RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY MIDTERM TEST

SCIENCE EDUCATION MASTER DEGREE POSTGRADUATES STUDY UPI
OCTOBER 4th, 2021


Answer these questions and upload your answer in SPOT (meeting 10) in the form of pdf

1. a. Explain the difference of internal validity and external validity and the example in
science education research
b. Explain the difference of external reliability and internal reliability and the example
in science education research
c. Explain the difference of positivist and post-positivist and the example in science
education research

2. a. There are 3 information sources that can be used to answer your research
questions, they are: (1) general reference, (2) Primary data; and (3) secondary data.
Explain those three information sources and give example in science education
research.
In appendix there there are 2 articles of qualitative and quantitative research which
almost similar problem. Based on the two articles, identify:
b. The specific characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research design provided
in those 2 articles
c. The difference characteristics of literature review of quantitative and qualitative
research design provided in those 2 articles
d. The difference characteristics of background of quantitative and qualitative
research design provided in those 2 articles

3. Below there are two problems in educational research:

(1) A science teacher is interested to conduct the research whether the constructivist
approach in science can improve students’ scientific skill compared with other approach.

(2) A researcher is interested to conduct the research whether students who take after
school lesson have different ability in scientific skill compared with students who are not
taking after school lesson.

Based on those two problems:
a. Identify the similarity and the difference characteristics of the problems
b. Determine the most appropriate research methodology and give reason on your
answer
c. Determine the most appropriate instrument and give reason on your answer

3. a. Give 1 example of content analysis research in science education
b. related with (a), construct problem statement and research questions
c. related with (a), write the research objectives



Appendix 1: Sample Quantitative Study

Motivation of Parent Involvement in Secondary-Level Schooling

Rollande Deslandes

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada Richard Bertrand Université Laval, Quebec,
Canada

Abstract Inspired by K. V. Hoover-Dempsey and H. M. Sandler’s (1995, 1997) model of the
parent involve meant process, the authors examined 4 psychological constructs of parent
involvement: (a) relative strength of parents’ role construction, (b) parents’ self-efficacy for
helping adolescents succeed in school, (c) parents’ perceptions of teacher invitations to
become involved, and (d) parents’ perceptions of students’ invitations to become involved.
The authors obtained survey responses from 770 parents of adolescents in 5 Quebec
secondary schools—354 parents of 7th graders, 231 parents of 8th graders, and 185 parents
of 9th graders. Results emphasize that it is important that researchers distinguish parent
involvement at home and at school when examining the predictive power of the 4
psychological constructs. Findings also provide evidence of grade-level differences in the
predictive models of parent involvement at home and at school. Parents’ perceptions of
students’ invitations were the most powerful predictor of parent involvement at home
models across the 3 grade levels. Parents’ role construction made important contributions to
the prediction of their involvement at Grades 7 and 9; parents’ perceptions of teacher
invitations were associated with parent involvement at school across the 3 grade levels.
Whether at home or at school, parents became involved if they perceived that teachers and
students expected or desired their involvement.

Key words: parent involvement, parent motivation, secondary schools

In past decades, a wealth of studies showed that parent involvement is essential in children’s
educational process and outcomes (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Parent involvement refers to
parents’ roles in educating their children at home and in school (Christenson & Sheridan,
2001). Involvement can take different forms, including discussions about school, help with
homework, or volunteering at school. Parent involvement appears to have lasting benefi ts
even through high school. When parents are involved, secondary students tend to earn higher
grades (Deslandes, Royer, Turcotte, & Bertrand, 1997; Dornbusch & Ritter, 1988; Lee, 1994;
Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992), show higher aspirations (Trusty, 1996), and
have fewer disciplinary problems (Deslandes & Royer, 1997 ; Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky,
& McCarthy, 1997).

Even though the benefits associated with parent involvement at the secondary level seem to
be well understood, educators still know little about what factors lead parents to decide to
become involved in their adolescents’ schooling. In the present study, we explored how the
psychological constructs, as defined in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model (1995, 1997),
influence the parent involvement process at the secondary level, and more precisely, at the
fi rst three grade levels in Quebec secondary schools. We addressed the following research
question: What are the relative contributions of parents’ (a) role construction, (b) self-
efficacy, (c) perception of teacher invitations, and (d) perception of adolescent invitations to
predict parent involvement at home and at school in Grades 7, 8, and 9? (Because the
invitation for parents to become involved is presented by teachers and students, we
considered, as did Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, Reed, and Jones [2000], teacher invitations and
student invitations as two difference constructs, thus leading to four psychological constructs
related to parent involvement.) Previous research on the evolution of adolescents’ autonomy
and parent involvement in secondary schools led us to expect some differences across grade
levels in the predictive models of parent involvement at home and at school (Deslandes,
2003).

Influences on Parent Involvement

Jordan, Orozco, and Averett (2001) identified factors that influence levels and aspects of
parent involvement. Family (e.g., education level, family structure, family size, parent gender,
work outside the home) and child characteristics (e.g., age, gender, grade level, academic
performance) are of particular relevance in this study. Research has shown that
undereducated parents and single parents are less involved in certain types of involvement
activities. For instance, Deslandes, Potvin, and Leclerc (1999) found that adolescents from
traditional families and well-educated parents report more affective support (parent
encouragement and praise, help with homework, frequent discus sions about school, and
attendence at school performances or sports events) than do adolescents from nontraditional
families and less educated parents. Astone and McLanahan (1991) also indicated that
adolescents who live with single parents or stepparents report that their homework is
monitored less than the homework of adolescents from traditional families. Deslandes and
Cloutier (2000) reported that mothers are more involved with homework than are fathers.
Dauber and Epstein (1989) argued that well-educated parents and those who do not work
outside the home (Eccles & Harold, 1996) are more likely to be involved at school. Eccles and
Harold concluded that parents with fewer children provide more help with homework than
do parents with more children. Child characteristics also may influence parent involvement.
For example, Deslandes and Potvin (1999) observed that mothers of adolescent boys
communicated with teachers more often than did mothers of adolescent girls. Parents tend
to become more involved when their children experience their fi rst learning or behavior
difficulties. According to Eccles and Harold (1996), parents of high achieving children tend to
participate more in school activities than do parents of low-achieving children. Epstein (2001)
showed that parent involvement decreases dramatically as children move into secondary
school. When Deslandes (2003) compared parent involvement in Grades 8, 9, and 10, he
found a steady decline in parent involvement, but a steady increase in adolescent autonomy.

Parents’ Role Construction

Parents need to understand their roles because that understanding identifies the activities
that they believe are necessary and part of their responsibilities as parents. In other words,
parents are more likely to become involved if they view their participation as a requirement
of parenting. Hoover & Dempsey, Jones, and Reed (1999) hypothesized three components of
role construction, depending on whether parents focused responsibility for children’s
education on themselves as parents, on the school, or on parent–school partnerships.

Parents’ Self-effi cacy for Helping Children Succeed in School

Parent self-efficacy is rooted in Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory and suggests that
parents are more likely to be involved if they believe that they have the skills and knowledge
to help their children. In other words, parents become involved if they believe that their
actions will improve learning and academic performance (HooverDempsey, Bassler, & Brissie,
1992; Stevenson, Chen, & Uttal, 1990). Prior research has indicated that parents believe that
they will have more infl uence over their children’s schooling when their children are in the
elementary grades than they will when their children are in the upper grades (Freedman-
Doan, Arbreton, Harold, & Eccles, 1993). In general, the stronger their self-efficacy, the more
persistence parents exhibit in their involvement (HooverDempsey et al., 2001).

Parents’ Perceptions of Teacher Invitations

Research also has shown that teachers’ demands and opportunities for involvement, coupled
with an inviting school climate, are related significantly to level of parent involvement (Comer
& Haynes, 1991; Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Eccles & Harrold, 1996; Epstein, 1986). Parents tend
to be more involved if they perceive that teachers and students both want and expect their
involvement (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001).

Parents’ Perceptions of Student Invitations

Parents will become involved if they perceive that their young children or adolescents want
them to do so. Students’ invitations are either implicit or explicit and emerge as a function of
their age, their press for independence, and their performance level (Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2001; Walker et al., 2000). For instance, when young children or adolescents ask for help with
homework, they are expressing explicit invitations. On the other hand, if they express the
desire to work alone, parents might respond by reducing their involvement. If children bring
a poor report card home, they might be conveying implicit invitations. Seeking parental help
does not necessarily mean that young children or adolescents are having academic
difficulties. For example, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) found that high-achieving
students wanted more parental assistance than did low-achieving students.

Reflecting on three of the four psychological constructs to involvement cited in the preceding
paragraphs (i.e., parents’ role construction, self-efficacy, and perceptions of teacher
invitations), Reed, Jones, Walker, and HooverDempsey (2000) found that parents’ role
construction, self-efficacy for helping the child succeed in school, and perceptions of teacher
invitations represent motivators of parents’ involvement in their children’s education at the
elementary level. Role construction was the first-predictor of parent involvement; perception
of teachers’ invitations was the second predictor. Parent self-efficacy seemed less influential.
The authors suggested that role construction may be a mediator of efficacy’s influence on
involvement (Reed et al.).

In a study that compared 5th, 8th, and 11th graders’ self-reported invitations to parent
involvement in homework, Walker and Hoover-Dempsey (2001) revealed decreased levels of
parent homework involvement across adolescence. Across the three age groups, students’
invitations for parents’ homework involvement was steady, but the authors found that
parents of younger students tend to help without being asked.

Investigations are needed to better understand what motivates parents to become involved
in their young children’s education and, more particularly, in their adolescents’ educational
process. Researchers need to examine differences in parents’ motivation to become involved
across secondary-grade levels. To our knowledge, no study has yet examined the individual
and combined contributions of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995, 1997) four
psychological constructs to predict parent involvement decisions across secondary-grade
levels. We targeted adolescents in the first 3 years of secondary school in Quebec (equivalent
to Grades 7, 8, and 9 in the American school system). Prior work (Deslandes, 2003) showed
that parent involvement is significantly lower, and adolescent autonomy level is significantly
higher, in the fourth year of secondary school in Quebec (Grade 10 in the American school
system) than in the second and third years of secondary school.

To examine how the four psychological constructs influence parent-involvement decisions
across the three secondary grade levels, we posed the following research question: What are
the relative contributions of parents’ role construction, self-efficacy, perceptions of teacher
invitations, and perceptions of adolescent invitations to predict parent involvement at home
and at school in Grades 7, 8, and 9?

Method Participants Participants were 770 parents of secondary-level students attending five
public schools located in urban and rural areas in the Mauricie and Centre du Quebec and
Monteregie regions. The regions are representative of the general Quebec population. Forty-
six percent (354) of the participants were parents of Secondary I students (equivalent to
Grade 7 students in the American school system), 30% (231) were parents of Secondary II
students (equivalent to Grade 8 students in the American system), and 24% (185) were
parents of Secondary III students (equivalent to Grade 9 students in the American system).
Nearly 51% of the students were girls and 49% were boys. Forty seven percent of the students
were first born in their family, 37% second born, 13% third born, and 3% fourth and fifth born,
respectively.

The demographics of the sample were as follows: Approximately 84% of the respondents
were mothers, and 13% were fathers. The other respondents were either stepmothers or
stepfathers, or others. Seventy percent of the participants were employed outside of the
home. Seventy percent lived in a traditional family, and 30% lived in a nontraditional one,
which corresponds exactly to what is being reported in the Quebec population in general
(Quebec Statistics Institute. 2001). The majority of the families (37%) had two children, 25%
had one child, 21% had three children, and the remainder of the sample (17%) had four or
more children. About 3% of the respondents had less than a high school education, 65% had
a high school diploma or a secondary-level trade formation, and 32% had a college or
university education. Seventy-two percent of the participants had a job outside the home
environment.

Measures Among the eight constructs that we used, parents’ role construction, self-effi cacy,
perception of teacher invitations, and reports of parent practices of involvement were
adapted from the Sharing the Dream! Parent Questionnaire (Jones, Gould, Brown, Young, &
The Peabody Family School Partnership Lab of Vanderbilt University, 2000). They are
grounded in Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995, 1997) model of the parent-involvement
process. The parents’ perceptions of student invitations and their reports of involvement
activities include items from questionnaires designed by Epstein and her colleagues (Epstein,
Connors, & Salinas, 1993 ; Epstein, Connors-Tadros, Horsey, & Simon, 1996). The items have
been translated in French, adapted in the Quebec context, and used in previous studies on
the basis of adolescents’ perceptions (Deslandes, 2000; Deslandes & Cloutier, 2002;
Deslandes et al., 1997; Deslandes & Potvin, 1999).

We used classical item analysis and factor analysis to evaluate the psychometric properties of
the eight constructs. The final decision of keeping or rejecting some of the items was based
mostly on the eigenvalues greater than 1 criterion and on the screetest. For all the analyses,
we used only those items loaded at least .30 on the factor to interpret the factors. We
computed Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for each scale. We obtained all scores by
calculating the mean score of the items of the same constructs, which are described in the
following paragraphs.

Parents’ role construction. This construct measured the extent to which parents believed that
it is their responsibility to help the school educate their adolescent (Hoover-Dempsey &
Sandler, 1995, 1997). We based the construct on Hoover-Dempsey’s work that suggests three
types of parent role construction: parent focused (six items), school focused (five items), and
partnership focused (six items; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1999; Reed et al., 2000). Principal axis
factor analysis revealed a single-factor solution that corresponded to a combination of the
three types of role construction with a predominance of items related to the partnership-
focused role construction. We used a construct that comprised 10 items (a = .72) that
measure behaviors that are parent focused, school focused, and mainly partnership focused
in accordance with the adolescents’ education. The parents had to respond to items, for
example, “It’s important that I let someone at school know about things that concern my
teenager,” and “I make it my business to stay on top of things at school”) by using a 6-point,
Likert-type scale that ranged from (1) disagree very strongly to (6) agree very strongly. One
possible explanation for obtaining only one scale instead of three could be a cultural one.
Another explanation could be associated with the fact that Hoover-Dempsey and her col
leagues developed the constructs on the basis of pilot work with a small sample of 50 parents
of elementary school children, reported in Reed et al. (2000).


Appendix 2: Sample Qualitative Study

School Principals’ Influence on Trust: Perspectives of Mothers of Children with Disabilities

Debra L. Shelden, Maureen E. Angell Julia B. Stoner Bill D. Roseland Illinois State University

Abstract The authors employed a qualitative research design to explore issues of trust in
family–professional relationships. They specifically focused on the nature of trust between
mothers of children with dis abilities and school principals. Analysis of the mothers’ responses
to face-to-face interview questions yielded two primary categories related to their
perspectives regarding principals: (a) personal and professional principal attributes and (b)
principal actions within the education system, with students, and with students’ families.
Subcategories were developed that further delineated the relationships participants had with
the principals of their children’s educational programs. The authors address implications for
school leadership and the establishment of trustworthy family–professional relationships,
especially as they impact the lives of students and families in need of special education
support. Key words: parents of children with disabilities, school principals trust

Parents are meant to be included as fundamental participants in educational organizations.
Decades of research have supported the role of parent involvement in positive educational
outcomes for students (Colarusso & O’Rourke, 2007; Freiberg, 2006). Recent legal mandates
require school systems to engage parents in meaningful ways. The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB; 2002) calls for school systems to facilitate parent involvement (Keller, 2006)
and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004) mandates
parental involvement in all aspects of assessment and service delivery for students who
receive special education support (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004). In light of
these legal mandates and underlying fundamental principles of family–school relationships,
trust between parents and educational professionals has emerged as a critical factor (Bryk &
Schneider, 2003; Dunst, Johanson, Rounds, Trivette, & Hamby, 1992). Trust may influence
student achievement because of its role in establishing and maintaining collaborative
relationships between home and school, and trust may shape parents’ attitudes toward
educational systems and influence their engagement in their children’s educational programs
(Dunst et al.; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Bryk and Schneider found that was not only trust
associated with greater gains in student achievement, but also with longer lasting gains in
achievement.

Consequently, not only is trust between parents and education professionals necessary for
effective partnerships stipulated by legal mandates, but also, and more importantly, it
appears to have a positive effect on student outcomes, and it is the students themselves who
are the true beneficiaries of trusting relationships between parents and education
professionals. However, if trust is valuable to parents, teachers, and students, it is incumbent
on school principals to foster it, maintain it, and exemplify trusting relationships with all
parents, including parents of children with disabilities. Indeed, trust is “increasingly
recognized as a critical element of leadership” (TschannenMoran, 2003 , p. 162) and the
leadership of schools, the principals, must understand their vital role in establishing trust.

Many definitions of trust exist in the literature. In their review of literature on trust, Hoy and
Tschannen-Moran (1999) found 16 definitions of trust. They identified five facets of trust
reflected in those definitions, including benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and
openness. Based on those facets of trust, Hoy and TschannenMoran proposed that trust is
“an individual’s or group’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the
confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open” (p.
189). In this definition, they established vulnerability as a precursor to the need for trust. The
need for trust rests on the recognition of the potential for betrayal or harm from another
person. When that risk does not exist, we have no need to trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2004 ).
The latter part of the definition identifies five facets, or dimensions, that influence the extent
of trust. This definition served as a conceptual foundation for the present report of a study of
the perspectives of mothers of children with disabilities on the role of school principals in
facilitating or inhibiting the establishment and maintenance of trust between parents of
children with disabilities and education professionals. Hoy and Tschannen-Moran’s facets of
trusts, particularly benevolence, openness, and competence, were reflected in the principal
attributes and actions that emerged from the present study as facilitators of trust.

Trust and School Leaders On a systems level, trust is identified as a critical factor in school
reform (Bryk & Schneider, 2003). School leaders can influence the nature of trust within
educational systems (Kochanek, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, 2004 ). The significance of
teachers’ and parents’ trust in school principals is strong and can infl uence trust among other
constituents (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999). Among school leaders, principals in particular
can influence the overall school climate and thereby influence trust (DiPaola & Walther-
Thomas, 2003; Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002; Soodak & Erwin, 2000). Collegial leadership,
or the openness of the leadership behavior of the principal, is a predictor of school climate,
which in turn also influences overall trust (Hoy et al.). As leaders who set the tone in schools,
principals are responsible for building and maintaining trusting relationships (Whitener,
Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). To demonstrate how principals might fulfill this
responsibility, Tschannen-Moran (2004) offered a three-dimensional Trustworthy Leadership
Matrix (p. 176). She emphasized the usefulness of considering not only five facets of trust
(i.e., benevolence, honesty, openness, reliability, and competence) in relation to fi ve
constituencies of schools (i.e., administrators, teachers, students, parents, and the public),
but also five functions of school leadership in understanding how school principals’ behavior
can sig nifi cantly infl uence school climate and culture. These functions of leadership, as
applied to trust, include (a) developing a vision of a trustworthy school, (b) serving as a role
model for trustworthiness through language and action, (c) facilitating teacher competence
through effective coaching, (d) improving school discipline among students and teachers
through effective management, and (e) mediating conflict and repair in a constructive and
honest manner. Administrator trustworthiness, then, is demonstrated by nurturing and
balancing relationships among facets of trust, constituencies of schools, and the functions of
leadership. Bryk and Schneider (2003) discussed the demonstration of respect as one critical
facet of the trust definition for school principals. They claimed that respect is closely related
to other facets of trust, particularly openness, benevolence, and reliability. Bryk and
Schneider defined respect as part of the social discourse within school communities. When
educators in a school system demonstrate respect in their social exchanges, they contribute
to the development of trust. Principals serve as models of these social exchanges for other
school personnel (Kochanek, 2005). Openness, as a part of the trust defi nition, refers to the
perception of one party that another party is forth coming with relevant information and one
party’s confidence that another party does not withhold relevant information (Butler &
Cantrell, 1984; Mishra, 1996 ). This openness signals a kind of reciprocal trust (Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy, 2000). Benevolence, as demonstrated by caring and support, also influences
reciprocal trust (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy) and is valued by principals’ constituents (Bryk &
Schneider; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Finally, reliability is demonstrated not only through
predictability but also through commitment and dedication. These facets of trust are principal
characteristics valued by parents. As Bryk and Schneider noted, “Almost every parent and
teacher we spoke with at this school commented effusively about the principal’s personal
style, his openness to others, and his willingness to reach out to parents, teachers, and
students” (p. 42). Although the research cited above applies to all relationships of trust within
a school, there is a growing body of research that has focused on these issues as related to
parents of children with disabilities. Parents of children with disabilities may have increased
interaction with educational administrators simply by the nature of special education
delivery. Administrators and parents of children with disabilities are part of an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) team. Parents and administrators are integral to team decisions and,
through stipulations in the IDEIA, parents are to be considered equal and active team
members. Beyond the legal requirements of parental involvement with children with
disabilities, recent research has investigated parent perspectives regarding various aspects of
interactions with education professionals (Angell, Bailey, & Stoner, 2008; Bailey, Parette,
Stoner, Angell, & Carroll, 2006; Stoner & Angell, 2006; Stoner, Angell, House, & Bock, 2007 ;
Stoner et al., 2005 ). This research has revealed that trust is a major factor in the complex
relationship between parents of children with disabilities and education professionals (Lake
& Billingsley, 2000; Stoner & Angell; Stoner et al., 2005). Parents of children with disabilities
also have the right to implement due process proceedings if they disagree with the decisions
of the IEP team (IDEIA, 2004). Due process safeguards “afford parents a basic right of protest
when they disagree with the educational decisions and actions of the school district” (Fiedler,
Simpson, & Clark, 2007, p. 207). These due process safeguards provide for increased
opportunities between parents and educational administrators and hence provide additional
opportunities for trust to be influenced. If due process is lengthy and involves hiring
attorneys, it can be quite costly to the school district and parents. The IDEIA encourages but
does not require mediation prior to the implementation of due process. Lake and Billingsley
(2000) investigated perspectives of parents and education professionals involved in due
process cases. Nearly 90% of their parent participants reported the initiation or escalation of
conflict as a result of discrepant perceptions between parents and other team members’
differing perceptions of children’s needs. In their study, parents reported dissatisfaction with
school teams who did not recognize children’s individuality (i.e., did not recognize individual
strengths and limitations separate from a disability label). In addition, parents felt as though
schools operated from a defi cit perspective, placing too much emphasis on what children
cannot do as opposed to focusing on or recognizing the strengths of each child (Aigne, Colvin,
& Baker, 1998 ; Lake & Billingsley). It should be noted that the discrepant perspectives
between parents and education professionals developed over time as parents perceived
negative interactions with school teams. In addition, when parents and educational teams
operate from discrepant viewpoints with regard to assessment and service delivery, parents
are more likely to distrust future exchanges when their expectations are not met (Stoner &
Angell, 2006 ). Principals can influence the impact of these discrepant viewpoints through
their influence on school climate. Tschannen-Moran (2004) described the relationship among
principals, overall school trust and climate, and parents’ trust: Principals play an important
role in creating the context for trust to develop between parents and the school and between
teachers and parents. The school leader creates the framework and structure for these
relationships and, by example, may set the tone for these interactions as well. (p. 136) More
specifically, principals’ interactions with individual students and families can influence the
overall child-centeredness of schools ( DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003 ; Kochanek, 2005 ;
Soodak & Erwin, 2000). Establishing and maintaining trust does not ensure that school
districts never face a due process hearing; however, a trusting relationship has the potential
to minimize conflict and lead to resolution. Consequently, principals have a major
responsibility to positively contribute to the establishment of trust with all parents, including
parents of children with disabilities, who may be interacting with great frequency with
education professionals, including teachers, related service personnel, and principals.

Purpose of the Study

The role of the principal in establishing or influencing overall organizational trust in schools
has emerged from extant research (e.g., Hoy et al., 2002; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999).
More recent research has addressed characteristics and actions that can be taken by
principals to improve organizational trust (e.g., Kochanek, 2005). The importance of trust in
establishing effective home– school partnerships for students with disabilities is also strongly
supported in recent research (Lake & Billingsley, 2000; Stoner & Angell, 2006; Stoner et al.,
2005; Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak, 2006). Given the critical role principals can assume
in establishing trust, further research is needed on how they influence levels of trust in
relationships between families of children with disabilities and education professionals.

The present study emerged from a broader study of the perspectives of mothers of children
with disabilities on trust in education personnel (Angell, Stoner, & Shelden, 2009). Although
we did not inquire specifically about the role of administrators, the strong influence of
administrators, particularly school principals, was apparent during interviews with 16
mothers of children of varying disabilities, ages, and geographical settings. We then re-
examined our data to address the following research question: What are the perspectives of
mothers of children with disabilities on trust in school principals?

Method Research Design

We employed a qualitative research methodology to gain insight into the nature of trust of
mothers of children with disabilities in school principals. We viewed trust as the central
phenomenon requiring exploration and understanding (Creswell, 2002). Considering the
nature of our target phenomenon (i.e., trust), we followed the advice of Strauss and Corbin
(1998) who explained that “qualitative methods can be used to obtain the intricate details
about phenomena such as feelings, thought processes, and emotions that are difficult to
extract or learn about through more conventional methods” (p. 11). The method used for the
present study was the collective case study as described by Stake (2000). Collective case study
involves the study of more than one case in order to “investigate a phenomenon, population,
or general condition” (p. 437). This approach assumes that investigat ing a number of cases
leads to better comprehension and better theorizing (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach,
& Richardson, 2005). Miles and Huberman (1994) contended that studying multiple cases
gives the researcher reassurance that the events in only one case are not “wholly
idiosyncratic” (p. 172). Further, studying multiple cases allowed us to see processes and
outcomes across all cases and enabled a deeper understanding through more powerful
descriptions and explanations.

Participants

We used a purposive sampling technique that included snowballing methods to recruit a
heterogeneous group of mothers of school-aged children with disabilities as participants in
this study, basing the rationale for our maternal focus on research indicating that mothers
have more contact with education professionals than do fathers (e.g., David, 1998; Nord,
Brimhall, & West, 1997; Nord & West, 2001; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992). We
purposefully included a range of mothers who had children with various disabilities across
various grade levels in schools from several school districts that represented a range of
settings (e.g., rural, suburban, urban). We expected this sampling methodology to afford us
maximum opportunities for comparable analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) of mothers from a
variety of backgrounds and experiences with schools, as well as having children with a variety
of disabilities and at various ages. Participants were recruited using three techniques: (a)
district-level administrators’ distribution of recruitment materials; (b) individual school
personnel’s distribution of recruitment materials; and (c) a participant referral snowballing
technique, whereby participants distributed recruitment materials to other mothers who
might express different perspectives or had had different experiences with education
professionals. This sampling method facilitated our attaining as much variation as possible
within our sample (Patton, 1980). In our initial recruitment phase, after obtaining university
approval to conduct the research, we mailed explanatory and invitational letters to several
school district administrators in a Midwestern state, asking them to distribute the letters to
potential participants if they approved of our interviewing mothers with children in their
schools. In the invitational letters, mothers were asked to return permission-to-contact forms
if they were interested in participating in the study. Although it was designed to protect
potential participants’ identities until they agreed to meet with us for interviews, this method
of recruitment proved to be minimally effective, yielding only 2 participants. We tentatively
attributed administrators’ or mothers’ reluctance to participate to the nature of the study
(i.e., the investigation of trust) and consequently asked school principals and various school
personnel (e.g., therapists and special education teachers) to assist us in recruiting
participants. During the second phase of recruitment, school personnel sent permission-to-
contact forms to potential participants with whom they had regular contact. On receipt of
this approval, we scheduled one-on-one, face-to-face interviews with the mothers, explained
the study, and obtained informed consent. We tentatively attributed the success of this
recruitment method to the nature of the relationships participants had with the education
professionals who contacted them or to the personal contact. Personal contact from familiar
individuals within their schools or districts may have influenced the mothers’ willingness to
participate. Our second and third recruitment phases yielded an additional 14 participants.
Our final participant pool consisted of 16 mothers of children with various disabilities. They
ranged in age from 18 to 55 years. In all, 12 mothers were Caucasian, I was African American,
and 3 were Hispanic. One of the Hispanic mothers had limited English proficiency, so a
Spanish-speaking interpreter assisted during her interview. Most of the mothers were from
urban and suburban areas and 2 were from rural areas. These mothers and their children
represented eight school districts, varying grade levels, and a range of geographical areas (i.e.,
rural, suburban, and urban). See Table 1for participant demographics. Interviews Data were
collected via semistructured interviews, which Fontana and Frey (2000) described as “one of
the most powerful ways in which we try to understand our fellow human beings” (p. 645).
Face-to-face interviews occurred in the mothers’ homes or at places the mothers designated
(e.g., restaurants, coffee shops) and ranged in length from 60 to 90 min. The interview
questions, which focused on trust, relationships with education professionals, and situations
where trust was either enhanced or diminished, are provided in the Appendix. Each interview
was audiotaped and transcribed verbatim to facilitate subsequent data analysis. Each
interview was conducted by one of the first three authors. The 16 single-participant
interviews consisted of broad, open-ended questions designed to investigate mothers’
perspectives on their trust in education professionals. As we interviewed the mothers, we
probed for further information, elaboration, or clarifi cation of responses as we deemed
appropriate. Semistructured inter views permitted us to address the issue of trust while
maintaining a feeling of openness (Kvale, 1996).