1. Student Self-Perceptions Prior to Intervention at the University of Virginia Dean L. Stevenson Virginia Tech Research Performed at the University of Virginia

2.  Program to assist talented minority and low-income students from Virginia Beach Public Schools  Based on increasing access to challenging curriculum, but also providing support for succeeding in these difficult courses  Four year study including six high schools  Two years with three experimental high schools, three control high schools  In the two subsequent years, the control groups become experimental high schools  Program includes  Intervention program at the University of Virginia (UVA)  Teacher and counselor training  Additional support systems for students

3.  Research shows that family support can have a larger influence on student achievement than actual school characteristics (Bennett et al 2004)  More specifically, school-related discussions with high school students “…significantly increased students’ likelihood of going to college” (Gándara, 2004)  Combining these two findings, one hypothesizes that verbal family support is an important factor in student achievement and motivation  Verbal family support includes:  Reading to/with children  “Dinner table” discussions  Parents communicating high educational expectations  Help with homework  Positive attitudes and behaviors that support academic achievement

4. Do students who engage in more at-home, school-related discussions seem to have higher academic supports, motivations, and self-perceptions?  To attempt to answer this question, survey results were used:  Survey based on previous literature and similar instruments (Hertberg-Davis, Callahan, and Kyburg, 2006)  Question  “How often do you have school-related discussions at home?”  Answer Choices:  Daily (6)  2-3 times per week (5)  Weekly (4)  Twice a month (3)  Monthly (2)  Rarely (1)  Never (0)  Students were compared in two groups: "Frequent” (Answered 5-6 on the question; 17 students) and “Rare” (Answered 0-4 on the question; 20 students)

5.  Student answers were coded 0 = Not Helpful and 1 = Helpful  No significant differences between groups The p-value for all significance testing was 0.05

6. C.C.=College credit; I.C.A.=Increase my chances of admission to college; O.G.E.=Opportunity to graduate college earlier; P.W.G.=Potential for weighted grades; P.C.W.=Preparation for college work; S.M.=Save money on tuition; C.P.L.=Chance to be with people who learn like I do; C.H.S.=Courses available at my high school; D.E.C.=Deeper exploration of content; and M.C.C.=More challenging curriculum

7.  No statistical differences between the two groups  Positive Self Image:  I feel good about myself  I am able to do things as well as other people  I am satisfied with myself  If I work really hard, I will do well at school  Negative Self Image:  I certainly feel useless at times  At times I think I am no good at all  I feel like I do not have much to be proud of  Every time I try to get ahead, somebody or something stops me

8.  Students who have frequent school discussions at home perceive better treatment by their teachers*  Positive Treatment:  Call on you more frequently than other students*  Give you more time to respond when called on than other students  Give you more praise for participation than other students*  Give you more positive attention than other students  Give you excellent feedback that helps you do better on tests, on projects, etc.  Negative Treatment:  Call on you less frequently than other students  Give you less time to respond when called on than other students  Give you less praise for participation than other students  Give you less positive attention than other students  Give you the answer instead of helping you to solve the problem

9.  Conclusions  Students show no significant statistical differences in their academic support systems or motivations  Significant differences were not found in self-perceptions except between the two groups when considering how they are treated in the classroom by their teachers  Cannot put a direction on the finding  Future Research  Extent of family support and its effect on other educational factors  More comprehensive survey  Compare groups with high family support and differing levels of self-esteem or high and impact on student achievement  Correlation between treatment in the classroom and frequency of at home conversations

10.  Professor Mentors:  Dr. Carolyn Callahan  Dr. Holly Hertberg-Davis  Graduate Mentors:  Rob “Bobert” Izzo  Lynne Crotts  Entire SURP Coordination Staff  Student Partner:  Mary Nguyen

11. Bennett, A., Bridglall, B.L., Cauce, A.M., Everson, H.T., Gordon, E.W., Lee, C.D. et al (2004). All Students Reaching the Top: Strategies for Closing Academic Achievement Gaps. Illinois: Learning Point Associates College Board (2006). National Summary Report 2005. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2005.html Gándara, P. (2004). Latino Achievement: Identifying Models That Foster Success. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Hertberg-Davis, H., Callahan, C.M., & Vyborg, R.M. (2006). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs: A “Fit” for Gifted Learners? The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.