Employing, Developing, and Directing Special Education Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Education Programs: Findings from a Multi-Site Case Study
Go back to Section 2: Study Purpose and Research Questions

Section 3
Design and Methodology

A multi-site, case study design was chosen to address the research questions. Case studies are used to compile comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information related to a single, bounded unit of analysis (Patton, 1990). In this study, the bounded unit of each case study was a school district, with a total of three school districts participating. A multi-site case study seeks to describe and understand similar case studies in order to compare and contrast findings across the cases thereby increasing confidence in the overall findings and conclusions. Findings that emerge across cases are enhanced in precision, stability and validity (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this section of the monograph, sampling, data collection, and data analysis procedures are summarized.

Sampling and Participants

A purposive sampling strategy (Patton, 1990) was used to identify the three school districts and participating individuals. Within each school district, an elementary special education teacher and a secondary special education teacher and their respective inclusive education programs formed the core focus around which study participants were identified. “The logic and power of purposeful sampling depends on selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research…” (Patton, 1990, p. 169). Figure 1 illustrates the embedded relationships of the teachers, schools, and school districts involved in the multi-site case study.

Three stages were involved in constructing the sample for this study. In the first stage, school districts that might be appropriately involved were identified. In the second stage, specific special education teachers and, therefore, specific school sites within the school districts were identified. In the third stage, key informants were identified at the team, school, and district levels within each of the identified school districts. The primary criterion for final district selection was identification of an elementary and a secondary special education teacher in each respective district who a) effectively supported students with disabilities in general education classrooms for most or all of the school day, and b) directed the work of at least two paraprofessionals. Three districts participated in the study. Throughout the study, they are referred to by the pseudonyms Waterview School District, Forest School District, and Prairie School District. A profile of each district, school, and inclusive education program is presented in Table 1.

It is noteworthy that four out of six of the schools opened as inclusive schools in which students with disabilities were educated primarily in general education classrooms. This means that from the inception of these schools an inclusive philosophy guided facility design, faculty selection, expectations for collaboration among teachers, and for participation of students with special needs in the general education context. Three of the schools implemented primarily a categorical, special education service delivery model in which the licensure of the special education teachers identified which students they served. For example, the learning disabilities teacher taught only the students with learning disabilities. The other three schools implemented a cross-categorical service delivery model in which the special education teachers, regardless of specific licensure area, served students with a wide range of disabilities, including learning disabilities, emotional/behavioral disabilities, and mild to moderate cognitive disabilities. The special education teachers in these cross-categorical programs also were aligned with specific grade levels or content areas, rather than serving students across all grade levels or content areas.

The background of the teachers is also noteworthy. Five out of six of the special education teachers were quite experienced, having worked between seven and twenty-five years in the schools. All five of these teachers had worked in more than one school either in their district or other districts. The sixth teacher was completing her third year of teaching. Four of the teachers had degrees or licensure in general education as well as special education. Across all three districts, a total of 53 informants were identified and served as participants. Table 2 lists the participants within each district.

Data Collection and Management

Interviewing was selected as the means of collecting data to address the research questions. As Patton (1990) states, “The purpose of interviewing is to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind….We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe” (p. 278). All of the participants, except the paraprofessionals, were individually interviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol. The paraprofessionals participated in structured group interviews.

Individual Interviews

Three interview protocols were developed for use in the individual interviews: one for the special education directors and the district level special education supervisors and coordinators, one for the principals, and one for special education teachers. All three protocols were designed to solicit similar content and all were parallel in construction. Wording was modified to reflect role differences among interviewees. The content of the protocols was developed based on the research questions and on areas identified in the literature as relevant to the topic. The three protocols were piloted with individuals in the same positions as the study participants. Feedback from the pilot interviews was used to reduce ambiguities in the interview questions, to identify areas in need of additional questions, and to streamline the interview protocol and process. The final interview protocols are located in the Appendix. Individual interviews subsequently held with study participants lasted between one and a half and three hours.

Structured Group Interviews with Paraprofessionals

The protocol used for the structured group interviews with the paraprofessionals was designed to solicit information about paraprofessional roles and responsibilities and the employment, development, and direction practices they had experienced. The group interview protocol was piloted individually with a paraprofessional currently employed in another district. The background and knowledge gained through the pilot interview helped to shape the follow-up questions during the structured group interviews. The special education paraprofessionals in each school participated in a structured group interview with other paraprofessionals who worked in the same school with the same special education teacher. The largest group interview involved five participants; the smallest involved two participants. Several group interviews were conducted with each lasting between 1.25 and 1.5 hours.

Field Notes

Ongoing field notes were kept during each interview and group interview. After each session, the researcher reviewed and reorganized the notes. Initial analysis of themes, important events, key quotations, processes, unique strategies, strengths and challenges also were recorded. Particular attention was placed on identifying gaps in the data, as well as similarities and discrepancies across interviews, which prompted the researcher to probe these areas in subsequent interviews.

Data Management

The individual and group interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. One pilot interview was audio-taped, transcribed, and coded to develop the initial coding tree. (Data from this pilot interview was not used in analysis.) Each interview was coded using this coding tree and adjustments to the coding tree were made as needed. Management and analysis of the data were facilitated by use of NVivo software, a qualitative analysis research tool. NVivo allowed analysis across various data configurations, such as within individual interviews, within each case study or sub-case study, across case studies, and across levels of the system. It also allowed for individual segments of data to be coded for multiple themes, providing a means for relevant data to be accessed and utilized in addressing multiple research questions and emergent analytic themes. The software also created a data trail to connect data from the transcripts to specific findings.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The data were analyzed in three stages using the constant comparative method. After each interview, the researcher read and summarized the field notes to highlight key findings, record initial thoughts and emerging questions, and identify areas that needed further clarification. This preliminary analysis was used to continually compare and contrast the findings to note any emerging trends, as well as to guide later interviews, clarify findings, and fill information gaps. After all of the interviews were completed, data within each case study were analyzed to develop a complete picture of the events, processes, and relationships between factors in each district and the individual schools in each district. The third stage analyzed data from across the three case studies to identify key findings evident across the multi-site case study.

There are two primary limitations in application and interpretation of this study’s findings that should be noted. First, the sample was drawn from three mid-size suburban school districts. Findings, therefore, may be limited in application to large, urban districts or to small, rural districts. Second, the nature of qualitative inquiry is such that data are subject to the interpretations of the researcher. To minimize the potential for misinterpretation, accuracy of data description and analysis was intentionally addressed by using verbatim transcripts, creating a data trail to recheck findings, and continuous monitoring for common descriptions of events, policies, and practices. A more comprehensive description of the research methodology and presentation of the data and findings are found in the full volume of this dissertation study (Ghere, 2003).

Employing, Developing, and Directing Special Education Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Education Programs: Findings from a Multi-Site Case Study
Go to Section 4: Findings