Modelos integradores: St Pierre, D’hulst, Lépinette y Pym

3.14.1 Sample Selection

As described above, three mainstream state-funded secondary schools from Outer London were selected to take part in the final study. Total sample of 1,486 pupils, approximately 500 from each school, from year 7 to year 10, were invited to complete the SDQ along with the main questionnaire. Regarding gender, 39.5% (n = 587) were girls, and 54.3% (n = 807) were boys, whilst 6.2% (n = 92) failed to record their gender. The majority of pupils, nearly 78%, were classified by schools as typical, while 19% were identified as having SEN. 3% of pupils did not provide their name and could therefore not be grouped.

All SEN categories and a variety of combinations (i.e. SLCN & ASD, SEMH, ASD & SPLD) were identified. For the purpose of this study, pupils identified by the school as having SEMH or SEMH and another SEN category were classified as pupils with SEMH. Similarly, pupils classified as having MLD or MLD and another SEN category were classified as MLD. Pupils identified as having another category of SEN, as well as those pupils that had a combination of MLD and SEMH, were classified as having Other SEN. The rationale for this classification relates to the main aim of this study, that of examining the differences in pupils with SEMH, and MLD’s schooling experience. Table 3.6 shows the distribution of pupils with SEN, according to their category.

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 % e xclusi o n d s % SEN B. School 2 C. School 3 A. School 1

Table 3.6 Distribution of Type of SEN for the Pupils’ Sample

SEN category No. %

SEMH 36 2.4

MLD 99 6.7

Other SEN 147 9.9

Typical 1158 77.9

Missing data 46 3.1

On the other hand, classification made based on the SDQ total difficulties scores revealed that 70.3% of pupils were identified as normal, 11.5% as borderline and 7.5% as abnormal. There were also 10.8% missing values. When pupils scored on the SDQ externalising difficulties scale it was found that 76.3% were classified as normal, 7.2% as borderline, while 5.9% came out as being abnormal.

Besides pupils, educational staff was also invited to complete the school ethos questionnaire. A total sample of 104 educational staff took part in the study. They were classified according to their professional role on teachers, teaching assistants, members of the senior management team and Others, which pertained to those such as afternoon staff, support staff, catering, and cleaning staff. Table 3.7 shows the distribution of teachers according to their professional role.

Table 3.7 Distribution of Professional Roles for the Educational Staff Sample

Professional role No. %

Teacher 54 51.9

Teaching Assistant 16 15.4

Senior Management team 10 9.6

Other role 24 23.1

3.14.2 Data Collection

Questionnaires were delivered to the respondents with the assistance of the SENCO and the form teachers of each school due to the large sample size of participants, and the restricted time available for the data collection. Form teachers were advised by the researcher to read the instructions to the pupils and ensure that everyone understood. All questionnaires were collected personally. Table 3.8 shows the response rate for each delivered questionnaire in the main study.

Table 3.8 Questionnaire Response Rate

Questionnaire Distributed Collected Questionnaires

% Educational staff ethos 130 104 80 Pupils main 1,486 1,440 96.9 Pupils SDQ 1,486 1,339 90.1

A high percentage of pupils (48%) were willing to take part in the semi-structured interview, 40.4% refused, while 11.6% were neutral. Finally, Table 3.9 shows the proportion of typical and pupils identified as having SEN who filled in the main and SDQ questionnaires.

Table 3.9 Percentage of Type of Pupil Filling in the Main and SDQ Questionnaires

Main questionnaire SDQ

Typical SEN Typical SEN

Completed 89.9% 87.6% 91.1% 97.2%

Not-completed 10.1% 12.4% 8.9% 2.8%

In total, 22.5% of pupils did not adequately complete the main questionnaire, and a smaller percentage of 11.7%, the SDQ questionnaire. There are five possible reasons identified by the researcher explaining the obtained missing values: 1) pupils with visual or literacy difficulties found it hard to fill in the questionnaires, 2) pupils completed the questionnaire but neglected to write their name (intentionally or unintentionally), 3) pupils were completely unwilling to fill in the questionnaire, 4) pupils completed the questionnaire but left out some questions (intentionally or unintentionally or 5) pupils felt overwhelmed by the questionnaire’s length. In cases where the questionnaire was completed, but some missing values were identified, the researcher used a pro-rata approach. This was only done where only few items were missing from each scale.

3.14.3 Reliability

A reliability check was conducted on the final educational staff and pupil questionnaires. The Cronbach’ alpha values obtained for both questionnaires were high. Table 3.10 shows the Cronbach’s alpha results of the educational staff school ethos questionnaire.

Table 3.10 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability for the Final Staff Questionnaire

Dimension Number of items Total Cronbach’s Alpha

School ethos total

Behaviour Management Inclusion 26 items 12 items 14 items α=0.837 α=0.800 α=0.715

Table 3.11 shows the Cronbach’ alpha reliability score for all the sub-scales comprising the final pupil questionnaire.

Table 3.11 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability for the Final Pupil Questionnaire

Dimension Number of items Total Cronbach’s Alpha

Sense of belonging 9 items α = 0.742

School ethos total

Behaviour Management Inclusion 17 items 6 items 11 items α = 0.834 α = 0.724 α = 0.755

Relations with teachers 10 items α = 0.803

Relations with pupils 10 items α = 0.748

Relations with TAs total

Relations with my TA Relations with TA 10 items 5 items 5 items α = 0.961 α = 0.924 α = 0.881

3.15 Interviews

3.15.1 Sample Selection

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with multiple cases of pupils from the three different schools. Pupils invited were from those who had completed the main and the SDQ questionnaires and who had expressed willingness to take part in an interview, in response to a question at the beginning of the questionnaire. A purposive sample of 45 pupils who had been selected by the researcher based on their SEN status and scores on the sense of school belonging scale participated in the interviews. Of these, 19 pupils scored in the upper quartile (SOSB scores 36>=) on the school belonging questionnaire, four SEMH, eight MLD, four typical (based on school records) and three “abnormal” (SDQ terminology based on SDQ total difficulties). Whilst 26 scored in the lowest quartile (SOSB scores 29>=) on the school belonging questionnaire, nine SEMH, nine MLD, four typical (based on school records) and 4 “abnormal” (SDQ terminology based on SDQ total difficulties). The aim was to include pupils of all groups to maximise the range of opinions heard about their schooling experiences. It should also be noted that of

the 13 pupils identified as having SEMH in school reports, five of them classified themselves as normal on the SDQ questionnaire, and eight classified themselves as “abnormal”. Whilst consideration was given to the personal views of all pupils as they had been officially registered as SEMH in school reports, emphasis was given to the responses of those where the identification between school and self-reports were consistent. Table 3.12 shows analytically the type of interviewee pupils per school. Table 3.12 Type of Interviewee Pupils per School

High Sense of Belonging

(Upper quartile >= 36%)

Low Sense of Belonging

(Bottom quartile >= 29%)

SEMH MLD Abnormal Typical SEMH MLD Abnormal Typical Total

School 1 - 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 10

School 2 2 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 17

School 3 2 2 1 2 4 4 1 2 18

3.15.2 Interview Procedure

At the beginning of each interview, the researcher provided an explanation to the pupils about the aims of the research and the importance of their contribution. Then, an ice- breaking activity was carried out in order to create a friendly atmosphere (see Appendix V). Most of the interviewees seemed uncomfortable when they were asked if they could be audio recorded and so the researcher had to reassure them of their anonymity and to explain the practicalities of needing the recordings for subsequent data analysis. Interviews were only audio recorded after the pupils’ permission was obtained. It is worth mentioning that one boy who was identified as having SEMH was unwilling to be interviewed after the researcher asked him to be audio recorded. A question schedule was prepared by the researcher, the sequence of which changed in accordance with the flow of the interviews. The length of each interview ranged from 15 to 25 minutes.

All interviews were conducted face to face on an individual basis. In the first school, 10 pupils, comprising two SEMH, three MLD, three “abnormal” and two typical, were interviewed. After the completion of the interviews, it was noticed that of all the interviewee pupils those with MLD were more reluctant to engage in the interview process. Consequently, in the second and third schools’ interviews with pupils identified as belonging to this cohort were conducted in a group of two, in the hope of relaxing them. A justification for this has been provided from Kitzinger (1995, p. 299 in Robson,

2011), who stated that group interviews “do not discriminate against people who cannot read or write and they can encourage participation from people reluctant to be interviewed on their own or who feel they have nothing to say”.

In the second school, interviews were conducted with 17 pupils, including five SEMH, two “abnormal”, two typical, and eight MLD. Pupils identified as having MLD were paired based on their sense of school belonging scores (i.e. low/high). Of the four pairs of pupils, two of them were all boys and they were quiet talkative. The other two pairs were a mixture of boy-girl. In those two pairs the girls were younger than the boys, with a Muslim cultural background and were quite reserved about expressing their opinion. Finally, in the third school a total of 18 pupils were interviewed, of whom, six had been identified with SEMH, six with MLD, two as “abnormal” and four as typical. Two pairs of pupils with MLD were interviewed. Two of those identified as having MLD were in the same class and thus, were quite comfortable about sharing their feelings and experiences regarding school.