Exploring Inclusion in a UK Primary School - Essay Example

Qualitative Research Methods in Exploring Inclusion in a UK Primary School Introduction Inclusion of children with special needs and abilities in schools has been a topic of debate for some time. Some parents and teachers have different views depending on their situation, as some accept it as a positive educational practice that benefits the included children with special needs as well as the normally-developing children while others remain hesitant in combining children with special needs with children with regular needs. However, breakthroughs in educational research has pushed individuals to acknowledge the practice of inclusion as viable intervention in supporting the development of special needs children who are placed in inclusive classrooms. This paper will endeavor to report on explorative research on inclusion in primary schools in the United Kingdom. It will review related literature on the topic, reporting findings of various studies which mostly include the research methods of observations and interviews. The researcher has gained access to an inclusive classroom as a volunteer, and in effect, he will be a participant observer in the inclusive class. He will not only derive information about inclusion in his task as volunteer, but will be immersed in the system so he gets a more in-depth perspective of what it is like to be in an inclusive class. On top of assisting the main teacher, he will be vigilant in observing the children’s interactions with each other (how normal children interact with special needs children) and how teachers may differentiate the normal children from the special needs children in terms of treatment, planned activities and relationships with them. Semi-structured interviews with teachers will also be done by the researcher. This paper will do a critical analysis of the methods that will be undertaken in the pursuit of answers to the research questions: 1. How are children with special needs treated in an inclusive classroom and how do they respond to such treatment? 2. What are the insights of teachers in inclusive classrooms regarding the combination of normal children with children with special needs? Based on the research questions, qualitative methodology is most appropriate to employ in this research, as will be discussed in the Methodological framework. Conceptual framework The concept on inclusion has evolved throughout the years. It is often discussed mainly to refer to children with special education needs. Such children are described as pupils in need of specialized assistance at school because of their difficulties in learning or their disabilities which significantly affect the way they learn. At present, the law on SEN mandates that: “A child has special educational needs (SEN) if he or she has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.” (Education Act, 1996, Section 312). While learning difficulty is clarified by giving these cases: “A child has a learning difficulty if he or she: (a) has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age; (b) has a disability which either prevents or hinders the child from making use of educational facilities of a kind provided for children of the same age in schools within the area of the local education authority; (c) is under five and falls within the definition at (a) or (b) above or would do if special educational provision was not made for the child.” (SEN CoP 2001, EA 1996, S 312.) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA). comes to the rescue of current and prospective disabled pupils from discrimination by giving emphasis to the following: “An education institution should not treat a disabled person 'less favourably ' for a reason relating to their disability. An institution is required to make 'reasonable adjustments ' if a disabled person would otherwise be placed at a 'substantial disadvantage '. Adjustments should be 'anticipatory '. “ (SENDA, 2001) SENDA supports parents’ decision to put their child with SEN in mainstream schools as long as it is appropriate for the child and does not negatively affect the other children in class. It should also support the efficient use of resources (SENDA, 2001) A special education needs coordinator or SENCO is the person responsible for implementing the SEN Code of Practice. Teaching Expertise (2010b) reports that SENCO is responsible for: “ensuring the liaison between parents and carers; ensuring that individual educational plans (IEPs) were in place; advising other staff about SEN and having a school policy for dealing with SEN children; and putting in place a graduated response system to meet children’s needs at the earliest opportunity” (para. 8) He or She is primarily responsible for assessing, planning, monitoring and reviewing a special needs child’s provision and progress (Teaching Expertise, 2010) As such, the SENCO will be able to support the child’s teachers in the provision of special education needs for him by way of providing in-service staff training, setting effective targets for the child and creating an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) with the school teachers and key staff to suit his needs. The SENCO can design interventions that take a graduated approach. He/She may come up with a team of specialists to collaborate in order to address the child’s special needs. This is advocated by Every Child Matters as emphasized in their document, Changes for Children. It encourages multi-agency working to bring practitioners with a wide range of skills together to work across their areas of expertise. A multi-disciplinary team of special needs educators, therapists, psychologists, speech pathologists, physicians, social workers and even government officials may join hands in the care and education of children with special needs to ensure their optimum growth and development (Teaching Expertise 2010 a). The legislative support of Every Child Matters programme is the Children’s Act 2004. This act aims to: “improve and integrate children's services, promote early intervention, provide strong leadership and bring together different professionals in multi-disciplinary teams in order achieve positive outcomes for children and young people and their families” (DfEs Children Act and Reports, 2004). The National Children’s Bureau in UK (Early Childhood Forum, 2003) see inclusion as a way to equalize all children regardless of their abilities, conditions of life experiences. Inclusion ensures that each child is given the high quality of education he or she deserves and with children with SEN particularly, all services are provided within the school without any need for them to seek services elsewhere. Booth and Ainscow (2000) describe inclusion as a school’s commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. This requires collaboration amongst students, teachers and other professionals, educators and parents towards meeting the needs of all children (Disability, Literacy & Inclusive Education for Young Children, n.d.). Kgare (2000) enumerate some supports and services that focus on strategies in helping children learn better to include counseling, peer and family support in a more unstructured educational environment. Training courses are available for parents so they can support their children (Elloker, 1999). Schools partner with parents and try out various strategies to make inclusion work for all the children in class. The “major changes in the culture of a school would result from a common focus and shared responsibility for student learning outcomes” (Weiner, 2003, p. 18). Everyone’s potentials need to be optimized so all individual needs need to be addressed. It is of interest to this study how an included child is treated by other children as well as by adults in a mainstreamed classroom and how he himself responds to such treatment. The research also aims to find out about strategies teachers use to enjoin the inclusive child to participate in the class activities, and if there are specialized methodologies/ tools used for the exclusive use of the included child in order to meet the learning goals set for him/her. Methodological framework In the design of a research study, several factors need to be considered by the researcher. The first is the research questions that need to be answered in the course of the research. These questions become the guideposts in making decisions about the choice of methods to be used. Another factor to consider is the setting of the study and what opportunities this setting offers in terms of research possibilities. Still another factor is the participants and the population they would represent. Finally, the research methodology and how data/ information to be gathered will be recorded or documented and analyzed (De Walt & De Walt, 2002) should be decided with careful discernment. In an attempt to answer the research questions posted for this study, simple qualitative methods shall be employed such as observations and interviews. Information from the related review of literature will also be utilized when presenting examples from previous researches done on inclusion. Krippendorff (2004) contended that existing theories or practices as well as the experience or knowledge of experts and previous research provide an abundance of developed constructs related to the topic. That is the reason why a comprehensive review of literature is necessary in any study. The researcher benefits from previous work done on the topic he is currently pursuing. Elo & Kynas (2008) suggested that content analysis is a strategy that aims to provide new knowledge and insights as well as a representation of learned facts, and a practical guide to action. Following the recommendations of De Walt & De Walt (2002), the research questions for this study are reiterated here as the first step in the designing of a methodological framework: 1. How are children with special needs treated in an inclusive classroom and how do they respond to such treatment? 2. What are the insights of teachers in inclusive classrooms regarding the combination of normal children with children with special needs? The research questions may bring forth more sub-questions such as: How are children with special needs who are included in inclusive classrooms characterized? What are the goals for these children? How do normally-developing children interact with children with special needs in an inclusive classroom? What are their activities? Do they have separate activities depending on their abilities? Do they have joint activities? How do teachers feel about their task as teachers of an inclusive classroom? What do teachers think about the included children? What are their challenges as teachers of inclusive classes? How do they deal with such challenges? Next is the consideration of the setting of the research. Cohen et al (2007) indicates that it is very important to get consent from relevant practitioners before starting any sort of research in a school setting. Most researchers of special education studies resort to the methods of observation of the children and interviews with the teachers in order get a better understanding of the situation and to derive new information. The participants in this research would be the children and teachers in an inclusive primary classroom. The researcher will serve as a volunteer in a primary school that offers inclusive programs. He gained access to this position when explained the purpose of his study to the school authorities and agreed to support him in his endeavour. The researcher will be interviewing the class teacher of the inclusive class as well as the special needs teacher regarding how inclusion is managed in the school and how the special needs children cope with the program. Although there is just a limited number of participants in this study, it does not necessarily lessen the quality of the research. This qualitative research parallels that of Bowen’s (2005), who did in-depth investigation in a small number of communities. Like the present study, he used purposive sampling in the selection of his participants instead of random sampling used in most experimental studies. His selected participants underwent in-depth, open ended interviews. Padgett (1998) advocates that since the emphasis in qualitative studies are on quality rather than quantity, the objective of sampling was not to increase the numbers but to maximize the information derived on the topic. The low number of participants is usual for studies about inclusive programs. Children with special needs are usually put in special education environments which have higher educator-student ratios and a more structured approach, and there are more opportunities for individual play time (Wolpert, 2001). Sometimes, they are also found in mainstream education environments which have more students and a lower educator-to-student ratio and group instruction is more common (Ivory & McCollum). Thus, this setting encourages more self-directed social interactions and less educator-directed interactions (Hestenes & Carroll, 2000). Bay & Cooper (2007) observed how children with special needs behaved in both environments and reported that in mainstream settings, the children engaged in slightly more developmental pretend/ symbolic play. As for the research methods, apart from the interviews to be conducted with teachers, direct observation of the inclusive class will be done by the researcher, and, being a volunteer who would be present inside the class to help out, he will also be a participant observer. This will gain him a deeper understanding of the inclusion process. Qualitative Research Methods Qualitative research methods are mostly used in understanding any phenomenon with limited information or in coming up with new perspectives on the phenomena studied (Straus & Corbin, 1990). Information which may be difficult to explain quantitatively may be understood with more depth when qualitative methods are employed (Robson, 2002). The validity of the data gathered would come from the integrity of the participants’ responses and its close parallelism to the research literature. Ensuring qualitative validity is quite different from quantitative studies. Wainer and Braun (1988) explain that in quantitative research, the concept, question or hypothesis posed in the beginning of the study determines the construct validity of the data to be gathered and the methodology that must be used to gather it. Such construct is made to interplay with the data in order to ‘validate’ the investigation, usually by the application of a test or some other process that manipulates variables. Cronbach and Meehl (1995) clarifies that the data yielded can either support or reject the construct which can now be elevated as a theory or a further hypothesis. However, in a qualitative research, the usual research hypotheses or the utilization of standardized tests may not be used, and the research accepts participants’ answers to questions posed by the researcher (Winter, 2000; Butt, 1992). “In the case of the human sciences it is the congruence of our text of understanding with the lived reality of persons (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990 pp. 97-98). This means that validity would depend on how well we represent the perceptions, feelings, thinking, experience of persons, the breadth, depth and interrelations of issues, concerns and themes (Butt, 1992). This particular study will adhere to Heron’s (1988) more formal definition of validity in human research, which is the coherence of knowledge derived from research to the experiential knowledge of the participants and its coherence to the practical knowledge of how one acts in specific situations and contexts. White and Marsh (2006) contended that open questions guiding the flow of research and data gathering are utilized in qualitative research instead of hypotheses generally associated with quantitative studies. The researcher reads through the data and analyzes and codes responses to identify themes and patterns. The researcher may discover patterns and themes that emerge which may not have been foreseen but are nevertheless important to consider and report. Using various data-collection methods is one way to add trustworthiness to the derived data. Such a strategy is known as triangulation, a concept borrowed from surveying and navigation. Creswell and Miller (2000) defined triangulation as “a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study” (p. 126). It is not simply putting together a variety of data, but its significance lies in finding the relationships of the data to each other in order to counteract possible threats to validity (Berg, 1995). Denzin (1994) suggested the incorporation of multiple kinds of data sources and multiple theoretical perspectives instead of just using multiple data-collection methods in order to strengthen the validity of the findings. Incorporating multiple data sources and theoretical perspectives greatly help in adding validity and reliability of the research (Golafshani, 2003). Mathison (1988) elaborated, Triangulation has risen as an important methodological issue in naturalistic and qualitative approaches to evaluation [in order to] control bias and [for] establishing valid propositions because traditional scientific techniques are incompatible with this alternate epistemology” (p. 13). Taking on a more qualitative than quantitative stance, this study aligns with Glesne (1999) when she stated that qualitative researchers look for different perspectives and do not contain their multiple interpretations of data to just a norm. In qualitative research, the predominant feature and sometimes the basis for some problems encountered are face-to-face interactions. The problem, Glesne stated, includes the researchers’ association the people they study who they may unwittingly be involved with along with the accompanying challenges and opportunities that such closeness brings. That is why it is essential that researchers maintain their objectivity throughout the research process. Strauss and Corbin (1990) advocated the use of qualitative research methods in demystifying and understanding any phenomenon with limited information. Qualitative methods are helpful in the discovery of new insights on phenomena that are already studied extensively. It is possible to acquire more depth of information than what has surfaced so far, which may otherwise be difficult to explain quantitatively. Qualitative methods are initiated when the researcher has determined that quantitative measures do not adequately pull in the necessary information or interpretation of a particular situation (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Robson, 2002). In the current study, the research simply wants to explore how an inclusive classroom runs and the researcher is content with observations of children’s behaviours in the class as well as information gathered from interviews with teachers who are directly in charge of the inclusive classroom. Most qualitative research on inclusion dwelled on feelings and perceptions of teachers in inclusive settings. A UK study by Clough and Lindsay (1991) explored teachers’ attitudes towards integration of children with SEN with children who are normally developing and the different kinds of support they get. Findings revealed that teachers now favor inclusion of children with differing abilities as compared to the past. However, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) in their meta-analysis of American attitude studies, found that only a third or less of the teachers studied believed they had sufficient time, skills, training and resources necessary for the integration. Implication of these studies is that teachers’ preparation to meet the needs of students with significant disabilities and that the severity of the disabling condition presented to them affect the attitudes of teachers towards integration. Recent research supports this contention and indicates that the success of inclusion programs is dependent on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999; Salend, 2001; Van Reusen, Shoho, and Barker 2001). Thus, it is important to encourage teachers’ positive attitudes towards inclusion if success is to be achieved. Interviews Interviews are considered effective methods in deriving information from participants. It is a flexible tool that adapts to the situation and responses of the participants and being able to immediately follow up on their answers is one advantage this method has over others (Robson, 2002). Frey and Mertens-Oishi (1995) comment how the participation of the interviewee can be enhanced by being sensitively guided in the questioning process so they may be able to answer the questions with ease. In interviews, the response rate of participants is higher than in questionnaires because they are more involved in the process (Oppenheim, 1992). This may be elicited by researcher’s motivation to learn everything he can from the interviewee about the research topic. Interviews show a vivid picture of participants’ perspectives and they are considered the experts on the topic (Milena, Dainora & Alin, 2008). The interview gives participants the opportunity to express their own point of view regarding certain situations (Cohen et al., 2000). This would include their personal feelings, opinions, experiences and interpretations (Milena, Dainora & Alin, 2008). Such qualitative data derived may not be accessible in the methods of observation or questionnaire (Blaxter, Hughes & Tight, 2006). Like with any other research method, interviews used as a research tool also have disadvantages. Robson (2002) comments that the interview process can be time-consuming because it entails the researcher to make arrangements, fix appointment schedules, conduct the interview while writing down notes, then after the interview, transcribing it in verbatim. A major disadvantage in any interview situation is the possibility of bias (Grinnell & Unrau, 2008). Without their knowledge or intention, interviewers may accidentally reveal their opinions or expectations by their tone of voice or in the way they ask questions. Even when interviews are recorded, the researcher should remain aware of bias and its possible effect on how answers are understood and transcribed. With regards to the current study on inclusion, the interviews with the class teacher and the SENCO teacher may be done both individually and as joint interviews. The researcher may be able to gather different viewpoints from each interviewee which may contribute to the richness of the data for the study. The class teacher may be able to share her knowledge about actual behaviour observed within the class between normally- developing mainstream children and children with special needs, the issues they deal with and the activities that were observed to be successful in the facilitation of their growth and development. On the other hand, the SENCO teacher may be able to share more specialized interventions that are recommended for the particular children with special needs who have been included in the class. Observations Direct observation offers a more detached perspective of the behaviors/ phenomenon observed. The researcher objectively observes rather than takes part and be immersed in the observed situation (Trochim, 2006). Marshall and Rossman (1989) define observation as "the systematic description of events, behaviors, and artifacts in the social setting chosen for study" (p.79). This means the observer systematically notes down all observed behaviours and details of the observed situation. In a more overt observation research method, the researcher is enabled to learn about the people they study who are in their natural setting. The researcher gets to interact with them and even participate in what they are doing. Such process is also known as “participant observation”. It is defined as "the process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the research setting" (Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte, 1999, p. 91). Participant observation entails rapport-building between the researcher and the participants before the process of observation can begin. This involves gaining the trust and respect of the participants (Kawulich, 2005). Part of this is confidentiality of whatever is shared in the process as they need to be assured that they can share personal information without compromising their identity to be exposed unnecessarily. In participant observation, the researcher maintains an open, nonjudgmental attitude and manifests interest in learning about others. He is vulnerable to making mistakes and experiencing shock if the situation brings about an unexpected twist. Observation is filtered through a person’s interpretive faculties and that "the most accurate observations are shaped by formative theoretical frameworks and scrupulous attention to detail" (Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte, 1999, p.95). This implies that the quality of the participant observation will now depend on the skill of the researcher in his observation, documentation and interpretation of the situation observed. Angrosino & De Perez (2000) identify three processes in conducting observations. First is the descriptive observation where the researcher observes anything and everything taking on the position that he knows nothing. The risk in this process is taking in extraneous information not relevant to the study. The second type of observation is the focused observation which is supported by interviews deriving important information from the participants to guide the researcher on what specifically to observe. Last is selective observation wherein the researcher focuses on various activities to help the researcher get more accurate information directly related to the phenomenon he is studying. The researcher in the current study has the advantage of spending a few days in an inclusive class as a volunteer. He will be there too as a participant observer. Because most of the participants will be children, he will need to be careful in establishing rapport with them, as he is a male stranger who may be seen as a threat to them. He may follow the processes of observation suggested by Angrosino & De Perez (2000), starting as a detached observer, slowly building rapport and easing into the participants’ circle but still maintaining a distance for objectivity. He will have to note down all his observations most especially those that directly pertain to his research questions. Data Analysis One way to analyze interview transcripts and observation notes are to search for patterns in the data using thematic codes (Bowen, 2005). Patton (1980) explains that “the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (p. 306). This is also known as inductive analysis. Bowen further illustrates that in the successive stages of data analysis, the themes that surface may move from a low level of abstraction to become the major theme as more and more evidence come from the data. The same method of data analysis shall be employed in this research. The researcher will gather all the qualitative information from his observations and the interviews from the teachers, organize them into the prevailing themes and cross-reference it to the literature review before coming up with a final report of findings. Limitations The scope of this research is limited to the inclusive classroom observed and the views of the teachers interviewed. It will be reliant on the insights and opinions of the these interviewees which will may reported in a subjective manner. However, despite the small number of participants, a strength may be viewed in the opportunity to get more and deeper insights about inclusion. The fact that the researcher will be a participant observer may add credence to the insights shared by the interviewed teachers as he will have the opportunity to find out for himself if what they are saying are true. Since children will be participants in this research, there is a great risk that their temperament may get in the way of successful data gathering by the researcher. Children may display varying dispositions towards their activities, peers, teacher or even towards the researcher. It would take some time before they can be used to the presence of the researcher and behave normally This study will not claim that the data gathered will be representative of the views of the general population of teachers on inclusion however, it will contribute information to the literature based on the data gathered. Ethical Considerations This study aims to comply to ethical standards and considerations in conducting research with human participants. The necessary forms will be completed, as well as necessary permissions, sought, in relation to the participation of the children and teachers as well as the conduct of the interviews. Confidentiality of information will be ensured so that the trust of the participants is established. Participation is non-obligatory and participants may withdraw anytime they feel like it. Conclusion This explorative study on inclusion in a primary school is not the first of its kind, gauging from the abundance of information already gleaned from previous studies and researches on the topic. However, the researcher himself is interested in how inclusion is applied to a particular school he has selected to study. As learned from the foregoing methodological framework, qualitative research, such as this current one, may unveil yet undiscovered information from the insights and perspectives that are formed or changed by the research process. The researcher in this study will endeavour to become a volunteer in an inclusive classroom to gain first-hand information about inclusion without being an expert in the area. This provides an outsider’s point of view which may well be a good contribution to the research literature. Working with children, especially with a group with differing abilities may serve as a challenge to many. It takes special skills learned from rigorous training, a positive attitude and the right disposition and openness, not to mention a pleasing personality that would appeal to the children. The researcher is ready to face such challenge in the name of research. It is believed that the research experience will not only be of benefit to the researcher, but to the field of special education itself because of the humble contribution of this present study to the ever-growing literature on the topic. References Angrosino, M. V. & Perez, M. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (second edition, pp.673-702), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bay, P. & Cooper, R. (2007) The play of children with special needs in mainstream and special education settings, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 32, No. 2. Berg, B. (1995). Qualitative research methods for social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Booth, T. and Ainscow. M. (2000). Index on Inclusion. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education Bowen, G.A. (2005) “Preparing a Qualitative Research-Based Dissertation: Lessons Learned”, The Qualitative Report Volume 10 Number 2 June 2005 208-222 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-2/bowen.pdf Butt, R. (1992) On Being Personal About the Collective. A paper presented at A.E.R.A., San Francisco, April 20-24, 1992. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, England: Routledge Falmer. Cook, B. G., Semmel, M. I., & Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-256. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–131. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. Denzin, N. K. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeWalt, Kathleen M. & DeWalt, Billie R. (2002). Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. DfEs Children Act and Reports, (2004) information retrieved on May 10, 2011 from http://dfes.gov.uk/publications/childrenactreport/#2004 Disability, Literacy & Inclusive Education for Young Children (n.d.) Retrieved on May 10, 2011 from http://www.uni.edu/inclusion/benefits_of_inclusion.htm Education Act, 1996, Section 312 Eisner, E.W. & Peshkin (Eds.) (1990) Qualitative Inquiry in Educaation. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press. Elloker, S. (1999). Inclusive education as a strategy to develop effective schools: A case study of a primary school in a socio-economic disadvantaged environment. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the Western Cape Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 62(1), 107–115. Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Retrieved on May 10, 2011 from http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk Frey, J. H., & Mertens-Oishi, S. (1995). How to conduct interviews by telephone and in person. London, England: Sage. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming a qualitative researcher: An introduction (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley Longman. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607. Grinnell, R. M., Jr., and Unrau, Y. A. (Eds.) (2008). Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (8th ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heron, J (1988) Validity in Cooperative Inquiry. In P. Reason (Ed). Human Inquiry in Action. (pp. 40-59) Hestenes, L. L., & Carroll, D. E. (2000). The play interactions of young children with and without disabilities: Individual and environmental influences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 229-246. Ivory, J. J., & McCollum, J. A. (1999). Effect of social and isolate toys on social play in an inclusive setting. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 238- 243. Kawulich, B. (2005) Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Volume 6, No. 2, Art. 43 Kgare, G.D. (2000). The role of education support services in the implementation of inclusive education. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Gretchen B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17. Milena, Z. R., Dainora, G. & Alin, S (2008) Qualitative Research Methods: A Comparison Between Focus-Group And In-Depth Interview. Annals Of The University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 2008, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p1279-1283 Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design: Interviewing and attitude measurement. London, England: Pinter. Padgett, D. K. (Ed.). (2004). The qualitative research experience. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (4th ed.).Upper Saddler River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Schensul, Stephen L.; Schensul, Jean J. & LeCompte, Margaret D. (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: observations, interviews, and questionnaires (Book 2 in Ethnographer's Toolkit). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Special Educational Needs And Disability Act 2001 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of the qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, England: Sage. Teaching Expertise (2010a) Multidisciplinary Team. Retrieved on May 10, 2011 from http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/multidisciplinary-team-1166 Teaching Expertise (2010b) Role of Senco: legal developments. http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/senco-role-legal-developments-3665 Van Reusen, A.K., Shosho, A.R. & Bonker, K.S. (2000). High school teacher’s attitudes toward inclusion. High School Journal 84 (2) 7-20 Wainer, H., & Braun, H. I. (1988). Test validity. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Weiner, H.M. (2003) Effective inclusion: Professional development in the context of the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 35, # 6 White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006, Summer). Content analysis: A flexible methodology.Library Trends, 55(1). Winter, G. (2000) “A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of 'Validity' in Qualitative and Quantitative Research”, The Qualitative Report, Volume 4, Numbers 3 & 4, March, 2000 (http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html) Read More