Chapter 2: Methodology
The research study was conducted using qualitative methodology. This approach was used for several reasons. First, to fully understand what preschool hearing-impaired children know and learn about literacy within a school setting and how they acquire that knowledge, it was necessary to obtain rich descriptions of the children’s engagements in literacy events. Qualitative methodology provided a way to obtain that needed data. Through comprehensive and systematic observations in a classroom setting over an extended amount of time, sufficient data could be collected to describe and interpret the children’s interactions in everyday literacy events (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Erickson, 1986).
Second, when observing and analyzing a process as complex and sociologically based as literacy learning, context is critical. Thus, qualitative methodology was a perfect match for the theoretical framework undergirding this research. Cochran-Smith (1984), when describing the methodology for her study on literacy learning in a preschool class, defined the relationship of context and methodology as follows:
The way of looking at early literacy that underlies this work is ethnographic in its perspective. That is, it is based on the belief that the meaning of all human behavior, including print-related behaviors and habits, is embedded within social and cultural contexts. This perspective allows us to identify the literacy events and contexts that are significant to particular social groups and helps us to understand the meaning that these events have for participants. (p. 254)
Third, to gain a complete picture of the children’s emerging literacy, multiple perspectives were necessary. By using qualitative methodology, this data could be obtained (Erickson, 1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Observations and interviews were used to interpret the teacher’s perspectives on the children’s developing literacy. Memos were used to interpret and reflect on my observations and perceptions of the children’s emerging concepts of literacy. More important, however, than the teacher’s views or my interpretations were the perspectives of the children—how did they view literacy and literacy learning. Again, qualitative methodology could be used to interpret the insider’s view (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Erickson, 1986). Detailed field notes of the children’s words, signs, drawings, writing, gestures, body movements, and facial expressions helped create the rich descriptions necessary to understand the meanings the children gave to literacy events.
Fourth, by writing detailed field notes on classroom observations, collecting writing samples from the children over the course of a year, and interviewing teachers and parents, data from a variety of sources (i.e., triangulation of data) could be used to support or verify findings (Erickson, 1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1984).
In summary, qualitative methodology was used for this research to (a) provide rich descriptions of the children’s engagements in literacy events, (b) study the children’s literacy development in the contexts of the classroom and school, (c) gain multiple perspectives on the children’s literacy learning, and (d) verify findings through data collected from varied sources.
The next sections describe in detail the steps taken to study the initial research questions:
1. What do preschool deaf and hearing-impaired children know and learn about literacy within a school setting?
2. How do preschool deaf and hearing-impaired children become literate in a school setting?
Access
Initial physical access to the site was gained quite easily. I was introduced to the school principal by a friend who served as a university liaison for student services to the school. The principal, Mrs. Ellertson, in turn, assisted in two ways. First, she briefly discussed my research with the classroom teacher and arranged my initial contact with the teacher. Second, she contacted the school district’s research department and ascertained that approval for a one-site study was necessary only at the school level.
At the initial meeting with Mrs. Ellertson, I briefly discussed my research goals and methods of data collection. I also explained my professional background and qualifications for conducting the study. At that time, I mentioned that the research was to be conducted in the oral preschool hearing-impaired class. Mrs. Ellertson ended the meeting by saying she would talk with the classroom teacher (Cathy), check with the research department on the district’s policy for approval, and contact me the following week. A week and a half later, I contacted Mrs. Ellertson and she gave me Cathy’s telephone number to arrange a visit to the class. She also informed me that district approval for the research would not be necessary.
When I first contacted Cathy she seemed quite enthusiastic about participating in the research. We briefly discussed the possibility of conducting the research in both the oral and total communication classes since only three children were registered for the oral class for the following year. We then arranged a half day visitation to the oral class.
At the time of the visitation, Cathy again suggested I consider studying the total communication children as well as the oral children. I said I would consider this and we could make a final decision at the start of the school year.
In early August I contacted Cathy and we negotiated my physical access to the site. We agreed that I would participate in both the oral and the total communication classes; Monday and Tuesday afternoons in the oral class and Thursday and Friday mornings in the total communication class. Cathy suggested that I begin one week after the start of school.
Data Collection
I arrived at Judson Elementary School at 12:15 P.M. on September 5th, notebook in hand and ready to begin my nine months of data collection. From September until February I wrote detailed field notes on my observations. This included physical descriptions of the children and the site, descriptions of what the children did and said orally and in signs, the activities that occurred throughout the day, and what the teacher and other adults said or did as they interacted with the children. In addition to descriptive notes on the children’s verbalizations (oral and in sign), I wrote descriptions and interpretations of the children’s nonverbal communications, including gestures and facial expressions. Reflective field notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) were written to express my feelings, reactions, and interpretations of events in which the children engaged. I wrote memos on patterns I observed in the data, themes that were emerging, and unanswered questions that arose as I collected and analyzed data.
From February until April, the field notes were focused on literacy events and the children’s engagements in these events. There was a planned gradual reduction in notes on classroom routines, play periods in which the children did not seem to engage in literacy or literacy-related events, recess time, and music lessons. Literacy and literacy-related events (e.g., acting out stories, filmstrips, art activities), however, were described in detail with interpretive memos included in the field notes.
Field notes for April and May were focused on the findings from analysis of the data; namely, the importance of literacy for the children. During this time, I took notes that either provided additional support and evidence for my assertions or provided disconfirming evidence of the assertions (Erickson, 1986). The key aspects focused on during this period of data collection included functions of literacy for the children, decisions the children made concerning their literacy learning, the seriousness and intensity with which the children approached literacy events, and how the children related literacy to other aspects of their lives.
Drawing and writing samples from the children were collected throughout the study. These samples were always done in my notebook and most frequently with a mechanical lead pencil. While I sat and wrote, the children would come and watch me. As these incidents occurred, I often offered my notebook and pencil to the children to explore and create their own written messages. A total of 133 drawing and writing samples was collected over the nine months of the research.
Informal interviews (or conversations) were conducted with the classroom teacher (Cathy) and the teacher’s aide (Eileen) throughout the period of data collection. These conversations revolved around the children’s prior and concurrent schooling, home environments, hearing aid use, language development, and activities on days I was absent from the site. A formal interview with Cathy was conducted in April to fill in missing information on the children, including data on their hearing losses, medical history, home environments, hearing aid use, and schooling.
In August, following the year of observations, another teacher of the hearing-impaired from Judson School was formally and informally interviewed on the hearing-impaired program at Judson School, the school district’s philosophy, policies, and services concerning regular and special education, and the attitudes of the principal and regular classroom teachers at the school towards the hearing-impaired program. The main purpose of this interview was to clarify earlier information gleaned from observations and conversations with the classroom teacher. A secondary purpose was to get a different teacher’s perspective on the school environment and view of the hearing-impaired program. These interviews helped shed light on some of the preschool teacher’s actions and instructional decisions which may have affected the children’s literacy development.
Several parents were interviewed during the summer following the year of observational research. These were open-ended interviews focused on the children’s language and literacy activities and behaviors at home. The purpose of these interviews was two-fold: (a) to ascertain what literacy events occurred in the homes and how the children were involved in these events, and (b) to obtain the parents’ perspectives of their children’s language and literacy learning.
Throughout the nine months of data collection, my role remained one of primarily an observer-participant. During routines and group structured activities, I observed the children from a slight distance (5-10 feet) and wrote field notes on my observations, especially as they related to literacy learning. Occasionally, during group activities I assisted the children or Cathy with the activity. I wrote field notes during free play while also interacting with the children. My interactions included talking with the children (orally and in Signed English) as they played with dolls, blocks, or other toys, and reading books with the children.
My participation at the site was greatest during book time. During this activity, I read to and with the children or interacted with them as they wrote and drew in my notebook. My involvement in book reading included labeling pictures for the children, asking the children what words in a book said, telling or reading stories, and listening and watching the children as they read books. My communication with the children in the oral class was through audition, speech, and lipreading; I communicated with the children in the total communication class mainly through Signed English, with the additional support of audition, speech, and lipreading.
Data Analysis
Formal data analysis was started in November, while I was still collecting additional data. The original research questions (“What do preschool deaf and hearing-impaired children know and learn about literacy within a school setting?” and “How do preschool deaf and hearing-impaired children become literate in a school setting?”) provided a focus for the initial analysis.
I analyzed the data inductively using a combination of procedures: those described as grounded theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and those described by Erickson (1986) as generating empirical assertions. The entire data set for September and October (field notes on 80 hours of observations), was read and searched for recurring patterns in the children’s actions related to their literacy knowledge and learning. As possible patterns were perceived, notes were made on copies of the relevant field notes.
After reading and searching through the entire data set, possible patterns were listed and categorized. Central to these first categories were observations on the children’s reading, spelling, and fingerspelling of names, both their own and those of their peers. The entire data set was again read and searched for patterns related to the children’s knowledge and learning of written, spelled, and fingerspelled names.
Assertions were then formulated based on the recurring patterns evidenced in the field notes. A report of the preliminary findings was written as collection of data continued (“How Hard-of-Hearing and Deaf Children Learn their Names,” later published in American Annals of the Deaf). The assertions at this point were considered tentative and observations and data collection were not restricted to this focus.
In early February, an analysis of the data from September through January was conducted, following the procedures used in November. At this point, the data set consisted of field notes from 181 hours of observations, informal conversations with the teacher and aide, and 50 drawing and writing samples from the children. Again, the issue of the children’s knowledge of written, spelled, and fingerspelled names seemed to permeate the data. The next step in analysis was to temporarily remove the field notes on written, spelled, and fingerspelled names to determine what other patterns related to the children’s literacy learning might emerge. The remaining data set was read and searched for patterns, and the evolving patterns were subsequently categorized. This third analysis revealed a second set of assertions about the children’s literacy development: literacy served social functions for the children (see the section entitled “Important Functions of Literacy for the Children—Social Functions” in Chapter 5, Findings).
To confirm or disconfirm the validity of these assertions, the entire data set was once more searched, this time for excerpts that either supported or refuted each of the assertions. Assertions that could not be supported by the data were placed on a temporary list. A second report of the research was written in early March focusing on “Reading and writing as social events” (Rottenberg & Searfoss, 1990). Data collection continued through March, but with an emphasis on the social nature of literacy learning for the children.
In mid-April a fourth, thorough analysis of the data was conducted. This time the analysis focused on finding a central theme (i.e., key linkage, Erickson, 1986) that tied together the earlier findings. The result of this analysis was the connecting thread of the importance of literacy for the children. Further analysis and reflection revealed that the children’s literate behaviors were intimately tied to the significance of literacy in their lives. (See Chapter 5, “Findings,” for a complete description of this theme.)
A final formal analysis of the data was conducted during the summer of 1990. The purpose of this reanalysis was to search for excerpts from the data set that represented the central theme and assertions generated in April. This process, in turn, led to the writing of the final report of the findings.
The remaining chapters of the book are organized as follows: Chapter 3 gives a detailed description of the site; Chapter 4 describes the seven children who participated in the research; Chapter 5 explains the findings of the research and includes empirical assertions generated through inductive data analysis and analytic narrative vignettes to support the assertions; and Chapter 6 is a discussion of the findings in terms of theoretical significance and instructional and research implications.