The questionnaire contained 31 questions which were divided into eight sections and included both multiple choice and open-ended questions (see Appendix E). The design incorporated some adaptations from previous research in this area and was influenced by the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 (as shown in Table 3.3). This allowed for the comparison of research findings. The questionnaire was piloted using three teachers (two special education teachers and a vice-principal). Recommendations made were based on the terminology and the ease of submitting answers online and the appropriate changes were made.
110 Table 3. 3
The design of the anonymous online survey by section.
Section References
General background information Barrett (2016); DES (2017) Circular
017/2017; DES (2014) Circular 030/2014; Ní Chinnéide (2009); Nic Gabhann (2008); Travers (2007); Travers et al., (2010).
The Special Education Teacher DENI (1998) Code of Practice; DES (2017)
Circular 013/2017; DES (2005a) Circular SP ED 02/05; DES (2000) Learning Support Guidelines; Travers et al. (2010).
Pupils with SEN Cosgrove et al. (2014); DENI (1998) Code of
Practice; NCSE (2010); NCSE, Annual Report (2016, 2017); Ní Chinnéide (2009).
Assessment Barrett (2016); DES (2011); Hambly &
Fombonne, 2013, 2014; Ní Chinnéide (2009); Nic Gabhann (2008).
Resources and additional supports Ebert et al., 2014; Kohnert, 2010; Ní
Chinnéide (2009)
Services for pupils with SEN de Valenzula et al., 2016; Ní Chinnéide
(2009)
Educational practices Barrett (2016), Ní Chinnéide (2009), Nic
Gabhann (2008); NCSE (2014a, 2014b).
Pupils with SEN
transferring to other schools
Jegathessen, 2011; Kay-Raining Bird et al., 2012; Ní Chinnéide (2009); Yu, 2013.
111 3.8 Rationale for Questioning
3.8.1 General Information. General background information on the person completing the questionnaire, such as, their position in the school and level of teaching experience was collected along with general information regarding the school. For example, the number of teachers employed in the school and the number of pupils enrolled in the school. Schools were also asked whether they were a designated disadvantaged school (DEIS).
3.8.2 The Special Education Teacher. The school’s special education teacher allocation for the current school year was collected (DES, 2017a). The total number of pupils who were attending this teacher for additional teaching support in each school was assessed and the gender breakdown of these pupils. The number of pupils who had an educational
psychological assessment was investigated, along with the methods used to select pupils for additional teaching support. The questions in this section were adapted from previous research by Travers (2007) and Ní Chinnéide (2008).
3.8.3 Pupils with SEN. Here, the prevalence rates of pupils with SEN in IM schools were gathered. The terminology of this question was adapted from the previous research by Barrett (2016), Ní Chinnéide (2009), and Nic Gabhann (2008). Schools were asked about the number of pupils in each class presenting with a range of SEN. The category list selected for this question was based on previous research and the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 (Barrett, 2016; NCSE, 2016; Ní Chinnéide, 2009; Nic Gabhann, 2008).
3.8.4 Assessment. A general question was asked to ascertain what type of assessment methods were used by schools. For example, standardised tests through Irish, standardised tests through English, diagnostic assessments etc. Following on from this, schools were asked how many pupils in each school scored below a STen of four on a list of standardised tests (RoI).
112
They were also asked the cut-off points used (STen scores or Percentiles) on standardised tests to select pupils for additional teaching support. These questions were developed by the researcher and allowed for an assessment of how pupils are selected for additional teaching support in schools compared to the guidelines outlined by the Department of Education and Skills (DES, 2017a).
3.8.5 Resources and Additional Supports. Questions were asked to establish what additional supports or resources would help schools meet the needs of pupils with SEN learning through the medium of Irish. A list of factors were rated by schools to establish what areas were; very challenging, challenging, somewhat challenging, or never challenging for schools (Ní Chinnéide, 2009).
3.8.6 Services for Pupils with SEN. A list of service providers were given to establish what external support services were available to schools through the medium of Irish, English, a combination of Irish and English, or not available at all (Ní Chinnéide, 2009). Schools were also asked what services are currently unavailable through the medium of Irish, that are needed.
3.8.7 Educational Practices. The educational practices of the school and the person filling in the questionnaire was evaluated in this section. Schools were asked whether they use Individual Education Plans (IEPS). This question was adapted from previous research by Barrett (2016) and Nic Gabhann (2008) for comparisons. Furthermore, it allowed for comparisons with English-medium schools. An open-ended question regarding the educational practices of the school for meeting the needs of pupils with SEN was also included. The person completing the questionnaire was asked how often they used a range of educational practices listed. This
provided the researcher with a ‘snapshot’ (Robson & McCartan, 2016) of the practices that were being used by either the principal or special education teacher/SENCO in schools at the time. This question was adapted from previous research by Travers (2007).
113
3.8.8 Pupils with SEN Transferring to Other Schools. Schools were asked how many pupils with SEN transferred from their school over the last three academic school years (September 2014 - September 2017) and the reasons why these transfers occurred. These questions relate to the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 (Kay-Raining Bird, Genesee, &
Verhoeven, 2016; Jegathessen, 2011; Yu, 2013) and were also adapted from previous research by Ní Chinnéide (2009).
3.8.9 Conclusion. Participants were asked whether they would be interested in
partaking in the second stage of this study, involving case study research (reviewed below). They were also thanked for their participation and invited to add any additional comments they may have.