Practices for Raising Student Achievement in Rural Districts

Hello everyone,
welcome to our webinar. We are excited about having a
wonderful presentation by two terrific researchers today. I’m Shelley Billig. I’m representing REL Central. We’re in the midst of doing
a number of different kinds of projects around closing
the achievement gap and understanding how
achievement can be improved in rural districts in schools. And I’m going to introduce
Dr. Matthew Irvin. He is an assistant professor
of educational psychology and research in the department
of educational studies at the University
of South Carolina. Previously, he was a research
scientist at the National Research Center on
rural education support at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his work was funded by IES. He did several large-scale
survey research studies and cluster randomized
controlled trial studies in rural schools
across the country. And at the University
of South Carolina, his collaboration has
focused on STEM education in high needs rural schools. This afternoon Doctor Irvin will
share an overview of his work on the effective use
of online learning in rural schools with
a particular focus on the effective use of
learner-centered principles from an experimental study on
student retention in distance education courses
in rural schools. Kind of a mouthful there. But welcome, Dr.
Irvin, and you’re on for your presentation. To first kind of give some
background information and data that we gathered as part of
a rural distance education survey. I’ll go over some
of our findings and work– involved a phone
survey with rural districts across the country there. And as it notes
here, these really helped develop the facilitator
preparation program. And that’s where we use the
learner-centered principles to improve the support rural
kids were getting while they’re taking advanced online courses. And then that’s what we did the
randomized control trial on, to test the effectiveness
of that intervention and the support that
the kids were getting. That shows the result of that. So go to the next slide, please. So first the rural
distance education survey. Broadly, we wanted to
look at rural district’s use of distance education
across the country. And we wanted to look
at some specific things like the prevalence
how frequently they had been or were using
distance education, barriers in maybe encountering
and the subjects they were trying to use distance
education to provide students, what was the format that they
were delivering the distance education or when
they were using it, how satisfied they were,
and the degree that students completed it and were
prepared for it to start. So these were phone
interviews that we did with the
superintendents for 400 randomly selected small and low
income rural school districts. These were meeting
the definition of small and low income rule
schools by the REAP program that the federal
government started. We mostly, about 95%
percent completion rate, and most of those
were superintendents. And in a few cases,
superintendents would tell us that they
weren’t the best person. They maybe had a district
technology coordinator or something of that
nature, but they said they were the
best person to talk to so in a few small
cases, a number of cases, we talked to them instead. So next slide, please. So broadly, some key
findings from that work where that 85% of the small
and low income rural school districts had used or were
using distance education. And a big percentage
of those, 81%, needed it to provide
advanced enrichment courses. So we thought this
was really important. There are some
national reports that suggest that rural schools use
distance education more often, maybe even twice as much as
urban and/or suburban schools, but they’re obviously using
it here for a particular need, to provide these advanced
or internet courses. So we also found that they
most often used online courses in particular versus a
similar sort of format like TV or something. And they used them,
in particular, to provide foreign language
and algebra most frequently. Those were two of the
highest frequency subject areas in distance education. So we also asked
them about how well prepared their students were for
taking these distance education classes, and they indicated that
they were very well prepared in terms of their
computer skills, and that their
academic background had very well prepared them, too. But much less of
the respondents said that the students were
very, very well prepared– excuse me– in terms
of study skills. So this was something
that we really keyed in on for our study,
how might we help kids in rural areas if they’re
not prepared in terms of their study skills for
taking these advanced enrichment courses. Next slide, please. So we also asked about
various barriers. This is pretty
common in research and online and
distance learning. Lot of work out
their on clusters of barriers, different
types of barriers. So following that, we
asked about similar things that have been asked
previously in their research. We asked about some
district barriers, and these were kind of just
conceptually grouped here into district barriers,
logistical barriers, and personnel barriers. So going back to
district barriers, we found that 68% said
they did not need them for a curriculum
requirement and that that was a barrier for them. So this probably
reflects the fact that again, they’re using
this distance education for online– excuse me–
advanced enrichment courses verses meeting their basic
needs, basic requirements. And then 64% indicated that
a barrier was funding issues. And a substantial
proportion there, 53%, also said that wasn’t
a district priority. And then in terms of
some logistical barriers, 59% thought it was a barrier
with scheduling issues. And others generally said it
was just difficult to implement. And then in terms
of personnel, these were the next or the last
most frequent barriers. They said that they didn’t
have the personal trained to support distance
education, or not available at all to support. Several of these other
things not needing them for curriculum requirements,
funding issues in terms of thinking about intervention
we could do and program we could do to help them
more effectively use distance education. These are things we felt we
probably couldn’t address, but having personal trained
to support distance education was something we felt
we could address. So we kind of keyed in on that
as well with our facilitator preparation program. Next slide, please. So a few other findings from
the distance education survey. Looking at their satisfaction
of the distance education and what that related to. We found that as students’
computer skills and those study skills– that you
may recall were lower– as those increased, the
districts were more satisfied. And they were also
more satisfied when they used a
synchronous delivery format. So more real-time,
online formats where you have live, real-time
access to instructors. But they more often used
asynchronous delivery formats, and it was not related
to any differences in their satisfaction. We interpreted this as when
they do use them– and again, use asynchronous delivery
formats more often, that at least it wasn’t
a problem in terms of their satisfaction. Next slide, please. So again, the survey data
and some of our findings there helped us think
about what wanted to do in our intervention program. And we focused in and developed
the facilitator preparation program where we focused on
the school-based facilitators or mentors to again, try to
improve the training support that they had at the school to
help rural youth who are taking advanced online classes. So part of the
rationale for this was that we know that learning’s
comparable in online courses when they complete a course. But that’s a major issue
that often in online courses students don’t
complete the course. Much higher dropout rate than
a traditional, face-to-face class. So we wanted to, in the
facilitator preparation program, try and increase
how long students stayed in the course and
whether they, then, of course, completed it. So could we reduce dropout? Next slide, please. So we developed a facilitator
preparation program. It was a web-based, completely
online training program. We actually implemented in
course blackboard platform that many of you may
be familiar with. We also used learner centered
principles from American Psychological Association. They have, broadly,
four domains– cognitive, meta-cognitive;
motivational, affective; developmental
and social; and individual differences. There’s– I’m looking at
them now– 14 principles, many different ones under each
of these domains, but broadly, the cognitive and meta-cognitive
domain talks about things like what’s the nature of the
learning process and how we’re more engaged, we better
learn complex material, we learn better when we try
to construct and use existing knowledge. Being strategic thinkers really
important and using higher order strategies to try and
self-regulate and achieve your learning goals
are important. So in terms of motivational
and affective factors, first talk about motivation
there and how important motivation is, especially
intrinsic motivation to learn. That is, your natural curiosity
and interest in things. And then in turn,
motivation really affects your effort and how much
effort you put in to learning. So in terms of development
and social factors, the learner centered
principles talk about that there are
developmental impacts on our learning, the
opportunities we have to learn, our learning experiences,
and that these also place constraints on what we
have the opportunity to learn. Social factors are
also important. Our peer relations, our
interactions with teachers. A lot of research showing that
teacher-student relationships are a very, very important
factor in learning. So that goes into a
social factor here. And then lastly, the importance
of individual differences. We have different
strategies for learning. Learners are diverse. We have different
cultural-linguistic backgrounds that need to be
taken into account. So those are the learner
centered principles that we really tried
to use and incorporate. And a lot of research has
shown that these essentially are the most important
principles of development and learning for you, and they
do apply to online distance education settings, as well. Next slide, please. So we presented the
facilitators some information on the learning center
principles, some background information on those,
and then we also had developed some
scenarios and provided them scenarios that depicted issues
students often encounter in some online courses. We’d done some pilot work
and worked with some course providers previously to
identify some of these issues that students have. So we developed these
scenarios, and they were provided over the course
of the first two, three weeks of the class. And they were delivered
in multiple media format, and involve text and
audio clip and images depicting these situations
and issues that students have. So for a little more detail
about these, some of them obviously addressed
time management, which was huge in
general for kids, but especially in
online settings. Had a kid in the video who
tended to procrastinate and was discussing this
issue with their facilitator. And they’re brainstorming
ideas of how to address time management
and do a better job of that. Motivation and engagement,
how students sometimes get disengaged with classes, and
particularly online classes. How they might be
having difficulties continuing to be motivated
in doing their work on time. And they don’t have a teacher
right there, so again, then brainstorming
strategies for how to address those things. So we asked them to–
the facilitators– to discuss the learner
centered principles that were apparent
in these scenarios and how they could
apply those to support rural students in particular. So I should mention the
facilitators are actually in this online course with each
other from other facilitators all across the
country, so they were interacting with each other
over this training material. Next slide, please. And that was essentially the
online facilitator community that we tried to develop early
on as part of the intervention and then try to continue
throughout the year. So we really wanted
them to work together to help understand these ideas
and how to best apply this for helping the rural youth. Next slide, please. Another key component of the
facilitator preparation program was data-based feedback and
some ongoing professional development. So we actually had
students and facilitators complete an online survey
of these learner centered principles, and the degree to
which the domains and related factors I briefly discussed were
apparent in their relationship between the student
and the facilitator in that on-site classroom
setting with them. So we aggregated these results
to the classroom level, the on-site classroom
level, and then share those– de-identified, of
course– with the facilitators to talk about. Here’s what you say
is going on, here’s what the students
say is going on, and what can we do to improve
that if there’s a discrepancy, or both show that maybe
something in particular is low. So next slide, please. And this essentially
talks about that, that we used that in
this feedback session where we had phone
conversations with them and discussed the results and
talked about, again, ideas for trying to improve things
that needed to be improved. Next slide. So we developed the facilitator
preparation program, and then we wanted to
evaluate the effects of it in a cluster randomized
control trial, where we had facilitators
randomly assigned to the control or an
intervention condition. And the facilitators who
in the control condition, they received the standard
training that the online course provider provided
all facilitators. It’s not that they got nothing. They got business as usual here. And those that were randomly
assigned to the intervention condition, they also got
the business as usual plus the additional information
and scenarios and such that I talked about that
were part of the facilitator preparation program. So essentially it was an
add-on to the standard business as usual. Next slide, please. So the students– they took an
online AP English literature course. And we had two distinct
groups or cohorts of students. We had a group of students in
2007 and 2008 academic year, and then the ’08-’09 year. Across both years or
groups of students– and they were
distinct, by the way, meaning it was a completely
different group of students in ’08, ’09 as it
was in ’07, ’08. So different schools,
different facilitators, different students altogether
in the second year. Over the course of the
two years of the project we had more than 700 students
and more than 90 rural schools all across the country. Next slide, please. And just a brief
depiction here of where we were all across the country. Interestingly, we weren’t
in the southeast much. One of the sort of
incentives of the project was we provided the online
AP English literature course for free, but many
schools in the southeast, we found, were already
implementing online distance education and didn’t
need it, already had some– like, even
Florida– Florida Virtual High School was already in place. North Carolina
virtual high school was coming online, as well. So many of the schools
districts in the southeast weren’t interested,
but otherwise we’re obviously across the
rest of the country here. Next slide, please. So to show you some of the
effects of the facilitator preparation program
on course dropout. I’ve included this table here. So the first line there,
the intervention line, it shows a negative 0.260, so
that means that overall there was a main effect of the
intervention on course dropout, reduced course dropout. There was also a cohort effect,
so the second line there for cohort two, minus 3.19 shows
that cohort two had a lower dropout rate themselves compared
to the first group of students, of the students in ’07, ’08. And then jumping down
to the last one here, the intervention by cohort
line of positive 3.78. There was an
interaction is what that indicates between the
intervention and cohorts. And there was
intervention effects in cohort one first
year students, but not for the
second year students. So we did fine, in effect, that
maintained in the first year but not carried on into the
second year or second cohort. So next slide. I think that’s it. That’s some citations
of some of the work that I’ve been talking
about and where you can find some
of this information here from the Rural
Distance Education Survey. And then next slide, the
work here on the facilitator preparation program. Dr. Peggy Clements is
a senior researcher with American
Institutes for Research. Much of her current work
focuses on the use of technology to support teaching and learning
with a focus on mathematics education. She has led multiple randomized
control trial studies including the one that we’ll talk
about here, and also an examination of the
impact of big math for little kids on
Pre-K and kindergarten students’ learning of math. She is going to discuss findings
from an experimental study on the effects of online
mathematics courses for eight grade students
in rural schools in Maine and Vermont. Welcome, Dr. Clements. So just as REL Central is
presenting this webinar as part of their REL program,
the study I’m going to talk about today was conducted
as part of the REL program but actually a previous
iteration of the REL program, so the set of RELs that
existed back before 2012. So this study was conducted
by REL Northeast and Islands. REL Northeast and Islands
was and is that education development center. This particular study
was a collaboration between researchers at ECD
and American Institutes for Research. It’s a big study. It’s kind of a
complicated study. I’ve done my best to
really focus my talk today on the points I think will
be of interest to attendees. Later on at the
end of my slides, and I think at the end
of my presentation, the organizers will give
you a link to this report that I show here on this slide. And the executive
summary of the report is going to offer a lot more
details if you have questions, and I’ll do my best to
answer all the questions that you have today. Next slide, please. So– actually,
there’s one more thing I want to say before
I get started. We were conducting this study
at about the same time that Matt was conducting the study
he was talking about, their AP English study. So if we had had those
findings, it would’ve helped us inform our
plans for this study, but we didn’t have them
then, although I do refer to them often
at this point. So, as many of us know,
taking algebra one is a gateway course. And for advanced students,
it’s a gateway course to being able to take more
advanced math and science courses in high school. Over the past decade or so, and
certainly since the National Mathematics Advisory
Panel report came out, many schools have been
moving to offer algebra one in the eighth grade. But it’s not possible
for all schools, and in particular, it’s
not possible for a lot of rural middle grade schools
to offer algebra one to students because they don’t
have the resources. Having a teacher who’s
certified to teach algebra one can be challenging thing
for a middle grade school to be able to access. And typically rural
schools are small. And so if you look
at say, for example, an entire cohort
of eighth graders, that maybe 40 students. The percentage of
those student that’s going to be ready
to take algebra one is going to be relatively small. And so the feasibility
of offering that a special particular
class for a very small group of students is outside of
what’s feasible for a lot of rural schools. So at this point, I
also just want to pause and just make one point
about the study really clear. This study is not about offering
algebra one to all eighth grade students, It’s about offering
algebra one, or in particular, expanding access to algebra
one for eighth grade students who are academically
ready to take algebra in the eighth grade. And so really, that that’s
what we set out to do. We set out to see whether
offering an algebra one class via an online format to
rural eighth grade students was an effective way
to not just increase their access to this
course, but to improve the educational outcomes
that we link or expect from kids who’ve been
able to take algebra one in the eighth grade. We conducted this study in– not
entirely, but almost completely in rural schools in
Vermont and Maine in the participating schools
that average eighth grade cohort size, so the average
number of eighth graders overall in these schools
was about 27 students. So we’re talking
about small school. And in these schools, about
25% of those students– of the eighth grade
students– were deemed to be academically
ready for algebra one in the eighth grade. So here again, we’re talking
about between six and seven students in each school. And you can see why it’s
really not feasible for most rural middle grade schools to
offer algebra one to students– to their academically ready
eighth grade students. So let’s go to the
next slide, please. So it’s important
to put this study in the context of
eighth grade mathematics and what’s going on. So what did mean for schools,
for middle grade schools in this study– what did
it for them to not offer a full algebra one course? It meant a lot of
different things. So these teachers are
absolutely doing the best that they could to
provide students with mathematics
instruction that was going to be challenging to them. And so this took
different formats. For some schools, it might
be that a handful of students were sitting in the back of the
classroom working in an algebra one textbook with a
teacher helping them when it was possible. In some settings, if schedules
and transportation allowed, students would travel
to the high school to take algebra one. But that’s certainly not going
to be a big solution for most schools. Lots of kids don’t have a
parent who can drive them there when they’re the ninth grade. But it’s also really
important to keep in mind that a typical eighth grade
mathematics curriculum includes– it
varies by curricula, but really includes
a significant focus on algebraic contents. They’re not teaching
algebra one, but there is a lot
of algebraic content that’s part of the typical
eighth grade curriculum. So again, the criteria for
schools to be part of this study where that they were
going to have students who were ready to take
algebra in the eighth grade, and that they didn’t
offer a full algebra one course to all of the
students who were ready for it. All right, so let’s go to
the next slide, please. So the policy relevant
question here, then, just to reiterate
what I’ve been saying, is that in schools
that don’t offer algebra one to eighth
graders, and in particular, in middle grade schools, is
it beneficial to offer algebra one as an online course? Where by benefits we
mean algebra achievement. So hopefully, do students
know more algebra at the end of the year? Which is what we would
hope if we’ve offered them an online algebra course. But importantly, do
students who have access to this online
algebra one course have the opportunity to take
more advanced mathematics courses once the get
into high school? Does it put them on an advanced
math course taking trajectory? And once again, I
just want to point out that this study was really–
that we were targeting the access to online algebra
one for the students who were quote, unquote algebra
ready or academically ready to take algebra one. So the specific and primary
research questions– next slide, please– that
study addressed– again, just saying the same thing,
just a little bit differently– is whether the impact of
offering an online algebra one course to algebra ready students
on their algebra achievement at the end of eighth grade, and
does offering an online algebra one course to these algebra
ready students affect the likelihood of their
being able to participate in an advanced mathematics
course sequence once they get into high school. I’d like to point
out, the study also addressed a number of
secondary questions. Being able to talk
about them is not within the scope of
this presentation, but again, I refer
you to the report, and in particular,
the executive summary. The report is 100
pages long, so I don’t think you want to
read the whole thing. But the executive summary
provides a nice overview of everything. Next slide, please. So as I mentioned a second ago,
this was an experimental study. It was a randomized
control trial. We recruited 68 schools
in Maine and Vermont to participate in this study. We asked schools to give us
a list of all of the students who they had identified as being
academically ready for algebra one once they got
into the eighth grade, and then we randomly assigned
schools to either the treatment group, which had access to the
algebra one online curriculum during the study, or schools
were randomly assigned– and by that, I mean we performed
a lottery, so everybody had an equal probability
of being in either group– so schools were either assigned
to be in the treatment group and had access to the
online algebra one course, or they were assigned
to the control group and we asked those schools
to teach mathematics the same to all the eighth graders in
the same way they would have had they not heard about the study. Before you go to the next
slide, I want to just reiterate, the results I’m going to
be talking about today are the results
that are relevant specifically about the
algebra one, the algebra ready students. Not the other students. I’m talking just
about the kids who were ready to take algebra one. Next slide, please. Given our research
questions, it makes sense that our measures,
our outcome measures would be an algebra
achievement test score. It was an algebra test
that we gave all students at the end of the eighth grade. And the other measure of high
school math course taking. So we followed students through
the end of the ninth grade and went all these students’
schools and were able to collect data about what math
courses those students were registered for for
the 10th grade. So the study couldn’t
follow students throughout their
high school career, but we were able
to at least know what were the courses that
students were planning to take by the time they
got into the 10th grade, hoping to see whether or
not having access to algebra one in the eighth
grade had put them on a more advanced
course taking trajectory. All right, the
next slide, please. Just little bit
about the course. So it was an asynchronous
online course. All of the content was online. There was a certified teacher,
an online certified teacher, who was available to students. But being an asynchronous
course, what that meant was that typically, students
and teachers were not online at the same time. Each school was asked–
we asked each school to identify and appoint
an on-site facilitator– basically, the person
at the school, who would oversee and support the
students who were enrolled in the online courses. Before I– next slide,
please– before I tell you about the findings,
so the findings in terms of the impact of
the course on students’ math outcome, I want to tell
you a little bit about what we saw in the online courses. So we know lots of people
are turning to online courses because they do have the
potential to increase access to advanced learning
opportunities and create access to lots of
different kinds of learning opportunities. But we don’t know
a lot, I would say, about what is really going
on in online courses. And certainly all online
course providers vary and how schools implement
online courses really varies, but we did, in our study,
look pretty carefully at the online teacher practices
as well as the practices of the school, so the
school facilitators who were on-site supporting
the kids in the online courses. So the expectation, and these
were the expectations stated by the online course provider,
is that the online teachers would log in to the course
management system every day to both monitor students’
progress in the course and to communicate
with students. What we found in
terms of monitoring was that almost, without
a doubt, in our– and we did these observations
online using back end data, but in almost all
observation periods, we saw that the online teacher
did log into the learning management system. And we saw that in 70%
of these situations, the online teacher monitored
student login activities, so we could see that they went
and looked at which students had logged into the course. And we could also see that
in 43% of our observations, that the online teacher
had gone in to examine, monitor students’ grades–
where they were in the course and what their grades were. Next slide, please. The other expectation
was about communication, and the expectation from, again,
the online course provider was that the online teachers
would communicate directly with students every day. What we saw was that in
almost all the observations, it’s true that online teacher
did send at least one message to students in almost
all of the observations. About half of the messages
were administrative, typically about pacing. Reminding students that they
needed to complete unit, or whether or not
they were on track to complete course by
the end of the year. A lot of it had to do with
pacing, quite honestly– or how long a particular
test would still be available for
students to take online. And only about 13%
of the messages addressed course content. And when I say, these
were both messages that teaches could send
directly to the students. So the teacher might have
initiated the message. These might also represent– or
they do also represent messages that teachers sent to students
in response to a message the student had sent. So 13% of the messages
addressed math content, and 3% of the student
enrolled in online courses were involved in
those communications. Without too much detail,
these observations– we didn’t observe all the data
for all 180 academic days. We randomly selected 8
24-hour periods in which we looked at these data. But they were a
good representation across the entire academic year. Next slide, please. Another thing to keep
in mind about the study is we had asked schools–
requested, required of them to appoint a school
staff member to serve as the on-site monitor. It was up to them to appoint
whoever they wanted to appoint. What we saw in these
schools– now keep in mind, these are middle schools
and small rural schools– and what we saw
were that– forward this slide just a little bit. What we saw was that
in 80% of the schools, they had actually
appointed the person who would have been the
students’ eighth grade math teacher to be the monitor, and
so these students ended up just sitting in the back of the
classroom with a laptop. That’s how they went
through the course. What we saw– and this is one
of the things that surprised us was that each of
the monitors reported spending an average of 50
minutes per week answering students’ questions about math. So this is a little
bit misleading. The median was closer
to half an hour, and it’s also important
to keep in mind that this is the total number of
minutes they spent answering questions for all of the
students they were overseeing. But the important point
to take away, I think, is that the way
schools set it up, the mentor was the math teacher. And that not surprisingly,
these eighth grade students turned to their math teacher,
the person in the room with them, to ask questions
about mathematics. Next slide, please. All right. So got a couple minutes. Now we’re going to
talk about the results. So these numbers are just a
little bit out of the blue because it’s hard to know what
447 and 441 mean, but basically what we saw was
that– and again, this was the minimum
that we expected– was that students
in the treatment schools, the algebra ready
students in the treatment schools, that had had
access to the online course, they performed better on an
end-of-course algebra test than students in
the control group. And again, that’s
totally what we would have expected– that
had access to an algebra one course. Effect size– that basically
a little research-y term. In retrospect, seeing
who our participants are, wish I hadn’t included it. Basically, it’s a
standardized difference, mean difference score
between the two groups. And any time in education we
see an effect size over 0.25, a number of us consider that to
be an educationally meaningful difference. And so that’s what we have
here, this effect size 0.40. Next slide, please. In our minds, the targeted
outcome for this study was whether students who had
had access to the online course were more likely to be
engaged in an advanced math course taking
trajectory by the time they were in the
tenth grade, and that definitely was the case. The students, the
algebra ready students who were in the treatment
school had a 51% probability, or their probability was
0.51 of being enrolled in an advanced math
course taking sequence, as compared to the
control schools. And I’m just going
to translate this. This isn’t exactly right, so the
research isn’t– the audience, please excuse me. Another way to understand
this is that about half of the students who had had
access to that online algebra one course were enrolled in
an advanced math course taking sequence at the end of the ninth
grade compared to about 26% of students in the
control schools. And remember, in
the control school, kids still could have been
at the back of the classroom, they still could have had
access to an algebra one course through their high school,
or their schools could have decided to use an
online course after hearing about the possibility and
enrolling in the study. So about 20% of students
in the control schools had access to a full
algebra one course. And in a number of the
cases, those students were enrolled in an
online algebra course. All right, so next
slide, please. This is straight
from the report. We really think that
the results suggest that offering an online
course these algebra ready eighth grade students
is an effective way to broaden access to
this specific course. And importantly, later to more
challenging mathematics course opportunities. Next slide, please. And here is a link. This link– I actually
don’t think you have access to the link, but you can
Google access to algebra one advanced mathematics,
grade eight students. And you can find the report. And so we want to thank
both of our presenters today for their
wonderful studies, in particular, and for also
joining us and presenting this great webinar. We want to thank all
of you listeners. On behalf of REL Central,
thank you all again. And we will close
this webinar now. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *