Christmas break is in full swing.  I've finished my coursework for the semester and so I'm ready for some family time.  As part of my studies, I've been reading a lot of published journal articles related to education.  These are all peer reviewed studies, and many of them are really interesting or timely.  I thought I'd share some during my break.  I've included citations and my own summaries.  Consider this part two of three.  Enjoy and Merry Christmas!

The author uses Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory to analyze student perceptions of education in rural India and determine which systems are influencing their experience.  Bronfenbrenner’s theory suggests that students learn within concentric circles of influence.  These circles can consist of the family, classroom, school, community, and country. The author found that high ability students were not being properly challenged in these remote villages in India due to a lack of proper instruction

 and curriculum. 

This study is applicable to Alaska. There are similarities between the rural nature of education in the traditional indigenous communities in India and the bush villages in Alaska.  The qualitative analysis required for this study provided a broad picture of what’s needed in rural India.  The author recognizes that there is a need for further research, but at least the need within India has now been established through this study.  Alaska needs the same type of research to catalyze further research for rural high-ability students. 

The authors looked at published rural educational research between 2005 and 2015 to better understand and then establish a usable definition of rural education that goes beyond the more common definitions currently used in governmental agencies. There were 16 published research papers reviewed, as well as five governmental agencies.  The authors found that the research often did not have operational definitions.  The definitions that were noted in the published research and governmental agencies varied widely.

The authors suggest caution. Many studies that reference rural may have mixed definitions. Even the definitions used by government agencies are specific to the intent of the agency and may not be appropriate for use in rural gifted educational research. The authors suggest referencing National Center for Educational Statistics, and then excluding schools with more than 2,500 students. The authors suggest that this will produce datasets that better align with the intent of researchers.

The authors completed this study with an intent to further define rural for gifted educational research.  However, it is unclear as to why this definition needs to be specific to gifted educational research.  The authors referenced studies that were not specific to rural gifted research and so the implications should apply more broadly. 

It should be noted that when doing research in Alaska there may be additional factors that further delineate the rural classification.  Colloquially, Alaska has rural equivalent terms such as village, off the road system, on the road system, hub, ferry serviced, non-ferry serviced, and bush.  Research on rural Alaskan education should allow for considerations to be made into these very different classifications.  

Authors conducted a qualitative study of two school districts in rural Appalachia and examined the structure of gifted programs and teacher perceptions of the gifted programs.  Authors found that programs varied and struggled with organization and curriculum.  There was an effort to “manufacture curriculum”, but the teachers lacked the skill to make lessons relevant to the local area.  The teachers were all from the local area, but the fact that the curriculum was not placed based may add to the likelihood that students won’t desire to stay in their communities after graduation and move away.  

It should be recognized that this study was limited.  Research was gathered in two districts, and only three teachers participated over the course of a month. Two of those teachers had less than five students.  The results of this study can be viewed within a larger context and act as a reminder that many rural communities struggle to serve their gifted students and help students find ways to stay in their hometowns.  Taken in the larger body of research, this study helps to show that many issues that rural gifted education programs experience are not specifically racial, ethnic, or cultural, but may persist because of situational or logistical limitations within all rural areas.