Virginia F. Doherty
Educational Leadership/Multicultural Education
|
Academic Progress Portfolio
|
|
George Mason University
|
Graduate School of Education
|
Fall 2002
|
|
Dr. Goor mentioned that this paper was the first
example of a student comparing two articles. He used it as an example
of how students can approach the assignment of analyzing articles.
|
Virginia F. Doherty
EDUC 805
Critique #3
Nov. 27, 2001
Two Articles Compared
What do researchers want
to accomplish? Where do academics find the themes for their research?
These questions had surfaced recently when I read Dr. Gorrell’s article
about the Learning Connections Program (Gorrell, 2000). They returned
as I read the abstract for Teacher Perceptions of Mainstreaming/Inclusion,
1958-1995: A Research Synthesis by Thomas E. Scruggs and Margo A.
Mastropieri. Another question was added: why do researchers
review what others have already studied? The research team
of Scruggs and Mastropieri explain in the abstract that their study summarizes
responses to the question of whether classroom teachers support the idea
of including students with disabilities in their classrooms.
Their study also looks at the answers to questions about whether the classroom
teachers feel they have the training and resources to deal with children
with special needs. After reading the abstract, I quickly reviewed
my answers to those questions, scanned the article to find that my experience
matched what the research found and promptly dismissed the article as nothing
new. But the questions nagged me. This article reviewed
the literature compiled from almost 40 years of research on this obvious
topic of teacher attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities.
Why had intelligent people spent years, money and energy writing what any
classroom teacher could have told them point blank? As with
Dr Gorrell’s study, the importance of this kind of research comes
to light by looking at what the study does not say.
The Gorrell article presented an
evaluation study of a teacher improvement program which showed that after
three years, teachers in the program did not show much if any improvement.
The evaluation study began with a program (Learning Connections Program)
to evaluate. But the focus on the measurable variables shifted from
teacher improvement to student standardized test scores. With this
change from what had been set up as a studied variable to scores which
had not been intended to be studied, the project lost its focus and
the study presented the question of why it was undertaken in the first
place. There seemed to be some factors left out. Only with
Dr Gorrell’s explanation did the valuable lessons surface. In the
project, the people involved in doing the study, funding the study and
evaluating the study were not operating on the same mindset.
This did not come across in the article. From Dr. Gorrell’s talk,
I learned that in an evaluation study the focus of the parties involved
must be clear from the beginning so that the research can become a valuable
learning tool. His article presented a study where this did not happen.
In the article about inclusion
of the child with special needs, the questions as to its utility also were
resolved only after listening to Dr. Scruggs. The article compiled
information from 28 reports from all geographic areas in the US, from New
South Wales, Australia and from Montreal, Canada. His
article detailed how the willingness of the classroom teacher to include
children with disabilities increased as the severity of the disability
decreased. The research also showed that classroom teachers needed more
planning time, more training and more resources if they had special needs
children in their classes. The findings from the research synthesis
showed that attitudes about including special needs children have not changed
in the past 40 years. It also showed that there was very little if
any deviation according to geographic area. With such undramatic
and commonly accepted outcomes, what was the value of the study?
Dr. Scruggs adroitly pointed out that a research synthesis or a review
of literature shows where the research hasn’t gone. It shows where
the gaps in the research lie. A research synthesis also puts everyone
on the same footing. It ties together everything which has been done
and can point the researcher to the areas which still need to be studied.
The Scruggs article teaches us by example
how to organize our information in order to know how to proceed in our
research. The importance of knowing everything possible about the
research topic is stressed. We also need to know where we are coming
from to know where we should be heading. In the Gorrell article we
are presented with a study which loses its focus because the players change
where they are heading. If the Gorrell study had begun with a synthesis
of research done on evaluating teacher improvement programs, the three
groups involved might have had more closely aligned goals. The confusion
presented in explaining the outcomes of the study would have been resolved
if the parties involved had resolved before they began where they were
coming from and where they were headed.
In conclusion, the two articles show us two
distinct kinds of research projects, an evaluation study and a review of
literature. Looking at both of them together we see the importance
of knowing what went on before us in the field we are studying in order
to anticipate what we will find. If we are not organized, focused
and directed in our approach then the research will reflect our confusion.
If we follow Dr Scruggs’ method of researching a topic then we will know
not only what is out there but also what is not there. That gives
us a valuable starting point.
References
Gorrell, J. (2000) Learning Connections: Evaluation Report for
Year Three. Presented to the
Baptist Community Ministries.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996) Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis.
Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.
Mark's comments
1. Can you send this to me as an attachment? I'd like
to post it as an option on Blackboard.
2. Very interesting. A first!
3. Very important points!
4. I really liked this approach. Very interesting
and meaningful |