Abstract
Conducting high-quality, qualitative research within the field of learning disabilities is becoming an increasingly desirable goal. Evidence of this may be found in an ever-growing trend toward adopting qualitative methodologies such as interviewing, participant observation, and audiotaping of instruction while engaged in quantitative inquiry. two research studies by Berninger and Butler et al. presented in this special section are excellent examples of researchers using qualitative research methods in this fashion, as opposed to conducting qualitative research in the traditional sense. By presenting fascinating examples of contemporary case-study research on instruction, these studies join a tradition of reflective studies of intricate issues in practice (Ball, 1993; Englert & Tarrant, 1996; Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, & Arguelles, 1999). Ultimately, they produce songs of (Blake, 1794/1975 version)-reflective personal essays on the experience of teaching students with learning disabilities. METHODOLOGY methodologies of both articles are similar. In the Butler and colleagues' article, the nature of the research design is well stated: specifically, multiple in-depth case studies were embedded within a pre-/posttest design (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994) (p. 198). purpose of the case studies is also made clear: The in-depth case study data were collected to document individuals' progress over time, as well as the relationship between instruction and students' development of (p. 198). Berninger also presents multiple, though less detailed, case studies to similarly document student gains. Whereas Butler et al. highlight the relationship between the nature of instruction and growth in students' sense of self-regulation when writing, Berninger explores the relationship between the nature of instruction and students' growth in the ability to read. Reading ability is assessed with a wide variety of standardized measures, including measures of reading connected text with understanding. Both methodologies are somewhat atypical for case-study research in that the researcher is not detached from the instructional events that are documented, described and analyzed. Additionally, neither article fits into the qualitative research tradition of using a wide array of data sources and perspectives to help illuminate a complex problem or situation. In each case, the researcher reports on her own instructional intervention with a potential for loss of perspective. Thus, one doesn't find the sense of detachment that traditional qualitative researchers such as Miles and Huberman (1994) or Yin (1994) think is essential for case-study research. Similarly, the sense of irony that researchers such as Ball (1990) brought to their qualitative research on instruction is also missing. two methodologies differ from each other in that Butler et al. maintain more of the trappings of traditional qualitative research, utilizing many standard qualitative procedures such as audiotaping interviews with participants and using field notes that give the reader a flavor of instruction. In contrast, Berninger relies heavily on interpreting student profiles of growth on a wide array of quantitative measures. It thus seems best to consider these articles as reflections on the researchers' experiences while providing high-quality instruction to individuals with learning disabilities. They offer a glimpse at two very different, yet powerful means for enhancing the reading and writing abilities of students with learning disabilities. They also provide numerous fascinating insights into the teaching of students with learning disabilities. Similarly, they serve to provide the reader with a solid sense of what are reasonable goals and expectations. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CASE STUDIES Postsecondary Writing Instruction Butler et al. do an exquisite job of capturing the problems of the young adults enrolled in their expressive writing project. …
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.