Effects of a comprehensive character education program on student smoking – Findings from 4 studies Brian R. Flay, D.Phil. Professor, Public Health Oregon State University Corvallis, OR Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Portland, OR, Feb 29 2008
38
Embed
Brian R. Flay, D.Phil. Professor, Public Health Oregon State University Corvallis, OR
Effects of a comprehensive character education program on student smoking – Findings from 4 studies. Brian R. Flay, D.Phil. Professor, Public Health Oregon State University Corvallis, OR. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Portland, OR, Feb 29 2008. Outline. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Effects of a comprehensive character education program on student smoking
– Findings from 4 studies
Brian R. Flay, D.Phil.Professor, Public HealthOregon State University
Corvallis, OR
Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Portland, OR, Feb 29 2008
2
Outline
I. The Positive Action program philosophy and theory
II. The Positive Action program components
III. Evaluations and results
IV.Conclusions
3
4
I. Overview of PA Program• Positive Action (PA) is a comprehensive school-based program
designed to – promote student character and positive behavior, – prevent an array of student problem behaviors, and – improve student achievement.
• PA is grounded in a broad theory of self-concept that posits – (a) students’ self-concepts and characters are determined by how
they behave and how they feel about themselves when they do various behaviors and
– (b) making positive and healthy behavioral choices results in feelings of self-worth.
• Major features of the program include: – Teacher delivered scripted PA curriculum lessons in classroom – Teacher and school staff modeling/reinforcement of “PA
behaviors” inside and outside of the classroom– School-wide activities (e.g., PA assemblies) led by principal and
PA Committee
5
Positive Action Overview
1. The core of Positive Action is contained in an underlying philosophy.
2. The philosophy is described in the Thoughts-Actions-Feelings Circle.
3. Positive Action teaches the positive actions for the whole self through six units that are contained in five program components.
4. The five completely prepared components are: 1. K–12 curriculum,2. Climate Development,3. Counselors program,4. Family program, and5. Community program.
6
You feel good about
yourself when you do positive actions.
Ref. (Reference)Cognitive Behavior Therapy
and Positive Psychology
Basic Philosophy (Theory of Action)
of the Positive Action Program & Circle
7
You feel bad about yourself when you do
negative actions.
C.F. (Reference) Depression
...and
Basic Philosophy (Theory of Action)
of the Positive Action Program & Circle
8
II. The POSITIVE ACTION Program Components
K–12 classroom curriculumover 1,200 lessons - using Teacher’s Kits (manuals and materials for each grade), classroom teachers present 15–20-minute lessons
Principal’s Kits (Elementary and Secondary)a school-climate program to promote the practice and reinforcement of positive actions in the whole school population (students and staff)
Counselor’s Kitused with selected individual students, small groups and families
Family Kit contains prepared weekly home lessons paralleling the school program along with school parent-involvement activities
Community Kitmanuals and materials that align and encourage collaboration of all the environments (schools, families and community) involved in the program
9
Positive Action Focus Units(Learning Goals)
• In the classroom curriculum and all other materials, the Positive Action content is taught through six focus units.
Unit 1: Self-Concept: What It Is, How It’s Formed, and Why It’s Important (Philosophy & Circle)
Unit 2: Physical and Intellectual Positive Actions for a Healthy Body and Mind (includes motivation to learn)
Unit 3: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Managing Yourself Responsibly
Unit 4: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Getting Along with Others by Treating Them the Way You Like to Be Treated (Social-Emotional Skills & Character)
Unit 5: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Being Honest with Yourself and Others (Mental Health)
Unit 6: Social/Emotional Positive Actions for Improving Yourself Continually (Setting & Achieving Goals)
10
Logic/Theoretic Model of the Expected Effects of the Positive Action Program
Program Components Immediate Outcomes
Attitudes Toward Behaviors,
Social Normative Beliefs,
Self-Efficacy
Improved School Attendance, Gradesand Test Scores
* Improved relationships among school administrators, teachers, parents & community.* Improved classroom management.* Increased involvement of school with parents & community.
Climate Development, Family Kit, Teacher/Staff Training, K–12 Instruction Curriculum, Drug Education Supplements, Community Kit,Counseling Kit
accounting for clustering of students within schools
31
Effects on School-Level reports of misconducts and suspensions (Chicago)
In ANCOVA models predicting year 4 differences from year 1 levels and condition, differences at year 4 are marginally significant for misconducts (p = .054)
and significant for suspensions (p = .037) using one-tailed tests.
Average N of suspensions per 100 students by year and condition (77% reduction at 2006-07)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Year
PA C
Average N of misconducts per 100 students by year and condition (80% reduction at 2006-07)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Year
PA C
32
IV. Conclusions
• Implementing school-wide character education programs to address a wide range of outcomes is challenging– Limited resources of urban school systems – NCLB
• Evaluation of school-based character/social development programs is complicated by control schools implementing similar programs under “business as usual” conditions
• Clear dose-response relationships were evident in quasi-experimental evaluations
• In RCTs program effects on smoking at 5th grade were obtained after 3 or 4 years of programming
• School-level reports of misconducts and suspensions strengthen the robustness of the findings
• Time trends in outcomes and long-term follow-up studies suggest increasing effects over time
• School-wide social and character development education can be effective at:– decreasing multiple negative behaviors, including smoking
33
Why does Positive Action have such strong effects in multiple domains?
• Links all behaviors/actions to feelings, thoughts and values
• Increases awareness of social influences and correction of normative beliefs
• Emphasizes universal values and principles, and is appropriate for all ethnic and SES groups
• Is consistent with multiple theories of education, learning and behavior development and change
• Works on the multiple social ecologies in which youth live and develop– School, home, community
34
Future Research
• Investigate potential differential impacts of PA based on student gender, child risk level, etc.
• Investigate whether schools with different levels in the quality of implementation yield different “impacts”
• Examine impact of PA as student cohort progresses into upper elementary grades (grades 6-8)– Critical transitional period within emotional,
behavioral, and academic domains
35
Future Work/Needs – The bigger picture
• Larger scale trials– ICCs for attitudes (.03-.1) and behavior (.01-.05) are generally smaller
than for achievement (.15-.2)– Still need Ns of 20 or more per condition rather than 7-10
• Improved measures of integrity and dosage delivered and received– Teacher, student and observer reports– Contractual reporting systems?
• Longer term follow-ups– Effects take several years to even start emerging– Prior work suggests important long-term effects are possible
• Methods of analysis to accommodate differential implementation– Propensity scoring, CACE, instrumental variable
36
AcknowledgmentsStudies I and II were unfunded, conducted by the author at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).Study III was funded by grant #R01-DA13474 from NIH/NIDA to Brian Flay, initially at UIC then at Oregon State University (OSU).The findings reported from Study IV are based on research conducted as part of the Social and Character Development (SACD) research program funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education through Grant # R215S020218 to UIC (2003-2005) and OSU (2005-2008). The SACD Consortium consists of representatives from IES, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the national evaluation contractor, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), and each grantee site participating in the evaluation. The content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the SACD Consortium members including IES, CDC, and MPR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Correspondence concerning this presentation should be addressed to Brian R. Flay, D.Phil., Principle Investigator, Department of Public Health, 254 Waldo Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, [email protected].
The Social and Character Development (SACD) research program funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education includes a national evaluation study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), and complementary research studies conducted by each grantee. The findings reported here are based on the complementary research activities carried out by Brian Flay, Oregon State University, and David L. DuBois, University of Illinois at Chicago, under the SACD program. These findings may differ from the results reported for the SACD national evaluation study. The findings presented in this conference presentation are based on a smaller sample size of children, classrooms, and teachers, utilized a different set of outcome measures, and sought to answer complementary research questions. The content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the SACD Consortium including IES, CDC, and MPR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.