking related coursework. The highest percentage of respondents who said they were not using specific practices was 21% (person-centered planning and longitudinal programming for transition). In addition, 18% indicated they were not using family-centered programming, 14% were not using community-based instruction and transdisciplinary teaming, 11% were not practicing the use of functional curriculum, functional/ecological assessment, errorless learning, and activity-based instruction, 7% were not using data-based decision making, and 4% were not practicing inclusion or using positive behavioral supports.