Introduction
This paper is an article review of a study titled, “Mathematics Dispositions of Secondary School Students with Special Education Needs.” Authored by Kalambouka et al. (2016), the article sought to find out the attitudes of special needs students towards mathematics. The review was part of a larger investigation, which examined the relationship between student learning outcomes and teaching methods in England (Kalambouka et al. 2016).
The research participants were secondary school students who were between their seventh and eleventh years of study. They had to be in the mainstream education system and have special education needs to be included in the study (Kalambouka et al. 2016).
Their attitudes and predispositions towards mathematics were compared to students who did not have special needs. The overall findings revealed that special needs students largely held negative attitudes towards mathematics, while their counterparts who did not have special needs held positive views. However, no consistent patterns explained this difference. The subsections below provide a critique of this article.
Analysis
The arguments presented in the article by Kalambouka et al. (2016) were well articulated and logical. For example, the use of graphical techniques to explain the findings helped to simplify the data, thereby making it easier for audiences to comprehend the themes identified. The presentation of first-hand oral statements made by the respondents in the interview transcripts also contributed to the credibility of the findings because it could help readers to know the informants’ actual responses and the context of their views.
Therefore, the presentation of interview transcripts in the research report aided in bolstering the researchers’ claims. Kalambouka et al. (2016) used the mixed methods approach to sample the respondents’ views. However, the qualitative research method was most dominantly used within the larger framework of the mixed methods approach. The researchers appropriately employed this strategy because their focus was on investigating students’ attitudes. “Attitude” is largely a subjective issue.
Therefore, the dominance of the qualitative research method (within the mixed framework) was justified because this technique is best suited to sample subjective variables (Silverman 2016), while the quantitative research technique is best suited to gather measurable or quantifiable data (O’ Dwyer & Bernauer 2013). Based on these findings, Kalambouka et al. (2016) appropriately used the mixed methods technique to answer the research questions. In a different context of the review, it is important to point out that the findings generated in the study are reliable because the researcher used credible methods of data collection and analysis.
For example, the analytical sample population was comprised of 7,092 students (Kalambouka et al. 2016). Based on the recommendations of Bazeley (2018), researchers could reliably use this number of participants to develop credible research findings.
Although the techniques adopted by the researcher are reliable and valid, it is unclear which criterion Kalambouka et al. (2016) used to assess the student’s attitudes towards mathematics. For example, the researchers said that students were asked to report their confidence levels on mathematics by stating their views on selected topics (Kalambouka et al. 2016). However, they failed to identify these topics and the criteria used to select them as a representation of the overall students’ attitudes towards mathematics. The failure to include such information or justify how these topics were selected could undermine the internal validity of the research findings (Creswell & Creswell 2018).
The failure of the researchers to point out which types of special needs affected the study population also undermines the internal validity of the findings because some disabilities could affect how students comprehend and respond to the questions asked (Li 2013; Schwartz-Shea & Yanow 2013). For example, hearing and speech disabilities could have this effect. Since the researchers gathered some of their data using interviews, this concern emerges as a significant validity issue. The concern is further heightened by the researchers’ admission that some information relating to the respondents’ learning abilities were missing (Kalambouka et al. 2016).
The generalizability of the findings is also questionable because of the limited number of case studies and schools sampled. For example, the researchers said that 40 schools in England were recruited for the study and interviews were conducted using a case study approach in only two of them (Kalambouka et al. 2016). It is difficult to extrapolate the findings of the study beyond the contexts in which they were undertaken because the sample used is small.
For example, two case studies are not enough to extrapolate the study’s findings to cover the attitudes of all special needs students regarding mathematics. Furthermore, since the researchers contextualised the views of special education needs students in mainstream schools and not special needs schools, a sample of 40 secondary schools is too small to generalize the findings that come out of it (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2017).
This statement is borne from the fact that England has 3,408 secondary schools (BESA 2016). A sample of 40 schools is not enough to infer relationships about the attitudes of special needs students in this subsection of the education system. Broadly, these findings show that the study by Kalambouka et al. (2016) has significant pros and cons relating to the methodology chosen by the researchers.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that the study by Kalambouka et al. (2016) has unique qualities that add to its credibility and that undermine the same. The strengths of the study largely stem from the organisation of the author’s arguments. For example, the use of graphical tools to represent the findings is a positive attribute of the study. The same is true for some of the techniques used to gather data. For example, interviews have been hailed as a positive tool for sampling people’s attitudes (Efron & Ravid 2013).
The biggest weaknesses associated with the study relate to the researchers’ failure to justify the use of selected data points, such as indicative topics in mathematics to assess the respondents’ views regarding the subject. Here, the researchers failed to identify the criteria used for selecting these topics and explain their roles in sampling the general attitudes and dispositions of the informants towards mathematics.
In addition, the failure of the researchers to identify the types of special needs affecting the students and their influence on the respondents’ comprehension of the research questions also emerged as another weakness of the research. Based on these issues, the article could be improved if more details regarding how the researchers addressed possible areas of methodological weaknesses were provided. For example, the researchers could provide more detail regarding the types of special needs affecting the respondents and their influence on the data collection process. Nonetheless, since this critique shows that the positive and negative aspects of the investigation are almost balanced, it is plausible to say that the article has a mixed appeal.
Reference List
Bazeley, P 2018, Integrating analyses in mixed methods research, Sage, London.
BESA 2016, Key UK education statistics. Web.
Cohen, L, Manion, L & Morrison, K 2017, Research methods in education, 8th edn, Routledge, London.
Creswell, JW & Creswell, JD 2018, Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th edn, Sage, London.
Efron, SE & Ravid, R 2013, Action research in education: a practical guide, Guilford Press, London.
Kalambouka, A, Pampaka, M, Omuvwie, M & Wo, L 2016, ‘Mathematics dispositions of secondary school students with special educational needs’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 701-707.
Li, H 2013, Educational change towards problem-based learning: an organizational perspective, River Publishers, London.
O’ Dwyer, M & Bernauer, JA 2013, Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher, Sage, London.
Schwartz-Shea, P & Yanow, D 2013, Interpretive research design: concepts and processes, Routledge, London.
Silverman, D (ed) 2016, Qualitative research, SAGE, London.