Establishing a Center to Support Faculty Research

This article describes the establishment in fall 2002 of a School of Education Research Center designed to support faculty in increasing productivity and quality in research. Details are provided about center goals, services, staffing, space, resources, and logistics during the first year of operation. In addition, data are shared about faculty usage of the Center, the level of faculty satisfaction with center services in the first year, and initial increases in faculty productivity. The article concludes with plans for continued data collection to monitor the impact of the Center, a discussion of lessons learned at this point in the Center's development, and possibilities for the evolution of the Center. All authors are at the University of Colorado, Denver. Laura Goodwin, Ph.D., University of Colorado at Boulder, is Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs and continues to serve as a Faculty Research Associate. Elizabeth Kozleski, Ed.D., University of Northern Colorado, is the Associate Dean for Research in the School of Education. Lynn Rhodes, Ed.D., Indiana University, is the Dean of the School of Education. Rodney Muth, Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School, is a professor of Administrative Leadership and Policy Studies in the school and chaired the Research Center Advisory Board. Kim Kennedy White, M.A., University of Oregon, was the original School of Education Research Center Coordinator and was responsible for collecting most of the data included in this study.     

Screening for hearing loss in early childhood programs

This study assessed the feasibility of doing hearing screening in Migrant, American Indian and Early Head Start programs using otoacoustic emissions (OAE) technology. Staff members were trained to screen 0–3-year-old children for hearing loss using hand-held OAE equipment and a multi-step screening and referral protocol. Of the 3486 children screened as a part of the study, 77% passed an OAE screening at the first step, 18% more passed an OAE screening at the second step, and 5% were ultimately referred for medical or audiological follow-up. Eighty children were identified as having a hearing loss or disorder of the outer, middle or inner ear requiring treatment. Of these 80, six had permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. Although the protocol suggested that the multi-step screening procedure should be completed within a 4-week time period or less, analysis of the data showed that for children requiring more than an initial OAE screening, the length of time over which the screening was completed ranged from 7 to 12 weeks. The median time required to complete a single OAE screening session was 4 minutes per child. The results demonstrate that OAE screening of young children using this protocol is practical and effective. The implications for conducting periodic hearing screening throughout early childhood are discussed.     

Learning from the Professions: Examining How,Why, and When Engineers Read and Write

With the advent of the Next Generation Science Standards in engineering (NGSS, 2013), teachers of multiple subject areas are being asked to do more than ever before—not only to teach engineering content in the K-12 classroom but also to engage students in authentic disciplinary reading and writing as part of content learning. These standards sound good, but they beg several questions; namely, what do we know about how, why, and when do engineers read and write as they do their work every day? What do teachers charged with engineering education know about the daily practices of engineers, let alone the literacy practices? In short, little is known about the literacy practices of engineers in the course of their daily work. This article draws on participant observation, interviews, and document analysis of one research engineering laboratory to illustrate the literacy practices of one group of engineers and begins to draw implications from this work for teacher practice in achieving the NGSS engineering education standards.     

Person-centred reviews and transition: an exploration of the views of students and their parents/carers

The person-centred review (PCR) is a model for the review of a student’s special educational needs (SEN) which places the young person and their family at the centre of the process. This mixed-methods, exploratory study investigated the views of 16 students with SEN aged between 10–11 years (Year 6) and 13–14 years (Year 9), and their parents/carers on their PCRs (which were mostly held at transition). Attention was paid to potential changes in the young people’s locus of control and feelings towards school. Findings indicated that the PCR is a collaborative, constructive and reassuring process for families where a wealth of information is shared openly and honestly within a relaxed, yet structured, meeting. The young people were generally positive about the process, although many felt daunted beforehand. Some parents felt the meeting was too long and not entirely accessible to children. The study did not conclude that the young people’s locus of control or feelings towards their education changed following the PCR. Implications for good practice are discussed, particularly for educational psychologists and in the context of the SEN and Disability Code of Practice.