Course Description and Objectives

Course Descriptions:

1.  I now understand the fundamental terms, concepts, and designs characteristic of both quantitative and qualitative educational research.  I do not have the intention of conducting formal research in my professional career but learning the differences in quantitative and qualitative research studies will help me interpret research findings and how they can benefit my continued knowledge in the special education field.
2. I can now design my own research study.  This has been difficult but has definitely given me a new respect for what goes into the data that we use to interpret what we need to do to best educate students.  Otherwise, I will not be designing research in my professional career; it takes too long just to think of a GOOD question to even get started!!!!
3. I can critically evaluate published research articles in an effort to encourage data-driven reflection.  This has been helpful in learning what is “crap” research and what is a real journal article.  I have obviously known that everything on the internet is not “real” but learning the difference in peer reviewed journals has been helpful.  I now know what to look for when researching a specific topic for work, such as looking up research on a specific disorder or diagnosis that would help educate me on how to better serve the children I work with.  I don’t know that I’ll ever be a data-driven reflector? Trial and error right?!
4. I can now evaluate the methodological procedures that an author followed, the results that were reported, and the practical significance of the study.  This has taught me that a whole LOT goes into research in general.  For future course work that requires me to interpret studies, I will now be able to do so quickly.  Being able to break down an article has helped me understand the general idea and what the purpose is in general.  I will probably be more likely to read journal articles now that I know how to “pick” through them (no offense researchers) in order to figure out if they are relevant to what I am looking for.
5. I have the ability to comprehend common research designs, methods, and procedures.  I can now recognize the differences in qualitative research studies and quantitative research studies.  I did not realize they were so different.  I also now know that qualitative research is more interesting to me and would apply more to my profession (observational in nature).
6.  I have the ability to communicate the research results clearly, concisely, logically and in a coherent manner.  This will help me professionally because I can discuss past research findings and how something could benefit a student now (if something worked for a group of children it might work for another group of children)
7. I can read and critically evaluate scholarly journal articles.  Again, this has helped me learn to weed through nonsense articles that are more opinion based than research based.  Articles are beneficial to my professional development because new information about child development is always helpful in learning different ways to teach.
8. I can design my own research investigations.  I can, but probably won’t continue to do this.  I will admit that I’m a huge Google fan when I need to look up something I don’t know about, but as far as designing my own research investigations, literally, I probably won’t do that professionally, aside from discussing things with affiliates and accessing common educational resources.  Perhaps I’ll have another class that will require it J

Course Objective:

1.  I have had to review articles in past classes; knowing all of the differences in qualitative/quantitative research would have been helpful in more clearly interpreting the purpose and procedures and why each was chosen.  I’m sure I will be able to use this knowledge in future classes.
2. I may use this knowledge in future classes but do not think I will have a need to know this in my professional career.
3. I can apply this to everyday life as well as educationally and professionally.  We are always trying to find averages and correlations at work.  For example, it is helpful to know what the average number of children in Richmond City receive speech therapy services on an ongoing basis so that we are sure that we have enough staffing to accommodate the need (more speech delayed kiddos=need more SLP’s =try to stay ahead of the game…..TRY).
4. This applies a lot to my job because we work with families and organizations and frequently have to release information between people involved with the families.  We have to ensure that consent is obtained in order to remain ethical.  It would also be unethical for me to witness child abuse and not report it to the proper authorities.
5. I can now find the hypothesis in a study more easily but I do not see myself applying this to my career.  I’m sure I will need this knowledge again for future coursework. 
6. This is helpful in educating myself on specific topics.  Now that I have access to the database for journal articles through VCU, I frequently look into articles that pertain to diagnosis and research regarding that diagnosis for work (now when I have a kiddo on my caseload that has a diagnosis that I am not familiar with or what that kiddo would benefit best from, I research successes found for those children before, such as children with CMV and the prevalence of hearing loss/likelihood of eventual deafness and proactive resources to encourage language development)(I looked that one up recently).  Who would have thought I’d look at literature instead of Google! J
7. I might have to write another literature review for school but doubt that the need will arise with work.  Doing this is difficult.
8. AAAHHH!  I will be honest and say that I hope I do not have to complete another research proposal.  I may participate in research studies but will probably not do my own.  Research is great and we need it; it just probably won’t come from me!

Ethnographic vs Phenomenological Research Designs

 

Phenomenological Research Design	Ethnographic Research Design
The goal of phenomenological research is to fully understand the essence of some phenomenon.  This is usually accomplished with long, intensive individual interviews.  The purpose is to describe and interpret the experiences of participants in order to understand the essence of the experience as perceived by the participants.  The basis is that there are multiple ways of interpreting the same experience, and that the meaning of the experience to each participant is what constitutes reality.  Focuses on the consciousness of human experiences.	The goal of ethnographic research is to describe and interpret a cultural or social group. Ethnographers spend extensive time in the setting being studied and use observations, interviews, and other analyses to understand the nature of the culture.  Ethnography is an in-depth description and interpretation of cultural patterns and meanings within a culture or social group.  The main emphasis is on groups.  Ethnographers study specific cultural themes.
A phenomenological research problem focuses on what is essential for the meaning of the event, episode, or interaction.  It also focuses on understanding the participants’ voice.  The problem can be stated directly or less directly.  Usually there is a single, central question in the research.  Several sub questions are used to orient the researcher in collecting data and framing the results.	An ethnographic research problem consists of foreshadowed questions, which are initially general and are subject to change as the study is conducted.  Once the statement or question is established, the researcher designs data collection by determining the nature of the research site, how to enter the research site, how to select participants, how to obtain data, and how to analyze the data.
Participants are selected because they have lived the experiences being investigated, are willing to share their thoughts about the experiences, and can articulate their conscious experiences.  Often the participants are from a single site but multi-sites are not uncommon.  Typically, between 5 and 25 individuals are interviewed	Once the research site has been determined and the researcher has spent some time at the site, some of the individuals are selected for more intensive observation and/or interviews.  These participants (usually 5-10) are selected through purposeful sampling to provide an in-depth understanding of the culture that is being studied.  The selection is done so that the site and participants reflect the culture that is being studied.
Data is obtained by personal, in-depth, semi structured or unstructured interview.  The interviews are typically long, and the researcher may have several interview sessions with each participant.  Because of the heavy reliance on this single method of data collection, it is important for the researcher to be skilled at interviewing.  The interviews are tape-recorded for analysis.	Data is obtained by: Observing a culture for weeks, months, even years Interact with and interview members of the culture Analyze documents and artifacts (observation, interview, document analysis) The researcher engages in extensive work in the naturally occurring setting or context.  The researcher takes field notes; detailed recordings of observed behavior. The researcher could be a participant observer or a complete observer.  Interviews could consist of key informant interviews, life-history interviews, or focus group interviews.
Data is analyzed by: Because the focus is on shared meaning and consciousness, the researcher must be very careful in creating codes and concepts that form the basis for descriptions and meanings.  The analysis begins with a description of the researcher’s experiences with the phenomenon.  Statements are identified that show how the participants experience the phenomenon and then meaningful units are formed from the statements using verbatim language from the participants as illustrations.  Descriptions of what was experienced are separated from how it was experienced.  The researcher may reflect on his or her own experiences and integrate them with those of the participants.  An overall description of the meaning of the experience is constructed.  Individual as well as composite descriptions are written to show how the experiences fit with the meaning derived.	Data is analyzed by: Pages of field notes or interview transcripts must be critically examined and synthesized.  Analysis is done during collection as well as after all data have been gathered.  The goal of the analysis is to discover patterns, ideas, explanations, and understandings.  Specific data elements have to be organized and then synthesized to derive the patterns and ideas that will form the basis of the conclusions.  Analysis requires organization of the data, summarizing of the data, and then interpreting the data. Emic: participant wording Etic: researcher representations of emic data Codes: Words or phrases to signify units of data Category: Idea that represents coded data

Qualitative Research Characteristics

The key characteristics of qualitative research:

A key characteristic of qualitative research is studying behavior as it occurs naturally within the setting.  A natural setting is one that the researcher does not manipulate or control.  In Schempp’s study, the setting is the physical education classrooms in Hillcrest High School, in Hillcrest, a small rural community in the Pacific Northwest.  The physical education classrooms in the high school were natural settings because the researcher was studying the experienced physical education teacher and his ability to acquire knowledge necessary to teach.  The physical education teacher taught in the physical education classrooms, therefore making them his natural setting and thus where Schempp could naturally observe his behavior without altering or interfering with his environment.

Direct data collection is also a key characteristic of qualitative research studies; narrative data is collected over long periods of time from observations and interviews and analyzed using interpretive techniques (the researcher personally collects the data and then interprets what the data means and why).   In Schempp’s study, he collected data directly using various techniques, including nonparticipant observations, artifact and document analysis, stimulated recall using videotaped classes, and formal and informal interviews.  The physical education teacher was interviewed, as well as other school personnel (Kathy, students, teachers, administrators).  Field notes were recorded during and after observations and a summary statement was made off site after each day of data collection.  Direct data collection is important in qualitative research studies because by observing naturally occurring behavior over many hours or days, the researcher hopes to obtain a rich understanding of the phenomenon being studied.  Schempp spent about four months observing the physical education teacher (daily for the first month and then on average twice a week after that); this significant amount of time makes it more likely that his data will be valid and credible.

A key characteristic of qualitative research studies is having rich narrative descriptions; the reader needs to understand the context of the study in detail in order to better understand the phenomena being studied.  In Schempp’s study, he describes the setting in detail, including the type of community (rural, small) as well as detailed information regarding the school’s history of educational excellence and to what extend physical education classes are required for the students.  The study also specifies the content of the physical education teacher’s classes and their specific curriculum (gymnastics, outdoor education, etc).  Schempp gives a detailed description of the physical education teacher, including the number of years of experience, his routines in the classroom, the daily schedule (take attendance, begin warm up exercises, etc), and his teaching behavior (well-rehearsed, time-worn rituals).  This detail gives the reader an idea of the participant and the environment in which he interacts and provides in-depth understanding of contexts and behaviors (can picture it in your head). 

Process orientation is also a key characteristic of qualitative research studies.  Process orientation focuses on why and how behaviors occur.  In Schempp’s study, the physical education teacher, from years of contact with many sources of occupationally useful information, seemed to have a clear sense of both the expectations others held for him and his own purpose for being in the school.  After years of service, the physical education teacher had a well developed set of criteria to guide his acquisition of occupational knowledge.  These criteria allowed him to identify gaps in his knowledge and to assess new knowledge in light of its potential contribution to his teaching.  Because the teacher acquired new knowledge based on his experiences, interests, values, beliefs, and orientations, his professional knowledge appeared personal and idiosyncratic.  In other words, the teacher taught the way he did because after years of experience, he was set in his ways and therefore taught the curriculum of his classes according to his knowledge base and perhaps personal preferences.

Another key characteristic of qualitative research studies is inductive data analysis; generalizations induced from synthesizing gathered information.  Once data is collected and summarized, the researcher looks for relationships among the categories and patterns that suggest generalizations, models, and conclusions. Based on the data collected, the researcher interprets the findings.   In Schempp’s study, he found that the physical education teacher had constructed a comfortable set of criteria for evaluating and selecting knowledge necessary for his day-to-day classroom operation.  In other words, the teacher increased his knowledge base based on his interests and what he needed to know in order to instruct his class.  The researcher generalized that the teacher was set in his ways after many years of teaching and therefore expanded his knowledge base primarily for his own educational benefit (what he was interested in that also fit into the class’s curriculum requirements).  Though the teacher was set in his ways, he did acquire knowledge necessary to teach. The researcher did find that classroom order and operation held the highest priority in the teacher’s knowledge; subject matter was chosen based on his personal interests and workplace conditions.  

Participant perspectives (focus on participant’s understanding and meaning) is a key characteristic of qualitative research studies. Participant perspectives are important because each participant could understand things differently and do things differently than another because there are multiple realities.  In order for a researcher to obtain a valid participant perspective, they must develop a long-term and trusting relationship with the participants.  Schempp collected data from students, teachers, and administrators to obtain multiple perspectives regarding the physical education teacher’s ability to acquire new knowledge necessary to teach his classes.  Schempp also developed a relationship with the teacher by observing him for a long period of time (one year) and building an open relationship with him.  When a trusting relationship is build, the participants may be more likely to be “themselves”, thereby increasing the validity of your data and findings.

A key characteristic of qualitative research studies is emergent research designs; the research design evolves and changes as the study takes place.  In Schempp’s study, the research design changed in the sense that the researcher observed daily for a month and then only twice a week for the rest of the study length.  Schempp analyzed data during the study, which allowed data collection techniques to be tailored to gather data that were amenable to testing and understanding the emerging themes (techniques included triangulation of methods, member checks, etc).  The overall data collected showed that little changed in the observable practices of Bob’s day-to-day activities as a teacher and he became predictable in his course of action.  The study did state that the students and staff underestimated how much the teacher screened and reviewed information pertaining to increasing his knowledge base for the class.

Just for fun :-) The furry one is mine, the pups are my Dad’s

Two studies

I read and reviewed a journal article on children with autism spectrum disorder in inclusive early childhood education programs.  The premise of inclusive early childhood services is to show that young children with disabilities should be able to engage meaningfully in all aspects of an inclusive program that welcomes and supports diversity (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008).  A key issue in the inclusion of children with disabilities is the development of social competence and the ability to form relationships with peers.  Being able to participate in social interactions is important so it is critical to ensure that early childhood programs provide the support that children need to learn to make friends. However, some children with disabilities or developmental delays may be socially isolated or excluded within regular early childhood settings and therefore may not develop social acceptance.

This study focused of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).  Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder that is distinguished by social and communication difficulties (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008).  Autism is a spectrum disorder; individuals present with a wide range of abilities and disabilities and the specific needs of each individual may be different.  The argument in the study is that early childhood programs should use a social constructivist perspective as a framework for understanding how best to support the play and social engagement of all young children with disabilities, including those with ASD.  The researchers explored the level of social competence and degree of social acceptance of children with ASD within inclusive programs.  The researchers also examined the nature of the play and social engagement of children with ASD with their typically developing peers.

This study had a social constructivist perspective on inclusion, meaning that play has potential to promote learning as children interact with their peers, therefore having an important role in development (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008).  The study consisted of a comparative research design that focused on 12 children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) aged 4-5 years old.  The comparison group was 30 children with typical development aged 4-5 years old.  The study sample total was 42 children participating across eight preschools.  All of the participants in the study were male.  All of the children in the study completed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) to assess their linguistic competence.  Time-sampled observations of free play activities were made in the preschool setting on two occasions for periods of one hour.  Teachers also provided an assessment of children’s peer acceptance and social behavior; the level of social competence of the children was based on teacher reports from the Profile of Peer Relations. Data was collected by one research assistant late in the preschool year in order to ensure that the children with ASD were familiar with the setting, peers and teachers.

The results of this study indicate children with Autism Spectrum Disorder scored significantly lower in receptive communication on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test than the children with typical development.  The results also indicated that children with ASD are less likely to display prosocial behavior, are more likely to be withdrawn, and are less well accepted by their peers than the typically developing children, according to the reports from the Profile of Peer Relations.  Therefore, based on the teacher ratings, the children with ASD in this study were identified as less socially competent than their typically developing peers.  The results also indicated that children with ASD were less likely to engage in social play and more likely to engage in solitary play.  The children with ASD were also more likely to interact with the teacher than the children with typical development.  The children with ASD were more likely than typically developing children to engage in functional play activities as well.  The children with ASD were able to engage at comparable levels to typically developing children across many categories of play activity but that they spent more time in a play activity that could be considered of low cognitive demand. 

The study relates to my research topic because it indicates that children with autism spectrum disorder can succeed in inclusive classrooms with typically developing peers.  Although this study indicated that some children with ASD were less socially interactive than their typically developing peers, they were able to engage at comparable levels to typically developing children across many categories of play activity.  In other words, children with ASD can benefit from being in inclusive settings and therefore do not necessarily have to be in self-contained classrooms in order to succeed in learning. 

This study is valid in the sense that it documents the success of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in inclusive settings in comparison to typically developing peers.  Even though the children with ASD’s skill level may or may not be as high as those of their typically developing peers, they were still able to benefit from being in an inclusive setting just as typically developing children do.  This study is not valid in the sense that it cannot necessarily be generalized to the population of children with ASD.  The study consisted of 12 children with ASD but those children were only observed for an hour, twice.  The children with ASD were also not observed at the beginning of their attendance in an inclusive setting, making it questionable as to whether or not they were benefiting from the actual classroom type or if they would have succeeded regardless of which classroom type they attended.  The benefits of inclusive settings would have been validated more if there was documentation of the children’s social interactions and successes in the beginning of the preschool program as well as documentation after an extended period of attendance in the setting. 

Berthelsen, D., & Walker, S. (2008). Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in early childhood education programs: A social constructivist perspective on inclusion. International Journal of     Early Childhood, 40(1), 33-51.

1.  Study Design: comparative research design (comparing social interactions of children with ASD with social interactions of children that are typically developing in an inclusive classroom)
2. Participants/sample: 12 children with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder aged 4-5 years old; the comparison group was 30 children with typical development aged 4-5 years old.
3. C.      Data collection methods: Children completed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) to assess their linguistic competence.  Time-sampled observations of free play activities were made in the preschool setting on two occasions for periods of one hour.  Teachers also provided an assessment of children’s peer acceptance and social behavior.
4. D.      Data analysis: the children with autism spectrum disorder spent proportionally less time than their peers in activities requiring higher levels of social skills.  Children with autism spectrum disorder engaged in most types of play but with lower levels of engagement than the comparison group.
5. E.       Conclusions: children with ASD were able to perform the play and social behaviors that were of interest in the observations.  The children with ASD in this study were capable of more extensive social and play engagement because they had demonstrated the requisite skills.  The results indicate the need for greater teacher support and support of the interactions of children with ASD with their typically developing peers in order to increase their social and play participation in inclusive programs.
6. F.       Conclusions valid?: the study validated that children with ASD can succeed in inclusive classrooms but it did not document the social skill levels  from the beginning of their attendance, therefore possibly making the results invalid that children with ASD compare to typically developing children in regards to social development in inclusive settings.

 

 

I read and reviewed a journal article on attitudes of teachers in early childhood self-contained and inclusive settings in regards to social interaction interventions in an inclusive era. 

1. A.       Study Design:  cross-sectional survey design (surveying attitudes and perceptions of teachers in self-contained classrooms versus teachers in inclusive classrooms towards social interactions of children with disabilities)
2. B.      Participants/Sample: 137 teachers working in either self-contained classroom settings or inclusive classroom settings (58 teachers that worked in self-contained early intervention settings and 79 teachers that worked in kindergarten inclusive settings).  The teachers all had bachelor’s degrees or higher in either early childhood education (ECE) or early childhood special education (ECSE) and were all currently attending graduate level courses in either ECE or ECSE.
3. C.      Data Collection Methods: surveys were distributed in university classes in regular and special education and in the school mail systems.  The surveys were completed by the participants and then mailed to the researcher.  The researcher made efforts to contact participants by phone or mail to remind them to return the surveys or supply missing information.
4. D.      Data Analysis:  Participants completed a demographic information form and five instruments, including the Social Interaction Program Features Questionnaire, the Teacher Belief Scale, the Instructional Activities Scale, the Attitudes Toward Inclusion Scale, and the Teacher Efficacy Scale.  The study investigated the perceptions and attitudes of teachers in early childhood settings toward social interaction interventions appropriate for young children with disabilities.
5. E.       Conclusions:  self-contained classroom teachers and inclusive classroom teachers are similar in their perceptions of interventions.  Teachers felt like more supports were needed in the classrooms.
6. F.       Conclusion valid?:  this conclusion is valid only in the sense that it found no significant findings from the surveys.  The study stated that the teachers reported that they felt like more supports were needed in the classroom but their attitudes towards the classroom types in regards to social interaction was not significant (did not vary significantly).  This study also only focuses on teachers who are continuing their education in the field, which could indicate that they have positive feelings regarding teaching disabled and/or typically developing children in the first place.  The mean of this study did not show a significant difference in attitudes of teachers but that cannot be generalized to all teachers in the ECE or ECSE field; there are certainly teachers out there that have very negative feelings towards social interventions in self-contained or inclusive classrooms.  This study also did not seem to specify whether the attitudes of the teachers were generally positive or generally negative.

Bain, S., & Rheams, T. (2005). Social interaction interventions in an inclusive era: Attitudes of teachers in               early childhood self-contained and inclusive settings. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 53-63.

Threats to internal validity

       Quantitative research problem:

       Preschoolers with autism benefit more from inclusive classrooms than self-contained classrooms.

Threats to internal validity:

History:  History is the category of uncontrolled events that influence the dependent variable.  History could affect my study in the sense that a preschooler could have already been in a particular type of classroom (self-contained or inclusive) for an extended period of time before the research is even conducted, thus possibly altering the results of which classroom is or is not more beneficial.  For example, a preschool might have a regular routine, an attachment to a teacher, or the classroom itself; changing the environment might not show benefits that it might have if the preschooler was exposed to each type of classroom for the same amount of time from the beginning.  A preschooler could do really well in a self-contained classroom because they are used to the small student-teacher ratio, so putting them in an inclusive classroom with typically a larger ratio might overwhelm them and therefore require a longer period of adjustment.  This may result in inaccurate data regarding whether or not the child would or would not benefit from an inclusive setting, in time (threats internal validity). 

Selection:  Selection is a threat from the characteristics of subjects.  This could affect my study because some of the preschoolers may have already been exposed to both inclusive settings and self-contained settings.  For example, a preschool could attend a day program in a self-contained classroom but could attend an after school program in an inclusive setting.  This would threaten the internal validity of the research because a preschooler could have learned to benefit from both types of classrooms in different ways.  A preschooler might benefit more from a self-contained classroom in the sense that they get more one-on-one attention with school work but may benefit more from an inclusive setting because of the peer interaction with other typically developing peers.  Having preschoolers with more “diverse” preschool experiences than others could cause the data to be invalid based on various types of exposure to different types of classrooms before the study even begins. 

Maturation:  Maturation is a threat from changes in subjects over time.  This could affect my study because throughout the length of time that it may take to collect the data needed for the research, any given participant could experience feelings that could alter the validity of the results.  For example, a child could begin to not get along with a classmate, and then therefore begin to dislike the classroom with that child in it (social development changes and thus alters the interval validity of whether or not the child is actually benefiting or not benefiting from the classroom type). 

Pretesting:  Pretesting is a threat from the effect of taking the pretest.  Testing could affect my study if the participants were given the opportunity to experience both classroom types (self-contained or inclusive) before the research is being conducted and data collected.  For example, a participant may learn or experience things during the pretesting in one classroom type that makes them bias towards the other classroom type (one classroom had a kitchen play area and a fun classmate or teacher and the other classroom at the time of testing did not), therefore they may pre-determine which classroom they would rather be in regardless of what the benefits of the other classroom may or may not be (causing threat to interval validity). 

Instrumentation:  Instrumentation is a threat from unreliability or changes in measurement.  Instrumentation could affect my study because some of the data collection may need to be collected by the classroom teacher.  This could affect instrumentation because the teacher may not always be able to be present in the classroom everyday (out sick, in meetings, conferences, etc.).  A substitute teacher may interpret behaviors and benefits differently than the assigned classroom teacher, thus making the instrumentation threaten the research interval validity (collect data differently, notice different characteristics of the participants, etc.). 

Subject Attrition:  Subject Attribution is a threat from loss of subjects.  Subject attrition could affect my study because students participating in the study could move, become ill, or drop out of school.  The absence of participants affects the results of the study.  This threatens interval validity because data is collected on the participant for a part of the study but not all of it, making it questionable as to whether or not you could say that they benefited from one classroom or another during their participation in the study.   This could also indicate that the student “dropped out” because they were not experiencing benefits from the classrooms (not good!). 

Statistical Regression:  Statistical regression is a threat from change of extreme scores to those closer to the mean.  This could affect my study because the participants in the study could naturally make significant progress in their development regardless of the type of classroom they are in.  For example, a participant could have a natural growth in communication skills that may or may not be attributed to the benefits of the classroom type.  This would mean that the participant may not seem to benefit from one classroom type or another in the beginning of the study but may seem to benefit significantly at the end of the study (regardless of classroom type).  This is a threat because the participants are selected for the study because they have autism and developmental delays associated with the disorder (may display significant delays in the beginning but display minimal delays in one area or another in the end), thus affecting the interval validity of the study. 

Diffusion of Treatment:  Diffusion of treatment is a threat from treatment effect on one group affecting other groups.  This could affect my study because participants in the study could be friends with children in the other type of classroom (one they themselves are not currently in and have not yet been in).  This could affect the interval validity because the friend could tell the participant how much fun their classroom is, thus making the participant want to be in that classroom and therefore become less excited or engaged in their current classroom.  This could alter the results as to whether or not the participant benefited from the classroom type or not because the participant was aware of the other classroom type before experiencing it (wanting to be in another classroom could negatively affect how they respond/benefit in their current classroom).

Comparative-correlational

Causation should not be inferred from comparative designs because:

v  Compares two or more groups on one or many variables

v  Does not necessarily reveal an underlying cause or that one variable affects or changes another variable

v  Do not know that one variable causes the other

v  Not a good measure of cause and effect

v  A relationship exists or there is a significant difference between the variables but there is not a causal relationship

Causation should not be inferred from correlational designs because:

v  Two or more variables are related with the use of one or more correlational coefficients; relationships are indicated by obtaining at least two scores from each subject

v  Relationships do not infer or imply causation

v  Direction of possible causation is not clear

v  Other variables not included in the study may affect the relationship

v  Two events happening together do not necessarily mean that one causes the other

In Legette’s study, he says that most subjects placed more importance on ability and effort as casual attributions for success and failure in music than they did with attributing success or failure in music because of task difficulty or luck.  In other words, I am interpreting  Legette’s logic as to suggest that a subject’s perceived ability and effort causes success or failure in music more so than a subject’s perception of task difficulty or luck causing success or failure in music.  I personally feel that even though the perception of ability, effort, luck or task difficulty might very well be related to success or failure in music, I by no means believe that one necessarily causes the other.

This study is somewhat “all over the place” in the sense that the researcher is attempting to answer so many questions; some seem correlational and others seem comparative.  For example, Legette compares the perceptions of city students versus county students regarding attributing factors for success and failure in music.  Although the students’ location may be relevant to their perceptions of music, it does not mean that their school location alone caused them to feel one way or another towards success or failure in music.  He also states that student’s perceptions about effort and ability increased significantly with grade level, therefore saying that grade level causes increased awareness of effort and ability internally( they are correlated).  He does not take into account other variables that could influence students more and more the higher they get in grade level.  For example, Legette does not take into account that by high school most students have had more exposure to music  or that they may become more interested in music in general as they get older and begin to appreciate it more.  Being exposed to more music may relate to student’s perceptions towards music but that does not mean that you can may that one specifically causes the other. 

The study does not really reveal a cause nor does it indicate the student’s feelings towards music itself in the first place.  A student could hate music and therefore perceive success or failure differently than a student that loves music.  This study did also not indicate if the subjects were interested in music, actively played music, or if they were exposed to music.  These variables could affect the results of the study.  In other words, a subjects perception of success and failure in music may be related to their perceived abilities and effort but that does not conclude that one directly causes the other. 

The study, in my opinion, was not a good measure of cause and effect because several outside influences (variables) could alter the perceptions of the subjects.  For example, a subject could have been raised without exposure to music or could have been raised by a parent that thought music was bad.  A Student could also have been made to feel like they could never succeed with music and therefore put no effort into it.  This does not necessarily mean that there is a casual relationship.

Ethics

Ethical principles that pertain to research involving human subjects in education settings are very important for a number of reasons.  Without ethical guidelines, researchers could potentially manipulate participants in attempts to obtain the most desired results and data for their research. Without ethics, participants could be put in danger by being required to do things that may or may not cause harm.  The lack of ethical guidelines could also cause mental or physical discomfort. 

I believe an important point with ethics is the concern regarding participant’s mental and physical comfort levels.  For example, when Stanley Milgram conducted a study on participant’s willingness to obey an authority figure by having them administer a shock to another person in the other room, the participants were mentally discomforted and emotionally distressed because they thought they were actually hurting that individual.  The participant was not informed until after the study that the other person was not actually getting shocked and was therefore not harmed.  This study was conducted unethically by today’s standards because it caused significant mental discomfort to the participants in the study.  In a classroom it would be considered unethical to study restraints on chairs because it could cause physical discomfort to the child as well as anxiety about being restrained.  This type of study would require parent and student participation and would have to be closely monitored in order to be beneficial and not harmful (having a restraint on a chair could help some children remain in the chair, particularly those with motor control difficulties).

An important point for a researcher to keep in mind when conducting educational research is whether or not there is an actual benefit to the research.  A researcher should identify benefits to the research being conducted before asking people to participate. It would potentially be unethical to conduct research that has no benefit to anyone.  For example, why would you research various seating equipment in classrooms for children with low muscle tone if there were no benefits to actual children with low muscle tone?  It would also be unethical to conduct research on aggressive behaviors with participants that do not typically display aggressive behaviors (what’s the point?). 

It is also very important to not coerce people to participant in research studies.  For example, a researcher should never try to “convince” a parent that their child should be a participant in their study just because they meet the “criteria”. A researcher may request that a student participant in a study regarding attention span because it could “help” them or because “everyone else in the class is participating”.   I have personally experienced attempted coercion techniques; as a twin I have been asked many times to participate in a study regarding twin behaviors, learning styles, etc.  When I denied participating in the study, the person requesting my participation then began offering incentives for me to participate, such as money or receiving something for free.  I can see how this strategy may work for some people, but does it then make the data valid since the participant is there for the money and may not actually care about the study or perhaps even about being honest?

Sampling

Research problem:

What are the benefits of self-contained classrooms and inclusive classrooms for preschoolers with autism?

Pros & Cons:

Probability sampling (known probability of selection from the population) pros	Probability sampling cons	Non-probability sampling (probability of selection not known) pros	Non-probability sampling cons
Participants are selected randomly	Not always feasible	The population is the same as the sample	Not every element in the population has a chance of being selected
Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected	Often unnecessary	No immediate need to generalize to a larger population	May not seem valid or credible
Provides accurate description of the entire population	Not desirable to obtain	Qualitative studies and quantitative studies
Reports estimated margin of error	Expensive and timely	3 most common types: convenience, quota, purposeful
4 types: simple random, systematic, stratified, and cluster	Qualitative studies do not use probability sampling	Practical
Quantitative studies

 

Probability Sampling:	Pros	Cons
Simple random	~Usually representative of the population ~Easy to analyze and interpret results ~Easy to understand	~Requires numbering each element in the population ~Larger sampling error than in stratified sampling
Systematic	~Simplicity of drawing sample ~All simple random pros	~Periodicity in list of population elements
Proportional stratified	~Allows subgroup comparisons ~Usually more representative than simple random or systematic ~Fewer subjects needed ~Results represent population without weighting ~All simple random pros	~Requires subgroup identification of each population element ~Requires knowledge of the proportion of each subgroup in the population ~May be costly and difficult to prepare lists of population elements in each subgroup
Disproportional stratified	~Ensures adequate numbers of elements in each subgroup ~all simple random pros ~all proportional stratified pros except results represent population without weighting	~All proportional stratified cons ~Requires proper weighting of subgroup to represent population ~Less efficient for estimating population characteristics
Cluster	~Low cost ~Requires lists of elements ~Efficient with large populations	~less accurate than simple random, systematic, or stratified ~may be difficult to collect data from all elements in each cluster ~requires that each population element be assigned only one cluster

 

Non-Probability Sampling:	Pros	Cons
Convenience	~Less costly ~Less time-consuming ~Ease of administration ~Usually ensures high participation rate ~Generalization possible to similar subjects	~Difficult to generalize to other subjects ~Less representative of an identified population ~Results dependent on unique characteristics of the sample
Quota	~All of convenience pros ~More representative of population than convenience or purposive	~All convenience cons ~Usually more time-consuming than convenience or purposive
purposeful	~All of convenience pros ~Adds credibility to qualitative research ~Assures receipt of needed information	~All of convenience cons

 

Sampling procedure:

The sampling procedure that I think best fits my research study is a non-probability convenience sampling method.  A convenience sample is less costly, which is appealing, because it is hard to find funding sources for research.  My study focuses on specific types of classrooms and how preschoolers with a specific diagnosis benefit from them, so the results could be generalized to similar participants and would not necessarily need to be generalized to other unfamiliar participants in order to validate the research (results from my study could be generalized to similar autistic preschoolers but not necessarily generalized to preschoolers without autism).  A convenience sample also best fits my research study because it is less time consuming.  As a full time worker and part time student I personally would not have a lot of time to spend selecting random participants or data.  When using a non-probability sample, it is often desirable to select participants who can be particularly informative about the research.  For example, the Preschool Development Center (PDC) in Richmond City has inclusive classroom settings as well as at least one self-contained classroom setting designed specifically for preschoolers with autism; having both settings in one place would make it very convenient for me to conduct my research there.  Being able to conduct both aspects of my research in one facility is cheaper and would take less time.  It would also be much easier to administer because the participants selected are available (in Richmond), both classroom settings already exist (PDC in Richmond) and specific (preschoolers with autism).  The purpose of my research is not necessarily to generalize but to better understand relationships that may exist (classroom setting, autism, benefits).

Educational literature review

In order to conduct and write a review of educational literature you must first choose a topic of interest.  My topic of interest is the benefits of self-contained classrooms and inclusive classrooms for preschoolers with autism.  Once a topic is chosen, you must research, collect and read relevant literature pertaining to your topic of interest.  I first began researching my topic by collecting and reading literature on laws regarding special education in Virginia. 

The Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), in Virginia, guarantees an appropriate and free public education in the least restrictive environment to all children with disabilities (Virginia Department of Education, 2010).  This means that no public school division in Virginia could deny the enrollment and attendance of a child just because they have a disability, but each child does have to complete steps in the special education progress.  These steps include identification and referral, evaluation, determination of eligibility, the development of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and determination of services, and reevaluation.  Once a child has an IEP there are timelines that each school division must follow to prevent any delay in providing services. 

The IDEA defines special education as specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parent(s), to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including instruction conducted in a classroom, in the home, in hospitals, in institutions, and in other settings and instruction in physical education (Virginia Department of Education, 2010).  Special education services can include speech-language pathology or any other related service, vocational education, and travel training.    IEP’s frequently include services such as speech-language pathology, occupational therapy and physical therapy.  Each family also receives Virginia’s special education procedural safeguards and special education rights. 

After researching special education rights in Virginia, I then began reading and collecting relevant information on services that are provided for children with autism.  When researching services provided for children with autism, I read and reviewed a journal article on Project DATA (Developmentally Appropriate Treatment for Autism).  Project DATA is an inclusive school-based approach to educating young children with autism that started as a federally funded model demonstration project for developing a school-based program for young children with autism that would be effective and acceptable to parents and school personnel.   (Boulware, G., McBride, B., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I., 2004). Project DATA consists of five components: a high-quality early childhood environment, extended instructional time, social and technical support for families, collaboration and cooperation across services, and transition support (Boulware, G., McBride, B., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I., 2004).  The approach is intended to integrate current practices from early childhood special education and applied behavior analysis to result in the best outcomes for children with autism and their families.  Using this approach, the program was guided by principles such as that children with autism are children first, that any program must be a safe and nurturing place, that the program must fit in the social contexts of public schools, and that children with autism must have multiple opportunities to interact successfully with their typically developing peers each day. 

The researchers worked with school districts to develop a program that would help them provide effective, acceptable, and sustainable services to more children with autism.  The purpose was to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a program for young children with autism and their families.  The project was developed to determine if you could blend the explicit and intensive instruction needed by children with autism with quality components of preschool environments.  The participants were referred by local public school districts.  The children referred had to have a diagnosis on the autism spectrum from a professional in the community.  48 preschoolers, ages three to six years of age, and their families participated in the project for a mean of 16 months.  The participants attended one of three classrooms, each with 16 students consisting of nine students with autism and seven students without a diagnosed disability.

The teachers, who specialized in early childhood education or early childhood special education, were to facilitate the children’s successful interactions with peers, activities and materials in the preschool.  The project included five components, including a high quality inclusive early childhood program, extended instructional time, technical and social support for families, collaboration and coordination across services, and transition support.  Each participant’s development and functional skills were evaluated before and after the research study using the Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System (AEPS).

The results of the study indicate that each participate made gains across all functional skills and developmental domains studied.  The results also indicate that the families and local school districts that participated were pleased with the program, based on a questionnaire they completed at the end of the program.  The following chart indicates the percentage of gains the participants made during their participation in Project DATA.

Chart

This study relates to my research topic because it indicates that children with autism benefit from participating in inclusive classroom settings.  The study displays significant results that children with autism make gains in all areas of development when in inclusive settings with their typically developing peers.  A strength of the research is that it took place over an extended period of time with preschoolers specifically with autism.  A weakness of the study and its applicableness to be replicated and practiced is that it is a seemingly expensive project to start and maintain because it requires specialized staffing, particular inclusive settings, and a significant funding source.  Teacher staffing and training, preschool and local school district’s willingness to house and fund the program, and finding participants could be challenging as well.  A solution to this could be implementing the Project DATA program into preschools and school settings that already have Early Childhood Special Education Programs and inclusive classrooms already established.  This way the teachers already specialize in early childhood and they already have a classroom set up, making funding less of an obstacle.  Families could be made aware of the program during their child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting and could then choose whether or not they would like for their child to participate in the program; thus reducing the cost of local school districts trying to find participants via child-find. 

As a case manager in the special education field, I have experienced working with children with autism and have helped coordinate their services.  I have coordinated developmental services, speech therapy services, occupational therapy services, and developmental playgroup services for children with autism, so I know that services are available for children with autism.  When researching the literature on the topic, I found that there is very little relevant literature out there pertaining to children with autism and the benefits of being included with their typically developing peers.  I also found that there is very little literature on the benefits of inclusive classrooms versus self-contained classrooms. 

Boulware, G., McBride, B., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2004). Project DATA (Developmentally      Appropriate Treatment for Autism): An inclusive school-based approach to educating   young children with autism. Topics in early childhood special education, 24, 156-168.

Virginia Department of Education.  Commonwealth of Virginia (2010).                  http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/index.shtml