|
The method chosen for this research project was qualitative. Myers (1988) concurs with Boraks (1981) that "the methodology should be directly influenced by the specific requirements of the research question" (p.45). Attempting to identify common variables or characteristics of goal completers in an ABE program can be done best by analyzing the students own words and responses obtained from interviews. The answers to the question emerge from their own viewpoints of their learning experiences. Qualitative research is analyzed inductively as opposed to deductively according to Meyers (1988). Bogdan and Biklen (1982), as cited in Myers(1988), state that these types of researchers "do not search out data or evidence to prove or disprove hypotheses they hold before entering the study; rather the abstractions are built as the particulars that have been gathered are grouped together" (p.45). From their own words patterns come forth and conclusions can be drawn. Rockhill (1982), as cited in DuBois (1989), assessed different methods used to gather research. She maintains that "the scope of inquiry is limited by the nature of the focus of the research method" (pp.23-24). Furthermore, she states that research should be on intent of meaning, not causation. Rockhill, as cited in Myers (1988), says that qualitative research should be the method used to study participation in adult education. She states that it "opens up the possibility of a totally new line of inquirythe search into unasked questions which may lead to deeper insight into the phenomenon of participation"(p.46) Other researchers have agreed on the value of qualitative research for answering the type of question posed here. Cross (1979), as cited in Dubois (1989), felt that something besides external factors were operating on the literacy student which couldnt be measured by quantitative research. Anderson and Darkenwald (1979), cited in Dubois (1989), thought that variables identified as affecting participation in previous research may have little effect on persistence. Garrison (1985) was also mentioned by Dubois (1989) as supporting a more holistic approach to the research questions involving literacy students. Jha (1991), toward the conclusion of his study, acknowledged the pitfalls of traditional quantitative research in attempting to understand non-continuation of ABE: "results of this and other research seem to confirm the limited nature of this approach. Much of the literature alluded to the idea that a more multi-dimensional approach is needed. Intensive qualitative studies, such as in-depth interviews with participants and investigations of socio-cultural contexts, offer a promising focus for additional research" (p.70). A qualitative approach, chosen for this study, was advocated by previous research as well as determined by the size of the sample for this project. Quantitative research is more useful when analyzing large amounts of data gathered from surveys or questionnaires involving a more extensive sample. Even at that, previous researchers have pointed out that data obtained from end-of-the-year reports is only as accurate as the tutor filling out the forms (Jha, 1991) and is subject to variance according to the perceptions and values of the tutors (Watson, 1983). Data can also vary based on interpretation of ABE student data sheets from agency to agency and from state to state. Furthermore, many students who exit before completion of their goals disappear and tutors either have to guess at the reason or leave it incomplete on the form. Much data is unavailable or incomplete. Recording the students own words and asking for their insights based on their own experiences as ABE students seems a better route to obtaining the desired information. The data for this study was gathered through taped interviews of roughly one hour each. Participants answered background questions then proceeded with the nine interview questions. Confidentiality Agreement / Background Information / Interview Question Sheets For the purpose of this study, the background information sheet was revised twice, the confidentiality agreement form four times, and the interview questions five times. Having originally designed a quantitative survey sheet consisting of sixty questions encompassing everything the research said could be a factor in either dropout or persistence in ABE programs, the focus was narrowed to just nine questions along with a demographics sheet when it was deemed that a qualitative approach would be more appropriate. (The first revision of the questions along with the original background information sheet are included in Appendix D, pages 1-4, and labeled "Trial Run; the final version of both is in Appendix E, pages 1-6)." A confidentiality agreement form was written to guarantee participants anonymity. Also, it ascertained that they were participating of their own free will, could leave the interview at any time, and didnt have to answer any questions that they felt uncomfortable with.( A copy is included in Appendix C, page 2). The Background Sheet was designed to provide information such as gender, age, marital status, time spent in ABE program, prior school experience, location of lessons, number of tutors worked with, presence/absence of support, grade completed in school, diagnosed learning disabilities, medical problems, perceived self-direction in approaching tasks, etc. The first revision included a question about positive prior learning experiences as well as negative ones. The section on length of time spent in the program and number of exits from the program was simplified. Participants were told that if they couldnt remember, the information could be obtained from their ABE files (with their permission). The purpose for inclusion of a demographics section was to check for common characteristics among goal completers. Questions pertaining to identified variables from previous research, such as age, prior academic achievement, support, etc. were included (see literature review). The interview questions underwent extensive revision. Condensed from the original sixty questions, they were designed to probe some of the previously identified variables such as having a well-defined goal, experiencing progress, self-esteem, support, relevancy of course material, and program aspects (see literature review). The original interview questions (labeled "Trial Run" in Appendix D, pages 3-4) were administered in a trial run interview (Appendix D, P1, pages 1-7). They were determined to be too leading and were reworded in a more open-ended format. Also, the trial run participant suggested a sheet of interview questions for the participant as well as the interviewer so she wouldnt have to rely on just auditory memory. Her suggestion was incorporated into the interview sheet revisions. The final revision of the interview questions consisted of three parts (see Appendix E, pages 3-6). A brief introductory paragraph was read to each person explaining that the purpose of the research was to attempt to identify common characteristics among goal completers in the ABE program. The first part was completely open-ended (questions one through four) and asked the participants what their goals were in joining the ABE program and what helped them reach their goals. If more than one thing was mentioned, they were asked which of those things was the most important. Then they were asked if they had ever thought of quitting. Those that responded "yes" were asked what kept them going. This was followed by a more general question asking them to mention anything that might have hindered their efforts to reach their goals. If they experienced difficulty comprehending the question, a few examples were given of hindrances such as transportation, lack of child care, etc. (read from the interviewer sheet, Appendix E, pages 3-4). Part two (questions five through nine) was introduced by a brief paragraph stating that previous research had explored some things that may or may not impact goal completion. They were asked to consider these things and decide for themselves whether or not they had any influence in keeping them going. These were included in case these things might have had relevance for them but werent considered when asked the first two questions. This section is delineated by a dotted line in the interview transcripts to show they were suggested as possible variables (see transcripts in Appendix E, P1-P11). A summary of the content of questions five through nine follows. They were asked if seeing that they were capable of making progress had any bearing on their persistence. This was followed up by a question asking them how they knew they were progressing. Question six asked if any of the subjects studied inspired them to continue. If so, they were asked what the subjects were and why they were important to them. Question seven explored program variables such as location, time, etc. and its possible bearing on continuation. Self-esteem was the focus of question eight. Completers were asked how they felt when they first entered the program and if that changed while they were in the program or at their completion of their goals. If they responded positively, they were asked in what ways their feelings about themselves had changed. Question nine looked at the presence or absence of support while they were working on their goals. If this question needed clarification, they were given examples of possible support such as family, friends, and agency, etc. (from interviewer sheet, Appendix E, pages 3-4). Those that indicated that they had support were asked who or what supported them and how the person showed support. If they needed examples of ways support can be demonstrated, a few things such as encouragement, helping with other responsibilities, etc. were mentioned (see interviewer sheet). Part three of the interview questions brought the participants back to the first two questions. After considering other possible factors and whether or not they had any influence in their persistence until goal completion, they were once again asked what had the greatest impact on keeping them going until they attained their goal. A trial run interview with the original interview questions greatly facilitated revision of the questions (Appendix D, P1, pages 1-7). With the revised format, it was time to obtain a sample population of participants. Finding subjects to interview was an interesting endeavor. It was determined that even though the researcher was a home tutor for ABE, other tutors students should be interviewed as well in order not to bias the results. While the easiest method of finding participants would have been to ask fellow tutors for names of students who had recently completed their goals, the administration felt that taking names randomly out of the computer database would provide a more arbitrary method. Consequently, names of twenty-seven recent goal completers were supplied to the researcher. Of the twenty-seven possible subjects, only four ended up being interviewed. Five from the list either had had their phones disconnected, unlisted, or were out of service. Two others had no phones. Two had left the area. One former student was in the hospital having a baby. One person answering the telephone said that no one by that name lived at that number. Of the remaining sixteen, a couple couldnt be reached. The subjects were called based on town and gender. It was hoped that the participants would be different ages, genders, and have worked with different tutors. Everyone that was actually contacted gladly agreed to be interviewed in order to further research in goal completion. A tutor from a more rural town supplied the name of a recent completer and that person was contacted and included to have that geographic area represented. The researcher also interviewed five of her own former students who had completed their goals in the ABE program. They were of varying ages, gender, and had differing initial goals. Ten former students comprised the sample to be interviewed and were assigned numbers P2-P11 to protect their anonymity. P1 is a former student of the researcher who generously agreed to be interviewed for the trial run. She is a female, aged 52, who received her GED after leaving the program a couple of times to raise a family, etc. Although her data was not included in the analysis of the other ten participants data due, to revision of the questions subsequent to her interview, a transcript of her interview is included in Appendix D (P1, pages 1-7) and yields further insight into the question of why people continue while others drop out. The ten people interviewed for the study provided a more varied sample than could have been hoped for initially. Six were female and four male. Three were under twenty years of age (two males and one female), two were in their thirties (both females), three in their forties (one female and two males), and two were in their sixties (both females). Five were home students of the researcher, one a home student of another tutor in a different town, three had come to the Newport Learning Center in Newport, Vt., and one had studied in a much smaller learning center in a rural town with another tutor. Seven enrolled with getting a GED as their primary goal. One person wanted U.S. citizenship. One desired improvement in math and a drivers permit and another wished help with math in order to pass her college courses. One of the participants, after achieving her GED, enrolled two more times for math help in order to pass college courses. She now possesses her B.A. The ten participants are quite representative of the population that normally accesses the services of ABE in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. Their responses, though unique to each individual, provide a snapshot profile of the attitudes and drives of at least this group of people in this rural corner of Vermont. The researcher traveled to the homes of eight of the participants and conducted taped interviews of approximately one hour in length. One participant was met in a house he was constructing and another came into the learning center in Newport. After filling out a confidentiality agreement (see appendix) , questions from the background information sheet and interview sheet were asked and responses tape recorded. Transcripts of the ten interviews are provided in Appendix E (P2-P11). The introductory paragraph and the paragraph at the beginning of part two of the interview questions, although read to each person, were eliminated from transcripts to avoid needless repetition. Former students taking part in this study are initially referred to as participant # 1, participant # 2, etc. and later abbreviated to P1, P2, etc. Participants were promised a copy of the results if they wished. The people interviewed seemed happy to be able to offer their opinions and insights for this research project as well as to help others down the road who might be struggling to reach their goals. Once the ten interviews were concluded, they were transcribed to written form in order to be analyzed. A huge grid was constructed on poster board and responses to each of the questions recorded. Possible hindrances to goal attainment were highlighted in blue and factors that may have contributed to persistence were coded in green. Types of responses to each question were totaled at the bottom of each column in order to identify common characteristics or factors that may contribute to persistence until goal attainment. Any time more than six out of ten people responded the same way to a question it was noted as a common characteristic or possible influential factor. One person may have mentioned more than one thing in response to a question. All responses were recorded. If more than ten things were mentioned for a particular question (see tables in Appendix B, pages 1-5), then some people talked about more than one item in response. Some answers to other questions provided further insight on responses to previous questions and were noted as such on the grid. Tabulated results of the answers to the background information and nine major interview questions are given in the next two sections according to the order that the questions were asked. This is followed by a discussion of the results. |