Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

debriefing following data collection. Although a digital voice recorder was utilized to record each session, <strong>the</strong> flipchart notes allowed participants to see <strong>the</strong> ideas that had been generated previously and enabled <strong>the</strong> moderator to summarize <strong>the</strong> group’s responses prior to moving on to <strong>the</strong> next question. Each focus group was held at <strong>the</strong> participants’ school in a room that was free from distractions. The moderator began each interview by facilitating participant introductions, clarifying <strong>the</strong> roles of <strong>the</strong> moderators and participants, explaining <strong>the</strong> purpose of <strong>the</strong> focus group, discussing confidentiality and how <strong>the</strong> results would be used, and reviewing <strong>the</strong> focus group questions. The moderator and assistant moderator convened following each focus group to discuss, clarify, and summarize <strong>the</strong> main points of <strong>the</strong> session. Five structured questions were asked within each focus group interview. The first three questions ga<strong>the</strong>red data on <strong>the</strong> participants’ service learning program and <strong>the</strong>ir beliefs about <strong>the</strong> key elements of inclusive HSSLPs (see Dymond, Renzaglia, & Chun, 2007). The fourth question requested participants to describe <strong>the</strong> methods <strong>the</strong>y found most effective for including students with disabilities in service learning. The final question required <strong>the</strong>m to identify what, if any, barriers <strong>the</strong>y experienced in including students with disabilities in service learning. Findings from <strong>the</strong>se last two questions are <strong>the</strong> basis for this article. Data Analysis Data were analyzed in two stages (Patton, 2002). The first stage involved a qualitative analysis. This method was chosen because it allowed a list of specific methods and barriers to emerge from <strong>the</strong> data, and <strong>the</strong> use of inductive analysis to determine categories that cut across schools. The second stage involved determining <strong>the</strong> number of schools that identified each method and barrier. This analysis was performed to clarify <strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>the</strong> methods and barriers were prevalent across schools. Coding. The digital recording of each focus group session was transcribed verbatim. Utilizing a content analysis procedure (Patton, 2002), each transcript was read several 24 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008 times in order to develop a list of codes to describe each method for and barrier to including students with disabilities in service learning. Once <strong>the</strong> codes were finalized, transcripts were re-read and a code was assigned to each method or barrier. A second researcher independently reviewed all coded data to verify <strong>the</strong> appropriateness of <strong>the</strong> assigned codes and <strong>the</strong> consistency used in applying <strong>the</strong> codes. Where differences of opinion existed, <strong>the</strong> two researchers discussed <strong>the</strong> coding until <strong>the</strong>y arrived at agreement. The final codes are listed as methods in Table 2 and barriers in Table 3. Data reduction. Using an inductive approach, methods across all five schools were examined and grouped into categories. Methods that were similar were included in <strong>the</strong> same category if <strong>the</strong>y were complementary in meaning and helped to define <strong>the</strong> category. Each method was assigned to only one category. This process was repeated for <strong>the</strong> list of barriers. As with <strong>the</strong> initial coding, a second researcher independently reviewed <strong>the</strong> codes assigned to each category to confirm <strong>the</strong>ir appropriateness. Differences of opinion were discussed between <strong>the</strong> two researchers until agreement was obtained about <strong>the</strong> codes included in each category. The final categories are defined in Tables 2 and 3. Following <strong>the</strong> qualitative analysis, a frequency count was performed to determine <strong>the</strong> number of schools that identified each method and barrier. This allowed for comparisons in <strong>the</strong> magnitude of responses and <strong>the</strong> level of agreement among schools. All methods and barriers, regardless of <strong>the</strong> number of participants or schools that identified <strong>the</strong>m, were included in <strong>the</strong> analysis. We anticipated that <strong>the</strong> methods and barriers identified by each school might vary due to <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> school (i.e., geographic location, size, ethnicity, percent low income, type of students with disabilities served) so we purposefully selected schools that were diverse across <strong>the</strong>se dimensions. The decision to retain all data was made because <strong>the</strong> primary purpose of <strong>the</strong> study was to capture <strong>the</strong> range of practitioner experiences and beliefs about methods and barriers. Deleting ideas mentioned by only one person or school would have diminished our understanding of practices advocated by stakeholders in diverse, inclusive HSSLPs.
TABLE 2 Methods for Including Students with Disabilities in Inclusive HSSLPs (N 5) Category Methods # of Schools Activity selection and Give students choices 4 structure (n 5) Place students in situations where <strong>the</strong>y will be successful 4 Choose activities depending on students’ ability level 3 Include more hands-on activities 2 Offer a variety of activities 2 Assess students to determine <strong>the</strong>ir capabilities 2 Start with smaller, teacher initiated projects 1 Collaboration (n 5) Collaborate with general and/or special education teachers 3 Obtain support for service learning from all staff involved with students 2 Provide enough staff 2 Obtain information about students’ abilities 2 Obtain information about methods for ensuring students’ success 1 Provide teachers with information about students’ disabilities 1 Discuss service learning opportunities during IEP meetings, 504 meetings, or transition meetings 1 Expectations (n 5) Have <strong>the</strong> same expectations for students with and without disabilities 3 Treat students with disabilities like everyone else 3 Expect students to participate 2 Allow students to fail 1 Encouragement (n 4) Allow student ownership of <strong>the</strong> project 3 Get to know <strong>the</strong> students with disabilities 3 Ask students how <strong>the</strong>y would like to be involved in service learning 2 Allow students to have an active role in decision-making 1 Grouping (n 4) Pair students with and without disabilities to complete projects 4 Include normal proportions of students with and without disabilities 2 Modifications (n 3) Provide additional instruction 2 Provide supplementary instruction in <strong>the</strong> special education classroom 1 Modify <strong>the</strong> rules when needed 1 Modify grading practices 1 Note. HSSLPs high school service learning programs; n number of schools contributing methods to each category Trustworthiness. Guba and Lincoln (1989) indicated that rigorous qualitative analyses use procedures that support “trustworthiness” of <strong>the</strong> data. In this study, trustworthiness was ensured by a) analyzing data transcribed verbatim from a high quality digital voice recorder, b) using a two-step process to understand <strong>the</strong> data, and c) verifying interpretations of <strong>the</strong> data between two researchers. Results Data from this study are organized around: a) methods for including students with disabilities in inclusive HSSLPs and b) barriers to Inclusive High School Service Learning Programs / 25
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Developme
Page 7 and 8: Guardianship: Its Role in t
Page 9 and 10: guardians who are knowledgeable abo
Page 11 and 12: in budgeting and spending; (b) a sp
Page 13 and 14: and effective are essential to self
Page 15 and 16: involved in the gu
Page 17 and 18: sonal rights removed through guardi
Page 19 and 20: who are not trustworthy, and when o
Page 21 and 22: Discussion and Recommendations Lake
Page 23 and 24: DC: OSERS. (ERIC Document Reproduct
Page 25 and 26: people who do not have disabilities
Page 27: TABLE 1 School Demographics Demogra
Page 31 and 32: participate in service learning pro
Page 33 and 34: who are “more experienced” in s
Page 35 and 36: cern that they wer
Page 37 and 38: service learning activity for stude
Page 39 and 40: supports school personnel need to h
Page 41 and 42: Using Pivotal Response Training wit
Page 43 and 44: the trained peers
Page 45 and 46: Group B between one and two times p
Page 47 and 48: ing play sessions with Group B, Col
Page 49 and 50: learned to interact with ot
Page 51 and 52: Affirmative sentences emphasize a v
Page 53 and 54: identifying several important behav
Page 55 and 56: Kenji. For Kenji, all observation s
Page 57 and 58: Figure 2. Percentage of 10-s interv
Page 59 and 60: gaging in complicated verbal commun
Page 61 and 62: Results The results of the<
Page 63 and 64: when the person wa
Page 65 and 66: Effectiveness of the</stron
Page 67 and 68: is still encountering only one symb
Page 69 and 70: TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participa
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 2 Characteristics of
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Commun
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 77 and 78: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 79 and 80:
nosed as having ASD. Therefore, PEC
Page 81 and 82:
Preschool Teacher Perceptions of As
Page 83 and 84:
TABLE 1 Teacher Demographics 1 Teac
Page 85 and 86:
TABLE 3 Assistive Technology Self-A
Page 87 and 88:
Integration or supplemental perspec
Page 89 and 90:
I don’t know if the</stro
Page 91 and 92:
sessions, and the
Page 93 and 94:
that would be difficult to develop
Page 95 and 96:
Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R
Page 97 and 98:
TABLE 1 Characteristics of Campers
Page 99 and 100:
appropriate answers were provided.
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervent
Page 103 and 104:
garding how to effectively interact
Page 105 and 106:
Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating in
Page 107 and 108:
proach, features are built into <st
Page 109 and 110:
independent transitions were totale
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 1. Number of independent tas
Page 113 and 114:
type of skills (e.g., domestic, lei
Page 115 and 116:
Peer-Implemented Time Delay Procedu
Page 117 and 118:
show that peer tutors can reliably
Page 119 and 120:
General Procedures The dependent va
Page 121 and 122:
Skill training. The teacher and one
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 2. Percent of correct respon
Page 125 and 126:
heterogeneous group of students is
Page 127 and 128:
States’ Eligibility Guidelines fo
Page 129 and 130:
Method Procedure The first author d
Page 131 and 132:
TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part score
Page 133 and 134:
eligibility to exhibit an IQ two or
Page 135:
ility guidelines for MR from state
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?