Study III—Semi-structured interviews

I dokument EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION FOR STUDENTS WITH NEURODEVELOPMENTAL CONDITIONS (sidor 74-78)

4.1 Research design

4.1.3 Study III—Semi-structured interviews

4.1.2.4 Model for analysis

The data collected in study II was handled in the SPSS software. The closed-ended questions were analyzed in SPSS (Version 27) by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and by descriptive statistics. The qualitative data was first analyzed by coding the data from each domain and categorized and thereafter quantified at both pre- and post-test. The student case responses were also quantified by calculating the number of accommodations at pre- and post-test. The field notes were analyzed in terms of teachers’ standpoint and changes of values for teaching diversity. The follow-up interviews were analyzed manually by linking the answers to social validity, which is, for example, satisfaction with the intervention.

4.1.3 Study III—Semi-structured interviews

4.1.3.2 Participants

In total, this study had n = 20 participants divided into three groups, where the largest group are 13 adolescents with NDC who had received either SSGT (n = 6 from the intervention group) or other social group activities (n = 7 from control group). The next group was N = 5 teachers who had provided SSGT or social group activities to the students. Finally, there were n = 2 principals, the school management. Student participant characteristics are presented in Table 1, page 5, in article 3.

4.1.3.3 Instrument

Table 4. Interview guides by respondent group.

Students Teachers School leaders

Which elements and contents from the

training*/activities** do you recall?

Generally, what do you recall from the

training/activities?

How did you receive information about the training/activities and the research project?

Which parts of the training/activities did you like the most, and why?

Which parts of the training/activities did you like the most/the least, and why?

Do you think there is a need for the training/activities in school settings?

Which part of the

training/activities did you like the least, and why?

Are training/activities like this appropriate as part of your work at school?

Is the training/are the activities appropriate for your school setting?

Is there anything in the training/activities that you would have liked to train/do more or less?***

Is there anything about the training/activities that you would have liked to focus on/do more or less?***

In your role as school leader, what did you need to consider and had to arrange to implement the

training/activities at your school?

What did you think of the group discussions?***

What did you think of the group discussions? The themes of the discussion, were they appropriate and valuable?***

In which way have the training/activities positively and negatively influenced daily life at your school?

What did you think of the training homework?***

What did you think of the training homework?*

Can you see any changes among the adolescents or the teachers associated with the training/activities?

Do you think some parts of the training/activities might have helped you? Which activities and why?

Do you think some parts of the training/activities might have helped the adolescents?

Which activities and why?

Is it realistic and possible to implement the

training/activities at your school in the future?

Do you think the training/activities have improved your social skills?

In what way?

Have you seen any enhanced interactions or improved social behaviors in the adolescents following the training/activities?

What is important to

consider for implementation of the training/activities?

What training, resources and support do your staff need for implementation?

Are there any concrete or specific changes, positive or negative, in your life that you think is due to the training/activities?

Are there any concrete or specific changes, positive or negative, that you have observed or noticed that you think are due to the

training/activities?

Are there any areas of possible improvements in your view according to the whole process and co-operation with researchers?

Do you think participating in the training/activities will give you long-lasting

improved social skills in life or in school? If so, in what way?

What do you think of long-lasting effects after the training/activities? Are there any? Have you seen any?

Which parts of the training/activities do you think are valuable or less valuable for your school?

Is there anything that could be better or done differently in the training/activities?

Is it possible and realistic to conduct training/activities like these in school in the future?

Do you think the

training/activities have any spin-off effects for the adolescents in school and outside?

Were there enough, too many or too few

training/activities sessions?

What do you think of the amount of the

training/activities’ sessions?

Do you think the number of sessions of the

training/activities were appropriate?

What do you think of the fact that this training is in your school? Is it positive or negative?

Have you taken part in training/activities like this before somewhere else?

Did the training/activities put an additional burden on you?

Do you think you have gained more knowledge and tools to help and understand your students, to develop the adolescents’ understanding of others, to develop the acceptance of the

adolescents among others, to motivate and teach the adolescents to strengthen social interaction, to modify your teaching in order to help students to reach their goals, and help the students to develop self-esteem?

Do you think your teachers have gained more

knowledge and tools during the training/activities to help the students to develop skills and reach social goals and other achievements?

Note. *The training = Social Skills Group Training (SSGT), **The activities = social activities control intervention, ***only in students and teachers receiving or conducting SSGT. (Table originally from Leifler et al., 2022)

4.1.3.4 Model for analysis

Interviews from study III were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and then coded to condense the material into consistent emerging themes using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is an aid to use within different methods (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The method

identifies and analyzes patterns and themes within a data set. During the use and analysis, one can code for a specific theory, called the deductive approach, or the themes can develop through the coding process, the inductive approach. The analysis of the transcribed interviews in this study was performed in several steps. The first step was reading all text from the interviews to gather an overview of the material. The next step was reading more closely and taking each participant group separately. Thereafter, the multi-step process was followed with: (i) generating initial codes, (ii) collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant to each theme, (iii) defining and naming themes, generating a thematic map of the analysis, (iv) generating clear definitions of each theme, (v) final analysis and interpretative process with the research questions, theoretical frameworks and literature and (vi)

comparison between themes in SSGT versus social activity control group. The process of translating the transcribed data into small units of codes and translating codes into building blocks for themes and subthemes representing patterns of meaningful core ideas was

facilitated by using NVivo 12 (QSR Ltd., Burlington, VT, USA). Additionally, the thematic

analysis was performed by placing pieces of transcribed material onto posters with different colors by hand. Interview questions are presented in Table 4.

4.1.4 Study IV—Quasi-experimental study

I dokument EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION FOR STUDENTS WITH NEURODEVELOPMENTAL CONDITIONS (sidor 74-78)