Special Education - Essay Example

Chapter III: Methodology Due to the increasing rates of special education who drop out of high school and the alarming negative consequences of non-completion, this study focused on identifying the top reasons why these students decide to drop out of high school in order to create more effective dropout prevention programs. Given this objective, the key question that will be answered is “Why do students with disabilities drop out of high school?” This chapter will discuss the explanation of how this question is answered. Because it is a “why” question, the qualitative methodology was used as it is more appropriate when contending with such abstract human behaviors, such as the act of dropping out of school. This study needed a flexible research design as it tackled a human phenomenon that should also make space for behavioral factors. Hence, the qualitative method’s objectives of describing and explaining variations, relationships, individual experiences and group norms made it the most suitable for this study. For instance, when observing and interviewing participants, the set of interview questions determined beforehand were given enough room for follow-up questions. Likewise, analyzing the data gathered involved flexibility as categories that were not expected arose and factors that seemed inconsequential became significant. The study needed to adjust in the coding and analysis of the data in order to be able to present more accurate and comprehensive results. Qualitative Research Design Qualitative research can “see precisely which events led to which consequences and derive fruitful explanations” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 1). Moreover, it has a higher chance of being able to arrive at unanticipated findings and new combinations and reationships (Miles and Huberman, 1994). These reasons are why the qualitative research design had been chosen for this study as it can give a clear view of why students with disabilities drop out of high school. It must be clarified that although quantitative data, such as statistics and percentages, were used in the study, it only acted as supportive numbers that laid the groundwork for this study. Furthermore, it is intended for this qualitative research to act as a precursive study for more accurate and extensive quantitative study on the same topic. Active Observation The study employed a qualitative research design that was based on active observation. The qualitative research design has been criticized by many for its supposed inexactness due to its “interpretative, subjective, impressionistic and diagnostic” nature as it has been claimed that there are no unbiased observer (Thomson, 2007). However, when contending with abstract data, like “the often contradictory behaviors, beliefs, opinions, emotions, and relationships of individuals” and in this case, the reasons why certain people act a particular way, active observation is best employed as its strength lies in its capability to be able to provide a textual characterization of complex events such as human experience (Mack, et al., 2005). Intensive Interview Data was collected through intensive interviews of special education high school student dropouts through personal (face-to-face) meetings and via electronic mail (e-mail). The interview followed a questionnaire prepared by the researcher that is iterative in style to be able to elicit the needed response. The data gathered were interpreted and analyzed through the use of a coding system that was made to fit the design of the study and its objectives and include all significant variables, both status and alterable. Data analysis also involved the grounding of the results on the various relevant theories and strategies for dropout prevention encountered through the course of secondary research. These references were cited accordingly within the body and at the end of the study using the APA citation style. Participant Characteristics Identifying the top reasons why special education students drop out of high school was a complex task that involved varying factors and variables. These factors and variables needed to be taken into consideration before the data collection procedures in order to be able to come up with data that are more accurate. It must be noted that the reasons why students with disabilities drop out are personal; and so, it is also imperative to include a brief characterization of the students and incorporate this into the data analysis procedures. In other words, it is not enough to just simply ask the participants why they dropped out of high school. There are many factors and variables that relate to why they dropped out of high school (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 12). It must be clarified, though, that this characterization should not be treated as a diagnosis or opinion of psychological professionals. The study did not delve deeply into the personality of the participants nor did it attempt to do so. However, it is the recommendation of this study for future researchers who are interested in replicating this methodology who have more resources to employ the best psychological experts and have them present as passive observers in the conduction of face-to-face in-depth interviews in order to have their professional opinions and integrate them into the data collection and analysis. If this is done, the replicated study will increase its validity and accuracy. Replication of the Study Qualitative research is usually designed to build on “a rich and complex understanding of a specific social context or phenomenon typically takes precedence over eliciting data that can be generalized to other geographical areas or populations” (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 2). Due to this fact, qualitative studies can usually be replicated only with similar characteristics, but not with larger populations. Because the study contended with a very specific target population and one of the objectives of this study is to give schools and school districts a method that they can apply to various schools with special education that will provide results tailored to the specific schools’ demographics, the qualitative research design was found to be very suitable for these purposes. The ability of the study to be replicated also strengthened the study’s reliability and validity. Brief Summary of the Methodology This study identified the top reasons why students with disabilities opted to drop out of high school by conducting in-depth interviews of special education high school student dropouts from a chosen school that has a high percentage of students with disabilities. A set of interview questions was fashioned that will take into consideration each participant’s characteristics. These characteristics, such as status variables like race/ethnicity, age, financial situation, and alterable variables, such as grades and extra-curricular activities, were provided through the examination of each student’s school records. This comprised the preliminary investigation into the reasons why they dropped out of high school. After the data had been sorted and categorized, the in-depth interviews followed, in the order most convenient for the participants. Follow-up questions were asked when needed. This was done at the discretion of the interviewer, which is also the author of this study. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcription, together with field notes, was then analyzed using qualitative data analysis (QDA). Because some of the students have moved since dropping out of high school and many have begun to work, setting up personal meetings proved to be difficult. And so, for these students, the interview questions were sent via e-mail. Results were tabulated in order to ascertain the top reasons why these students chose noncompletion. Recommendations followed, with regards to the appropriate dropout prevention strategies that best suits the school. The application of dropout prevention strategies were based on the analysis of secondary academic sources; more specifically, academic articles and studies that have been previously conducted and published that are closely related to the topic of this research. Sampling Sampling in qualitative research means getting a sample from an entire population. For instance, all the residents of a city or community need not be interviewed in order to achieve valid findings (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 5). The study made use of purposive sampling, which “groups participants according to preselected criteria relevant to a particular research question” (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 5). In this case, the sample was limited to third and fourth year high school students with disabilities who have dropped out from the Charlottesville high school during the school year 2007-2008. Purposive sampling had been selected over quota sampling because the study did not aim to work on a strict quota wherein, for example, a fixed and equal number of male and female participants needed to be covered. Although the study also presented some percentages in that it aimed to rank the top reasons why students with disabilities drop out of high school, the study only worked with available resources. It must be noted that not all of the Charlottesville high school dropouts targeted for this study gave their consent. It was for this reason why the researcher intended to get the permission of a particular high school that had a relatively high percentage of special education high school student dropouts—to increase the likelihood that a large number of participants will choose to give their consent to be a part of this study. Participants The participants in the study were comprised of male and female special education high school dropouts from Charlottesville high school as the school had exhibited a large turnout of dropouts during the school year 2007-2008. The age of these students with disabilities ranged from 16 to 18 years old. The students dropped out during their third or fourth year in high school. Aside from students with disabilities, tenured faculty members, the principal, and other staff members were interviewed with regards to their experiences and educated opinions on why their students dropped out. Karen Wilson, the Special Education Department Chair of Charlottesville High School had provided remarkable ideas as to the reasons why special education students dropped out. Interesting insights were gleaned from these educators that were incorporated into the data analysis and discussion. These high school levels were selected because they are the ones closest to graduation, which operated on the premise that these students must have had very specific reasons for deciding not to complete their high school education when graduation is not so far off. This did not mean that high school freshmen and sophomores do not have the same significant reasons; but they have more time to go back to school. For these juniors and seniors, they must have had heavy reasons for not graduating. What could their reasons be that they could not endure them for the short period of time until graduation? Demographics The demographics of the sample population was determined during the preliminary data collection procedure wherein the school records of the future participants were accessed with the school administration’s permission. Age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic background, native language, region, mobility, ability, disability, parental employment, and family structure are the categories for status variables that will be identified for each special education high school dropout (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 12). These variables comprised the demographics of the study. Because demographics inherently work with statistics, the researcher tallied the results to be able to come up with percentages per category. For instance, the sample was composed of 56% Caucasians, 22% African Americans, 13% Latin Americans and 9% Asians. The demographics followed the list of status variables that are commonly used by dropout prevention researchers. Data Collection Procedures The data collection procedures carried on in the same qualitative manner. There were several forms of data gathering that the study employed. They involved keen observation and accurate research, as well as good communication skills. It had been established that preliminary data will be provided by the students’ school records. Aside from the demographics, the researcher also aimed to get accurate data of when they dropped out, their grades before they quit school, the classes they have been taking and the teachers they have had. It must be noted that all possible correlations were viewed. The likelihood that the ineptitude of some teaching strategies may be partly responsible for students dropping out was not discounted. If possible, the researcher will also need the guidance counseling profile of these students in order to be able to get an initial view of the alterable variables involved. These are: grades, disruptive behavior, school policies, absenteeism, school climate, and retention (Lehr, et al., 2004, pp. 12-13). The school’s permission was asked in order to get access to these records. Charlottesville High School was also responsible for providing the contact information for these dropout students, like postal and e-mail addresses and phone numbers. After this preliminary data gathering, the researcher relied on the methods of in-depth interview, the collection of field notes and intensive research. These instrumentations are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. In-depth Interviews Because the study is personal in nature in that it aims to ask the reasons why special education high school students have dropped out, in-depth interview was the chosen method as it has been proven to be “very effective in giving a human face to research problems” (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 29). What could be more appropriate than coming to the real persons who have experienced the phenomenon in question? In this case, it was best to go the dropouts themselves and ask them what their reasons are for dropping out shortly before graduation. However, certain steps needed to be taken in order for these interviews to produce useful, reliable and accurate data that can be analyzed. First, the targeted participants were made aware of the research study and the researcher’s desire to ask them to participate through an initial formal letter that will be sent through snail or electronic mail. The researcher allowed for three to seven days after the letter have been sent to the targeted participants before phone calls were made that personally asked these students to participate in the study and be interviewed. This included special education high school dropouts, chosen faculty members and the pricipal. Informed Consent. The targeted participants were made fully aware of what the study is all about before the interviews were to be conducted. It is vital to the validity of this study that the participants give their informed consent. A short and concise form stating that they are giving their consent—for minors, parental consent were also required—was given to them to be signed at least one day before the in-depth interviews were to be held or the e-mails to be sent. The participants were also asked where, when and what time is most convenient for them to be interviewed. The option of sending an e-mail with the set of pre-determined interview questions was given out as a last option, when the participants hesitated to do the personal interview, were not available in the time allotted for the study to be completed or rejected the request to participate in the study. Confidentiality. The researcher guaranteed that the participants’ identities would remain confidential. In no way would their names and other personal information that might make them identifiable would be disclosed in the study. They were only assigned numbers and/or letters (not pertaining to their initials) as their identities. However, the principal and some members of the faculty would certainly be recognized through their positions. They were informed of this so that they might take this into consideration before giving their consent. Interview Questions. These are crucial to the study. Interview questions were fashioned before the in-depth interviews were conducted in order to ensure that important questions were addressed and in order to maintain uniformity and consistency. The questions also took into consideration alterable variables, such as sense of belonging, attitudes toward school, educational support in the home, parental employment (in cases wherein the school records were not updated), and stressful life events (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 13). Additional and follow-up questions were made at the discretion of the interviewer, especially in cases where the interviewee seemed to be too shy to answer or too nonchalant and general with their replies. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed. The set of interview questions that were sent via e-mail were composed in such a way that even follow-up questions were included. When participants sent in vague answers or forms that were incomplete, they were e-mailed questions that would clarify their answers. If the follow-up e-mail was not replied to after two to three days, they were called on the phone to make the clarifications possible. If no contact was made, the vague answers were not included in the data analysis. Field Notes. Throughout the course of the interviews and transcription, the researcher/interviewer took note of what was deemed important based on analytical observation. A third party that acted as an observer who jotted down events and statements worth remembering was present for the personal interviews. It was like highlighting important passages in an article and making comments on the borders of a text to provide short and useful explanations. Field notes were highly important, especially during data analysis, as they highlight events and statements that proved significant to the study. It also covered some of the things that the interviewer might have missed. Expert Opinion. An expert on special education who has a background on Psychology was present at all interviews. This ensured that the answers were being given were interpreted and analyzed with the eye of an expert. The expert was also consulted when the e-mail interviews have all gone in. His or her field notes were used in the discussion, as well as during the coding process. The expert also served as a way to reinforce the study’s reliability and validity. Triangulation. In order to ensure that the data gathered were both reliable and valid, more than one method needed to be relied on. This is called triangulation, which operates under the logic that “a weakness in one method could be avoided by using a second method that is strong in the area that the first is weak” (Livesey, 2006, p. 5). In this case, the study’s main data collection method is intensive interviews, one weakness of which is not knowing for sure that the participant is telling the truth. Hence, an expert in psychology was asked to be present during interviews in order to gauge if the participant is telling the truth. As experts, they would know through body language, pitch of the voice, choice of words and other signs if the participant was lying. Aside from this, the school records were also accessed in order to double check if the participant is telling the truth. For instance, if the participant answered that the real reason why he or she dropped out is because of low grades, his or her school records will be checked. When inconsistencies were found, the participant was taken out of the sample. Intensive Research In order to make sense of the data that was gathered through in-depth interviews, research needed to be made to ground the data to theories and other findings that other studies have come up with. Articles published in academic journals and books were accessed to provide useful and relevant data. Research regarding the topic was accomplished at the very beginning of the study, even before its approval. This established the study’s feasibility, significance, relevance and validity. Qualitative Data Analysis: The Coding Process Qualitative data analysis involves a flexible process of mainly noticing things, collecting them, and thinking about them (Seidel, 1998). This process is derived from the QDA process of “Noticing, Collecting, and Thinking about interesting things” developed by John V. Seidel (1998). Noticing things pertinent to the topic involved the observations made during the course of research and in-depth interviews. These observations translated into field notes and the transcription of the interviews were thoroughly read and reviewed. During this process of noticing interesting things, coding had also begun. As the data was being reviewed and analyzed, the researcher coded these data and classified them into general categories. This process is essentially the coding system that is known today. Codes serve to summarize, synthesize, and sort many observations made of the data....coding becomes the fundamental means of developing the analysis....Researchers use codes to pull together and categorize a series of otherwise discrete events, statements, and observations which they identify in the data (Charmaz, 1983, p. 112 cited in Seidel, 1998). Once the data was coded, it became imperative to collect and sort them. This involved “searching for types, classes, sequences, processes, patterns or wholes” that will “assemble or reconstruct the data in a meaningful or comprehensible fashion” (Jorgensen, 1989, p. 107 cited in Seidel, 1998). In this way, the coded data could be organized and categorized into meaningful groups of data that could easily be analyzed and examined. Subcategories were made when necessary and new categories arose throughout the course of sifting through data that had already been initially coded. Throughout this process, the data would make more sense and spotting correlations and relationships between variables and the reasons why special education students drop out of high school would become less problematic and complicated. Thinking about the data that had been coded and collected has three main objectives: 1) to make the data found on various categories and subcategories make sense; 2) to find and identify patterns and relationships between categories and subcategories and between various types of general categories; and 3) to analyze these relationships to be able to come up with new findings (Seidel, 1998). This part was the most difficult and effort-intensive as the researcher needed to exhaust all possibilities and examine and pinpoint significant correlations—whether or not these correlations and relationships were significant and useful. This made up the final findings, which should also be supported by researched data and intensive analysis. This coding process had been chosen because of its comprehensive and analytical procedures that are iterative and progressive, recursive, and holographic in nature (Seidel, 1998). Iterative and Progressive. This qualitative coding process is iterative in that each step were repeated over and over again until such time when the researcher had already exhausted all analytical possibilities. It is progressive because each step brought the researcher closer to attaining the final results. Recursive. This process is recursive because there was no single successive procedure that needed to be followed. It was not imperative for the first step of noticing things and coding data to be all done before the researcher progressed to collecting data. As the qualitative data analysis moved forward, the researcher could go back and begin noticing things and coding/recoding data again if needed. Holographic. This method of analysis is holographic in nature in that “each step in the process contains the entire process” (Seidel, 1998). For instance, while collecting and sorting through coded data, the researcher was also noticing new things, recoding them and analyzing them. Read More