In modern social sciences research, including the education field questionnaires, interviews and observations are well known as three main strategies of empirical data collection
(Befring, 2004). Where a questionnaire can be defined as a highly structured data collection technique whereby each respondent is asked the same set of questions (De Vaus, 2002). For the purpose of this study a structured self-developed set of questionnaires using closed or forced choice questions where respondents were offered alternative replies for quantitative analysis, and in some very specific questions the respondents were allowed to answer in an open-ended way as an attempt to gather more individualized data. According to the
Quantitative research methods in educational planning(UNESCO,2005) the types of information that can be collected by means of a questionnaire are facts, activities, level of knowledge, opinions, expectations, aspirations, membership of various groups, attitudes perceptions.
The selection of questionnaire as an instrument of data collection was mainly based on its strength in allowing anonymity and privacy since the focus was to solicit information relating to respondents attitude, behavior , knowledge and attributes on a subject that could be
sensitive due its own nature, along the fact that is directly related to the education
environment and professional practices where the respondents co-exist. Therefore anonymity
INCLUSION IN EDUCATION RELATED DATA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
PROGRAM DATA
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
STAKEHOLDERS PERCEPTIONS DATA EDUCATION
POLICY
DATA
INSTITUTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
DATA
57 was a key element in order to achieve as much as possible honest responses from the
respondents. In order to conduct the current research the creation of two different
questionnaires based on a single template was necessary due the intrinsic differences of the targeted population. One questionnaire called A1 was targeted for the internal service providers such as academic personnel and administrative staff and the other called A2 targeted for students with special needs and students without special needs. Both questioners were applied at the same higher education institution, in the same on-going academic
semester spring 2012. The questionnaires A1 and A2 where conceived in Spanish , reviewed in English and applied in Spanish as this is the mother tongue of the targeted population.
Therefore a translation of the instrument and the responses was necessary. In spite of this a translation of the questionnaires is available in appendix 1 and 2.
The questionnaire A1 targeted for internal service providers where the respondents where academic staff and administrative personnel comprised of five sections (see Apendix 1);
section 1)Demographics and Professional experience, section 2) Services available for students with special needs, section 3) Competence, section 4) Barriers and section 5 Inclusive Education policy awareness.
Section 1 Demographics and professional and non-professional experience contains 16 items.
The first 6 items where dedicated to collect the demographic profile of respondents which included their working status- whereas academic or administrative staff, current position at the university , age range, gender, highest level of education and main field of studies in their highest level of education. The other subsequent 10 items were dedicated to gather data about the respondents experience- professional and non-professional- in providing aid to people with special needs or disabilities and type of special needs attended whereas outside the university environment as well inside the university environment .
Section 2 Services available for students with special needs contains eleven items, where the first nine items were formatted and adapted from the NJ Survey of Campus Programs for Students with Disabilities (New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, 2007) which are dedicated to gather data about the level of concern about services directed for students with special needs or disabilities at the university, which included the following categories:
Assistive technology, Documentation ad hoc for students with special needs, Faculty
cooperation and training, Finding and hiring qualified disability and special needs staff, Provision of sign language interpreters, Provision of counseling for students with psychiatric and psychological issues, Mobility and accessibility in campus, library special needs
resources and Transportation home-university-university home for students. The rating occurred on a Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Very concerned, Mildy Concern, Not a concern currently, plus the addition of a fourth answer category such as I don´t know, due the fact that for the purpose of this very specific study is relevant to elucidate the knowledge of the respondents about the question mater. The 10th item was elaborated in order to gather data about the respondents’ perception of the adequacy of the university infrastructure in general for students with disabilities or special needs. The 11th item of this section was designed to achieved information about the respondents attitude towards sharing the educational environment with students with special needs or disabilities. The rating occurred on a type scale whose responses were rated based on modified 8 point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, To a very great extent, I don’t know and I don’t want to answer.
Section 3 Competence contains four items designed to gather data from the respondents about training received from the institutions for dealing with the special needs of the students, the type of training, convenience of aid provided by the institution to deal with the special needs of students and competence to provide assistance to students with special needs or disabilities.
The 3rd and 4th items used a six point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, To a very great extent.
Section 4 Barriers contains nine items. The items where dedicated to gather data from the respondents about the relevance of the main barriers for an effective instrumentation of inclusive education at the university which included Knowledge about diversity and inclusion in education, flexibility of curriculum, preparation on inclusive education of academic staff and education leaders, teaching methods, learning environment, special needs identification processes and assessment procedures, economic resources, mobility and accessibility in campus, transportation home university-university-home. The main barriers were based and adapted from the IBE-UNESCO Preparatory Report for the 48th ICE on Inclusive Education
59 (2007). All items used a six point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, and To a very great extent.
Section 5 Inclusive Education policy awareness contains five items. The items were conceived to collect data from respondents about the awareness of the policies directed to foment inclusive education at international , national and institutional level along with gathering data to know to what extent such national and international policies are met at the university. In all items the rating occurred on a modified 8 point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, To a very great extent, I don’t know and I don’t want to answer.
The questionnaire A2 targeted for students with or without special needs, comprised of four sections (see Apendix 2): Section 1 Demographics and Special needs of students, Section 2 Services available for students with special needs, Section 3 Barriers and Section 4 Inclusive Education policy awareness.
Section 1 Demographics and Special needs of students contains twenty items. The first 14 items where dedicated to collect the demographic profile of respondents which included age range, gender, highest level of parents education , type of institution where respondents received their primary, secondary and high school education whereas public, private, special , integrative, regular, distance or open education. Also the level of satisfaction of respondents about their immediate previous and current education was rated using a six point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, and To a very great extent. Also the main field of studies of respondents current education was included and if the respondents were par-time or full time students. The other subsequent 6 items were dedicated to gather data related to the special needs of the respondents. This included if the respondents considered themselves to have or not a special need or disabilities, if the respondents have ever been diagnosed with a special need or disabilities and the type of special need or disability.
Section 2 Services available for students with special needs contains fourteen items, where the first nine items were formatted and adapted from the NJ Survey of Campus Programs for Students with Disabilities (New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, 2007) which are dedicated to gather data about the level of concern about services directed for students with special needs or disabilities at the university, which included the following categories:
Assistive technology, Documentation ad hoc for students with special needs, Faculty cooperation and training, Finding and hiring qualified disability and special needs staff, Provision of sign language interpreters, Provision of counseling for students with psychiatric and psychological issues, Mobility and accessibility in campus, library special needs
resources and Transportation home-university-university home for students. The rating occurred on a Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Very concerned, Mildy Concern, Not a concern currently, plus the addition of a fourth answer category such as I don´t know, due the fact that for the purpose of this very specific study is relevant to elucidate the knowledge of the respondents about the question mater. The other subsequent 4 items were elaborated in order to gather data from the respondents such as if they have been receiving any type of aid or special services related with their special needs from the university, type of special need the university provide aid for, if the respondents have ever been exposed to any kind of information related to the attention of the special needs of students in general at the university. The 14th item was designed to achieve information on how relevant the aid provided by the university was in order to cope with the special needs of the respondent. The rating occurred on a modified 8 point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, To a very great extent, I don’t know and I don’t want to answer.
Section 3 Barriers contains thirteen items. The first nine items where dedicated to gather data from the respondents about the relevance of the main barriers for an effective instrumentation of inclusive education at the university which included, knowledge of diversity and inclusion in education, flexibility of curriculum, preparation on inclusive education of academic staff and education leaders, teaching methods, learning environment, special needs identification processes and assessment procedures, economic resources, mobility and accessibility in campus, transportation home university-university-home. The main barriers were taken and adapted from the IBE-UNESCO Preparatory Report for the 48th ICE on Inclusive
Education(2007). All 9 items used a six point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated
61 based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, and To a very great extent. The subsequent four items were dedicated to gather data of respondents perception of the adequacy of the university infrastructure in general for students with disabilities or special needs, of the extent the lack of resources for students with special needs have affected their academic performance, of the extent the lack of resources for students with special needs have affected their time taken for completing their studies and about the respondents attitude towards sharing the educational environment with students with special needs or disabilities. The rating occurred on modified 8 point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, To a very great extent, I don’t know and I don’t want to answer.
Section 5 Inclusive Education policy awareness contains five items. The items were conceived to collect data from respondents about the awareness of the policies directed to foment inclusive education at international, national and institutional level along with gathering data to know to what extent such national and international policies are met at the university. In all items the rating occurred on a modified 8 point Likert-type scale whose responses were rated based on Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a moderate extent, To a great extent, To a very great extent, I don’t know and I don’t want to answer.
No personal data or private information as names, personal identity numbers or addresses were collected, used or stored during or after the conclusion of the survey research.