2002 - Volume 26, Number 1
Editor, David L. Hough, Missouri State University
Preface
This issue of Research in Middle Level Education Online includes five studies that differ substantively in approach, purpose, and design. This variety of manuscripts selected for publication is representative of those submitted for consideration. Having just completed a study of the types of middle level education research conducted over the past ten years, I can personally attest to the wide ranging nature of issues, topics, and questions that have been (and continue to be) addressed. Readers will have to wait a few months to see the results of the ten-year "study of studies" being prepared by my research team at the Institute for School Improvement; however, reading the articles contained in this issue of RMLE Online will provide a pretty good idea of what our research has found.
The first study, "Exploring Gender Differences of U.S. Chinese Students in Their Solution Processes of Solving Routine and Nonroutine Mathematical Problems," was conducted by Jinfa Cai, University of Delaware. While this study’s examination of gender differences between the two student cohorts found that U.S. males scored significantly higher than females, this difference did not exist between Chinese males and females. Further, data analyzed in this quantitative study indicate that gender differences in mathematical problem solving (as defined in the study) are less evident than other research often suggests. The two group mean difference comparisons analyzed with a t test is common among the several dozen middle level studies of group differences in mathematics that have been conducted over the past decade or so. In "Advisories Led by Trained Facilitators: Their Impact on Middle School Students," Susan MacLaury and Zandra Gratz of Kean University examine the impact of advisory programs that are conducted by staff specifically prepared as group facilitators. This quasi-experimental study utilized questionnaires to gather information on social support, school environment, and school performance. Results indicate that stages of group development and advisor preparation may be important factors effecting individual outcomes.
The third study, "Middle School First Person Presentations and Connections to the Community," by Ronald V. Morris of Ball State University, utilizes an informal qualitative approach to attempt to interpret "extracurricular first person historical presentation through the use of drama to interpret historical content." This type of approach appears to be growing in popularity among scholars who apparently feel more comfortable with an inductive method of understanding than the more deductive scientific method. "Looking into classrooms," is a phrase that has caught fire over the past ten years, and is especially popular among much middle level research. This approach led to my personal epiphany from this study: what the community "learned" about young adolescents was every bit as important as what the young adolescents learned about their community.The fourth study in this issue, "Environmental Ethics in Middle School Students: Analysis of the Moral Orientation of Student Responses to Environmental Dilemmas," by Shari Britner of Bradley University addresses moral reasoning of African American and White young adolescents in an urban middle school. Again, qualitative methods were used to examine both cultural and gender differences. While most students appeared to be closely aligned to "care reasoning", African American students and girls appeared to have an even greater orientation in this direction. One can only speculate as to why this finding might have been surmised, and without any way to quantify this generalization, much food for thought is left by this study.
The fifth and last study, "Investigating Organizational Dimensions of Middle School Curricular Leadership: Linkages to School Effectiveness," by R. Stephen Brown, principal of Nimitz Junior High School, and Joseph G. Claudet and Arturo Olivarez of Texas Tech University, describes one aspect of curricular leadership through the lens of organizational theory. While five "dimensions of organizational curricular leadership [sic] are . . . derived," the empirical evidence of each was derived from a factor analysis of data collected from survey questionnaires completed by 484 Texas professional staff and administrators. Factor analysis as a method of data reduction proved to be a useful tool in helping these investigators examine underlying constructs. Not incidentally, middle level teachers and principals are joining forces with higher education professors on a much more frequent basis these days to conduct and report research. Organization issues seem to be a favorite among middle school principals. I would like to remind our 30,000+ potential readers that the NMSA Research Committee is sponsoring a beginning researcher poster session to be held at the NMSA Annual Conference in Portland, Oregon, October 31 – November 3, 2002.If you are interested in submitting, please contact me at (417) 836-8853 or (417) 836-5254 to receive specific guidelines.
David Hough, Editor
ISSN 1084-8959