Análisis de proteínas

interviews, (b) what connective threads have been found, (c) how the

researcher may explain these connections, (d) what the researcher

understands as a result of the interviews, (e) what unexpected information was found, and (f) how the interviews have been consistent or inconsistent with the literature. The researcher used these guiding statements to assist in managing the data.

Validity and Reliability

This case study is both qualitative (descriptive) and quantitative

(statistical). This section addresses the validity and reliability of (a) the overall study, (b) the interviews, and (c) the survey instrument.

The Overall Study

In statistical studies, validity traditionally is defined as "the extent to which a test actually measured what it claimed to measure" (Crowl, 1996, p.110). “Validity in quantitative research includes both internal (causal inferences) and external (generalizability), and issues of objectivity and reliability. Qualitative research employs different assumptions, designs, and methods to develop knowledge” (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997, p. 404). According to McMillan and Schumacher (1997), the most common criteria for qualitative research are

validity and extension of findings. Validity, in a qualitative study, is based on data collection and analysis techniques. In this study, more than one measuring instrument was used to strengthen validity. The use of three data collection strategies is called “triangulation” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Popham, 1993). Triangulation strengthens validity in a qualitative study because “a single measuring instrument will ordinarily not, all by itself, tell us what we need to know” (Popham, 1993, pp. 158-159). For the purpose of triangulation, the researcher used documents, interviews, and a survey to gather information.

In qualitative studies, extension of findings is used instead of external validity. External validity is used in statistical studies, and is concerned with the replication of studies. “Extension of the finding...enables others to understand similar situations and apply these findings in subsequent research” (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997, p. 411). According to McMillan and Schumacher (1997), extension of findings can be accomplished through the use of these components,

which were addressed in this study: (a) description of information selection, allowing future researchers to contact similar informants, (b) detailed description of data collection and analysis, (c) thick descriptions and lengthy quotations, and (d) a conceptual framework, which is the primary design component for

generating further research.

The Interviews

To further strengthen validity, especially when conducting interviews, the following strategies were also used (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997): (a)

prolonged and persistent field vxjrk using in-depth interviews and legal documents, (b) verbatim accounts using extensive direct quotations, (c)

mechanically recorded data, such as using a tape recorder during interviews, (d) member checking, such as rephrasing topics during an interview to obtain more information, and (e) participant review, in which the person who was interviewed is asked to review the transcripts of the interview for the purpose of clarifying and interpreting the data.

In statistical studies, reliability can be defined as a consistency in results when the study is conducted by different researchers (Popham, 1993; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). This consistency is difficult to achieve in qualitative research because different researchers studying the same subjects in the same setting may reach different conclusions because they spent more time in some parts of the school or spoke to certain people rather than others (Crowl, 1996; Bogdan &

Biklen, 1992). Instead, ‘qualitative researchers tend to view reliability as a fit

between what they record as data and what actually occurs in the setting under study” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 48). This researcher addressed the problem of reliability by looking at accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data, as

recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (1992). The Survey

The questionnaire’s creators documented the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. In this study, the researcher used the survey to gather the professional opinions of Bayou Parish classroom teachers regarding giftedness. The survey, “Assumptions Underlying the Identification of Gifted and Talented Students” (see Appendix A), was a national survey created in 1993 by Gubbins, Siegle, Renzulli, and Brown at the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, located at the University of Connecticut. As recommended by Popham (1993), the content validity of the survey is shown by its questions' congruence with the specifications that guided its creation. In other words, content validity indicates that the survey items measure predetermined criteria (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997). This predetermined criteria, according to Gubbins et al (1993), was a set of guidelines for gifted student identification that were written by Dr. Marshall Sanborn of the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Sanborn’s guidelines were studied to create an item pool that would become the basis for the national

survey.

The survey's reliability (internal consistency) was assured through the process of the questionnaire’s construction (as recommended by Popham,

1993). The questionnaire was written, then it was field-tested, revised, and field- tested again on (a) participants at the 1991 National Association for Gifted

Children Conference, (b) graduate students majoring in gifted and talented education, and (c) content area experts. A large number of questions on the original survey were either eliminated or revised until 20 items were retained (Gubbins et al., 1993).

Instrumentation

The researcher created an interview guide (see Appendix B) to assist in conducting the interview with the Bayou Parish Pupil Appraisal Team member. The questions were based on information from the Office for Civil Rights compliance review (U. S. Department of Education, 1996) which was briefly summarized in Chapter I. An interview guide was created for use with classroom teachers. The questions were based on the survey’s statements.

A survey was used to gather teachers’ assumptions about the concept of giftedness and how it can be identified. The survey (see Appendix A) is called “Assumptions Underlying the Identification of Gifted and Talented Students” (Gubbins et al., 1993), which was developed by directors of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut This instrument has been reproduced with the permission of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Research for this study was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education.

Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. This study, therefore, does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Procedure

The researcher began by meeting with the Bayou Parish school superintendent to discuss the proposed case study and to obtain his written permission to conduct the study (see Appendix C). After this official permission was obtained, the researcher contacted the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas to obtain documentation of Bayou Parish’s compliance process and resulting gifted student populations for each year of participation in the compliance review. The researcher wrote a summary of the documents and created tables to illustrate the results of the compliance review.

The principals of the six selected schools were each sent a letter of introduction (see Appendix C), Human Subjects Consent Forms (see Appendix D), and a copy of the written permission obtained from the superintendent. They were asked to distribute the 25 surveys to their kindergarten through fifth grade classroom teachers and to return the completed surveys in the enclosed self- addressed stamped envelope (SASE).

After receiving the surveys, the principals of the six schools were sent a letter, followed by a telephone call, requesting the names of teachers who would be willing to participate in a brief interview (see Appendix C). The principals

talked to their faculty members and obtained the names of 16 teachers who were interested in taking part in the interview. The names were returned to the

researcher by phone, fax, and mail.

The researcher sent a letter of introduction to each selected teacher (see Appendix C). The letter included an SASE, Human Subjects Consent Form, a list of the interview questions, and a simple information form to complete. Nine of the

16 teachers returned to the researcher in the enclosed SASEs. These teachers were interviewed as requested, either in person or by telephone.

The Pupil Appraisal Team member was sent a letter of introduction (see Appendix C), Human Subjects Consent Form, and a copy of the interview questions. She was contacted by telephone to set up the actual interview.

With permission, many interviews were tape recorded to ensure accuracy. A college student was employed to assist the researcher in transcribing the tapes. The results of all the interviews were written in the form of descriptive narrative.

The survey data were coded and entered into a computer statistics program. After the ANOVA was run and interpreted, the results were presented in descriptive form and charts.

Limitations and Delimitations

According to Best and Kahn (1993), limitations are conditions that are beyond the control of the researcher that may affect the conclusions of a study

and delimitations are the boundaries of a study. The delimitations (boundaries) in this study were:

1. This study describes only the gifted program in the Bayou Parish, Louisiana,