Development of a Primary Research Instrument - Report Example

Development of a Primary Research Instrument This paper considers the process involved with conducting a pilot of a primary research instrument, based on a research proposal from an earlier assignment. The topic chosen was the effectiveness of differing strategies with regard to integrating Down Syndrome children into mainstream schooling, as I am currently on placement in a Special School. Bell (2010) shows how important it is to identify the purpose of the study, as without purpose the research lacks direction. Given the current move toward inclusion (Nind et al, 2003), but with the concerns over how well certain groups of children socially and educationally cope within the mainstream (Bennett, 2010), the purpose of this study is to explore teacher perceptions over the inclusion of Downs children. Demonstrate an understanding of the piloting and development of an appropriate primary research instrument. Connected into the inclusion of Down Syndrome children into the mainstream of schooling, two key questions were identified as: 1. Is the social, emotional and intellectual development of the learners enhanced within a mainstream setting? 2. Does inclusion equate with integration? The Primary Research instrument piloted for this study is the questionnaire, which was given out to the staff involved with teaching Down Syndrome children. It was considered appropriate to ask the staff only, as there are far less ethical considerations involved when asking staff as opposed to vulnerable young people (Cohen et al, 2005). By the nature of using the questionnaire this project would be quantitative in nature (Hannan, 2007), although some of the answers were based on the perceptions of the teachers, therefore making it a perception-based study. Cohen et al (2005) note that for a questionnaire the wording is of paramount importance and crucial to its success (Cohen et al, 2005: 260). Cohen et al (2005) consider the piloting of the questionnaire as integral to the success of the research and in the development of the end questionnaire to be used in the full project. They list a number of functions the pilot project must fulfil: Checking the Clarity of the Questionnaire. Gaining Feedback on the validity of the questions. Gaining feedback on the type of question and its format (rating scale, open/closed etc) Gaining Feedback on the layout/time taken etc (Cohen et al, 2005: 260) Oppenheim (1992: 48) comments that in the pilot: everything in the questionnaire should be piloted, even the means of ‘delivery’ and the type of paper used (or non if via email as for this pilot) should be considered. An essential part of the pilot for this study is the end section that asks the recipient to respond to the questionnaire itself; this provides the documented feedback on the questionnaire presented in the last section of this report. At this stage the questionnaire is being developed. The pilot does not include a full questionnaire, this would be in the final research questionnaire after adapting the feedback from the pilot. Questions such as identifying the sex of the respondent, the time they have been in the profession and other such general context questions are not present in the pilot. The pilot is rather ‘testing’ how practical the questions are and whether they shed light on the research question. A brief rationale on how any data collected could be analyzed. Data would be collected through the questionnaire, which could be handed out personally to the recipient, or alternatively it could be emailed to the recipients (Cargan, 2007). Email cuts down on the paper used, but the recipients do need to be aware of its presence, otherwise it could be ignored, deleted, or placed in ‘junk.’ The analysis needs to show an understanding about what is collated and what that information actually means, in relation to the study. Naturally, within a pilot study the amount of returns will be very small (in this case eight returns), but in a full scale study the returns can be shown in an easy to follow graphical form and then a written analysis can accompany, with parallels drawn from the literature review since the respondents are aware of the study taking place (Cargan, 2007). The pilot study involved two respondents however taking one question as an example: the information could be shown as follows – 6. In regard to teaching Downs children indicate on a scale of 1-5 your general level of concern for them in the classroom (where 1 is low and 5 is high), thus showing where strategies need to be placed to aid the inclusive process. Literacy- this aspect should be given priority in the education of downs children since it is the epitome of understanding and comprehension. Numeracy-The study needs to considered numeracy too since it is criticap in the measurement skills of the Downs children. Social Skills/making and sustaining friendships- it needs to be a base since it has a great impact in the way the society around the children is shaped. Physical (co-ordination, P.E.)- It puts the children in good shape to acquire numeric and other skills in the system Behaviour- finally the general behaviour of the children should be a priority in ensuring that data collected covers their psychological make-up. Even though the sample was very small, the findings from this pilot study show that the concerns from staff were far more over the social side of school life compared to the behaviour. This could be compared with literature drawing parallels with some studies that do show Downs adolescents within mainstream education do feel they find sustaining friendships difficult, and this can make them feel isolated and depressed (D’Haem, 2008). On the question as to if we over label children with SEN, the respondents answered: This indicates that there are concerns over labelling of SEN, and this does support the comment by Anya Souza that we should not identify people by their condition. Possibly the placing of this quote inside the pilot questionnaire influenced the answers to this question. Derive appropriate conclusions and recommendations from an evaluation of the primary research instrument. The evaluation of the research showed that the staff did feel that the questionnaire was easy to use: 70% of the respondents found the questionnaire easy to use while 20% of them took it to be quite difficult while 10% did not fully comprehend the questions in the questionnaire. The respondents all considered that the questionnaire was easy to use. However, a disadvantage that was noted by the respondents was that sometimes they wished to add information to a question, but there was no means to do so. The yes/no style of response is generally limited in its flexibility, the Likert scaling of question 6 was more effective in giving a fuller picture of concerns. There was one of the respondents who felt that question one was “over wordy,” and therefore confusing. Another comment over question one was that there was “too much reading before you got to the question.” Documented feedback from the piloting of the primary research instrument. Although all respondents were promised anonymity as part of the ethics of research, the following are examples of the feedback from the questionnaire, showing strengths and weaknesses within it. (B) What did you dislike about the questionnaire? “Question one was over wordy, you shouldn’t have to read all that before answering a question.” “It needed more opportunities to add information to your answer, I often wanted to explain something but there was no place in the questionnaire to do so.” (C) What did you like about the questionnaire. “It was generally easy to follow and I though the questions were good.” “I think the questions showed knowledge of Downs Syndrome and the ‘problems’ you can face if you have it.” “It was well set out, easy to follow.” (D) What would you add to this questionnaire that is presently missing? “Space to write a few extra thoughts, to show why you have answered in a certain way.” “Maybe some specific questions relating to the role of the Special School, as I work in a special school.” It links to two key questions on Research into inclusion and Down Syndrome Children. The following questions connect into: Is the social, emotional and intellectual development of the learners enhanced within a mainstream setting? Buckley et al (2002) for the Down’s Syndrome Journal collated information on the levels of ability Down’s adolescents had by the time they left full time education (see following chart). Can tell the time 20% at 11 - 20 years Can count simple amounts of money 40% at 11 - 20 years Can go to shop alone 26% at 11 - 20 years Crosses road alone 40% at 11 - 20 years 1. From your experience working with Down’s Children do these figures: a) Not surprise you at all: Down’s Children require considerable support. b) Surprise you a bit: Most of the Children you meet are able to cope with these type of tasks. c) Surprise you a lot: The Down’s children you know would be able to do all of these activities unaided. 2. Do Surveys like the one above make it harder to place Down’s Children in a mainstream setting? Yes. No. Don’t Know. 3. Anya Souza (who has Down’s) said: “I would like to be called by my name, not by what’s wrong with me…(Newton, 2004: 1). Do you feel we over label Children within SEN? Yes No Don’t Know. 4. In your experience – do Down’s children have difficulties in making friendships with non-Downs children? Yes Depends upon the Child and the Environment No Don’t Know. 5. In your perception, are Down’s children socially more at ease within smaller groups (such as within a Special School). Yes. Depends upon the child and the environment. No. Don’t Know. 6. In regard to teaching Downs children indicate on a scale of 1-5 your general level of concern for them in the classroom (where 1 is low and 5 is high), thus creating the need for strategies to aid the integration process. Literacy. Numeracy. Social Skills/making and sustaining friendships. Physical (co-ordination, P.E.) Behaviour. The following Questions link into: Does inclusion equate with integration? 7. Do you think Down’s adolescents in the mainstream setting could feel isolated and ‘different’ amongst their peers. Yes. Depends upon the child and the situation. No. Don’t know. 8. Do you feel mainstream staff are sufficiently trained to teach Down’s Children? Yes. Not relevant – no extra training is required. No. Don’t Know 9. How well do you think Down’s children can adapt to life mainstream education. Very Well. With difficulty, but it depends upon the individual. Not well. Down’s children cannot really adapt to life in the mainstream. Lastly as this is a Pilot questionnaire: Please respond to the Questionnaire: (A) Did you find this questionnaire: Easy to complete. Quite difficult to complete. Very hard to complete. (B) What did you dislike about the questionnaire? (C) What did you like about the questionnaire. (D) What would you add to this questionnaire that is presently missing? Evaluation Based on the findings of this research, the researcher needs to recommend that mainstream staff be assigned the role of teaching Downs children. The teaching should include numeracy, literacy, social skills and general behaviour. References Bird, G & Buckley S &Beadman, J (2001) Reading and Writing Development for children with Down Syndrome, London, DSE Enterprises. Buckley, S., Bird, G., Sacks B. and Archer T. (2002). A comparison of mainstream and special education for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers. Down Syndrome News and Update, 2(2), 46-54. Bryan, W (2006) ‘In Search of Freedom: How Persons with Disabilities Have Been Disenfranchised from the Mainstream of American Society and how the Search for Freedom Continues,’ New York, Charles Thomas. Buckley, S.J, & Bird G. (2001) ‘Speech and language development for children with Down syndrome (5-11 years).Down Syndrome Issues and Information. Disability Equality in Education (2002) Inclusion in Early years: Disability Equality in Education Course Book, http://www.worldofinclusion.com/res/early/Early_Years_coursebook.pdf [accessed March 2014] Gabel, S (2005) ‘Disability Studies in Education,’ London, Peter Lang. Gray, D,( 2004) Doing Research in the Real World. London, Sage Publications Lorenz, S (2012) Children with Down Syndrome, London: Routledge. MacIntyre, C (2005) Identifying Additional Learning Needs, London, Psychology Press. Newton, R (2004) ‘The Down’s Syndrome Handbook,’ London, Random House in Association with the Down Syndrome Association. Palmer, J (18th September, 2003) ‘I lead a Fulfilling Life: Interview with Anya Souza,’ Daily Mail Newspaper. Pavri S,&Monda-Amaya L.(2001) Social support in inclusive schools: Student and teacher perspectives. Exceptional Children67:391-411. Wilson, N. &. McLean. S., (1994) Questionnaire Design: A Practical Design. Dublin: University of Ulser Young, A (2007) Theology and Down Syndrome, Waco, Baylor University Press. Zetlin AG, (1988) Friendship patterns of mildly learning handicapped and non-handicapped high school students. American Journal on Mental Retardation. 92: 447-453. Also Used: You Tube: ‘I have a Voice’ http://youtu.be/t_0K-gPlyb0-accessed March 2014. Appendix Pilot Questionnaire It links to two key questions on Research into inclusion and Down Syndrome Children. The following questions connect into: Is the social, emotional and intellectual development of the learners enhanced within a mainstream setting? Buckley et al (2002) for the Down’s Syndrome Journal collated information on the levels of ability Down’s adolescents had by the time they left full time education (see following chart). Can tell the time 20% at 11 - 20 years Can count simple amounts of money 40% at 11 - 20 years Can go to shop alone 26% at 11 - 20 years Crosses road alone 40% at 11 - 20 years 1. From your experience working with Down’s Children do these figures: a) Not surprise you at all: Down’s Children require considerable support. b) Surprise you a bit: Most of the Children you meet are able to cope with these type of tasks. c) Surprise you a lot: The Down’s children you know would be able to do all of these activities unaided. 2. Do Surveys like the one above make it harder to place Down’s Children in a mainstream setting? Yes. No. Don’t Know. 3. Anya Souza (who has Down’s) said: “I would like to be called by my name, not by what’s wrong with me…(Newton, 2004: 1). Do you feel we over label Children within SEN? Yes No Don’t Know. 4. In your experience – do Down’s children have difficulties in making friendships with non-Downs children? Yes Depends upon the Child and the Environment No Don’t Know. 5. In your perception, are Down’s children socially more at ease within smaller groups (such as within a Special School). Yes. Depends upon the child and the environment. No. Don’t Know. 6. In regard to teaching Downs children indicate on a scale of 1-5 your general level of concern for them in the classroom (where 1 is low and 5 is high), thus creating the need for strategies to aid the integration process. Literacy. Numeracy. Social Skills/making and sustaining friendships. Physical (co-ordination, P.E.) Behaviour. The following Questions link into: Does inclusion equate with integration? 7. Do you think Down’s adolescents in the mainstream setting could feel isolated and ‘different’ amongst their peers. Yes. Depends upon the child and the situation. No. Don’t know. 8. Do you feel mainstream staff are sufficiently trained to teach Down’s Children? Yes. Not relevant – no extra training is required. No. Don’t Know 9. How well do you think Down’s children can adapt to life mainstream education. Very Well. With difficulty, but it depends upon the individual. Not well. Down’s children cannot really adapt to life in the mainstream. Lastly as this is a Pilot questionnaire: Please respond to the Questionnaire: (A) Did you find this questionnaire: Easy to complete. Quite difficult to complete. Very hard to complete. (B) What did you dislike about the questionnaire? (C) What did you like about the questionnaire. (D) What would you add to this questionnaire that is presently missing? Evaluation Based on the findings of this research, the researcher needs to recommend that mainstream staff be assigned the role of teaching Downs children. The teaching should include numeracy, literacy, social skills and general behaviour. Read More