Técnicas de umbralización con relleno de huecos

questions and explain the focus group procedure. The number of focus groups held was

determined by the location of the volunteers. Focus groups were conducted in a location that was accessible, distraction free and centrally located to the participants. Permission to digitally record the meeting was requested and the recordings were sent to a transcriptionist within 24 hours of the focus group interview.

The researcher moderated the focus group interviews, assisted by a moderator aide, using a semi-structured interview format (Appendix F). The Preparing for Change graduate

52

assistant served as the moderator aide. During the focus group interview the aide took field notes and operated the digital recorder. Immediately following the session the aide captured her

perceptions of the meeting by completing her field notes. (Vaughn et al. 1996).

Prior to the closing statement, the moderator conducted a member check to verify how participants perceived the issues discussed. It was important for the moderator to assess how each member viewed the key topics discussed, rather than assume that the length of time spent on a topic was an indication of its significance to all participants (Vaughn et al., 1996). During and immediately following the focus group interview, the researcher and moderator aide

compiled field notes, described and reflected on their impressions regarding participants’ words, intensity of responses, nonverbal communication, and ideas that dominated the conversation (Bogden & Biklen, 2007; Vaughn, et al.).

Data Analysis

A mixed data analysis process, often referred to as mixed analysis, was used to analyze the survey and focus group interview data collected in this study (Onwuegbuzie, Slate, Leech, Collins, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003) identified seven stages of data analysis that are available for use in the mixed analysis process: (a) data reduction (reducing quantitative data, using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data, using descriptive themes, to manageable pieces); (b) data display (organizing and visually presenting quantitative and qualitative data in graphs and matrices); (c) data transformation (quantitizing or qualitizing data); (d) data correlation (correlating quantitative data with qualitized data or vice versa); (e) data consolidation (combining quantitative and qualitative data to create new or consolidated codes, variables, or data sets); (f) data comparison (comparing data from two sources); and (g)

53

data integration (weaving or integrating what has been discovered into a coherent whole or two separate sets of coherent wholes). Five of the seven stages were used to analyze the survey and focus group data in this study: data reduction, data display, data transformation, data comparison, and data integration.

During analysis, this study used a parallel tracks mixed analysis approach (Li et al. (2000). Using this approach, analysis of the survey and focus group interview data sets occurred separately until the point of data comparison and integration. The MTAI survey responses were collected by OATS and data reduction began through coding and data entry into PASW Statistics 18. Once populated, OATS sent the PASW Statistics 18 database to the researcher for analysis. The reduction process proceeded with data cleaning (identification and removal of missing data and outliers), and descriptive statistical analysis. Frequency distributions and descriptive

analyses provided numeric summaries of the study sample and measure. Further analysis included the use Independent sampless t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to examine factors associated with the beliefs of ECSE IPOP practitioners. For example, the relationship between items such as practitioners’ years of experience and overall beliefs about inclusion were examined. All quantitative data were organized and visually displayed using graphs and tables. Data transformation followed in the form of a narrative report summarizing the numerical data which is found in Chapter 4.

Focus group interview data were initially analyzed using the following steps: (a) data review; (b) data reduction; (c) data display; and (d) data transformation. First, all data from the focus group session were reviewed, including the interview protocol, digitally recorded tapes, transcripts of the sessions, and field notes. From this review the researcher identified several big

54

ideas gleaned from the data (Vaughn et al., 1996). Next, data were reduced by coding transcripts according to the specific categories in the Learning to Teach in Community model (vision, understanding, tools, practices, dispositions, and community). Subcategories for each category were then developed based on the transcript coding and displayed in a matrix format on chart paper (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

At these points the separate analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data were brought together for a mixed analysis at the data comparison and integration stage. Summary themes from the focus group interviews and narrative summary of the survey data were displayed in a table format to facilitate comparison of the two sources of data (Appendix G).

Utilizing a parallel tracks approach allowed for an in-depth understanding of ECSE IPOP practitioners perceptions of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that should be taught in ECSE preservice teacher preparation programs. As in the Li et al. (2000) study, this approach allowed the measurement of “overlapping but different aspects of inclusion”, as well as the opportunity to “reconcile discrepancies in interpretation” that might occur had only one research method been used (p. 125).

Summary

While the reauthorization of IDEA (2004) reaffirms the importance of services in natural environments and inclusive programs, the SPENSE study found that 77% of preschool special educators’ instructional time was in special education rather than integrated programs, and teachers’ confidence in their collaborative skills was directly related to their professional

development and experience (Carlson et al., 2002). Reflective of national trends, Virginia’s State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) to OSEP show a significant

55

number of preschool children educated in segregated settings and others who have only limited opportunities to interact with typically developing peers. To meet the USDOE and VDOE mandated goals to increase the percentage of preschoolers with disabilities who are educated with typically developing peers, preservice programs must be updated to prepare high quality personnel for new roles in inclusive settings. As a critical component of the system, preservice programs are needed not only to increase the quantity of EI/ECSE professionals, but more importantly to prepare highly qualified personnel knowledgeable about early education systems and change processes in order to effectively support and expand inclusive practices in Virginia. This study investigated the perspectives of ECSE inclusion practitioners to inform the content and process of ECSE personnel preparation to better prepare preservice teachers for changing roles and responsibilities in inclusive settings.

56 Chapter 4

Findings

Professional standards, recommended practices, and literature reveal little about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions early childhood special educators need for inclusive practice or how those abilities and attitudes are acquired. The purpose of this study was to investigate experienced ECSE practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes and their perceptions of what preservice teachers need to know and be able to do to effectively support early childhood inclusion.

This chapter presents the results of a mixed methods study that incorporated a web based survey and face-to-face focus group interviews to address the following research questions.

1. What are the beliefs and attitudes of experienced ECSE practitioners about early childhood inclusion?

a. Is there a difference in the inclusion beliefs and attitudes of ECSE IPOP practitioners in terms of formal training?

b. Is there a difference in the inclusion beliefs and attitudes of ECSE IPOP practitioners in terms of prior inclusive teaching experiences?

c. Is there a difference in the inclusion beliefs and attitudes of ECSE IPOP practitioners in terms of years of ECSE teaching experience?

d. Is there a difference in the inclusion beliefs and attitudes of ECSE IPOP practitioners in terms of years of ECSE inclusive teaching experience? 2. What do experienced practitioners identify as the essential knowledge, skills, and

57

3. What do experienced practitioners recommend for preparation of preservice ECSE teachers for professional itinerant roles that support early childhood inclusion? Results of the quantitative survey data identified the beliefs, attitudes, and practices of experienced ECSE inclusion practitioners, while results of qualitative focus group interviews provided a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of those beliefs and practices and recommendations for preparing ECSE preservice teachers for inclusive practice.

Phase I: Survey