DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Data was collected and analyzed from three sources: (a) the disability service student database; (b) the disability service survey of students and instructors; and (c) interviews. Interviews were conducted with students with LD and instructors.

Student Database

The researcher obtained disaggregated data for students with LD electronically from the assistant director of the disability service office. Once data was obtained, the researcher analyzed data to determine what and how many different accommodations had been approved for students with LD, the number of students with LD who receive each accommodation, and the number of approved academic accommodations per individual student with LD. The research also determined the range and average number of

accommodations approved for students with LD.

Analysis Procedures

First the research read all accommodations listed and excluded the ones that did not pertain to academic achievement. Next, the research created a list of all academic accommodations and tallied how many students were checked as having each

accommodation. Finally, the research created a list of each student with LD (by assigning a number; e.g., 1 – 20) and the total number of academic accommodations they had been approved for. From there the researcher was able to determine how many students fit each possible quantity of approved academic accommodations (i.e., range 1 – 14) and determine the average number of approved academic accommodations. A second research followed the same procedures and agreement was 100%.

Surveys

The university’s disability service office released its annual surveys at the end of the 2017 spring semester and allowed approximately one month for completion. Data was compiled and the office disaggregated data for students with LD and instructors (based

on inclusion criteria). The researcher obtained the disaggregated data electronically from the assistant director of the office.

Analysis Procedures

For each survey, the researcher read through all questions to determine which questions pertained to the study. Those that included relevant information to help answer the research questions were identified. Relevant information was determined by asking if the question pertained to: (a) the accommodation process; (b) accommodation use or provision of accommodations; (c) negative or positive experiences related to

accommodations; or (d) disability law. Questions were then separated into those for analysis and those that were irrelevant. Questions found to be pertinent to the study were separated by the research question they supported.

Analysis procedures for open-ended questions followed the same procedure described below for analyzing interview data, steps 2-6. Themes found from survey responses were compared with those from interviews to help generate overall meanings through triangulation. Multiple-choice and rating scale questions were analyzed by tallying how many responders chose each answer option and then calculating the percent of responses for each question choice to determine how responses supported or conflicted with other data collected (i.e., how does quantitative data match qualitative responses per research question). A second research followed the same procedures on 100% of

quantitative data and 30% of qualitative data. For quantitative data, when calculation differences occurred both researchers re-calculated and compared. Agreement for all calculations came to 100%.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted using a qualitative interview approach. This approach allows for a semi-structured interview (i.e., the interview is not strictly scripted) where the researcher follows an interview guide but may ask probing or follow-up questions based on context and setting of each interview. Interviews evoked participants’

understanding and beliefs surrounding the issue of study, while the researcher listened carefully to hear the meaning behind participants’ words. The researcher asked open- ended questions to elicit participants’ own thoughts and experiences to understand the issue of study (Yin, 2016). The researcher followed the suggestions by Yin (2016) to be successful at conversing with participants during interviews. First, the researcher followed the speak in modest amounts (i.e., speak much less than participant) principle. Second, the researcher was as nondirective as possible. This allowed the participant to “express their own meaning as part of their own way of describing the” issue within the set boundaries of the interview (p. 144). Third, the research complied with stay neutral principle. This included casting a neutral manner through body language, expressions, and words. Fourth, the researcher did maintain a good rapport with participants. Fifth, the researcher used an interview guide. Finally, the research did analyze while

interviewing (i.e., as interview transpires the researcher will monitor and decide when to probe for more detail, when to ask follow-up questions, and when to shift topics).

Recruitment

The followings steps took place to recruit participation. First, purposeful sampling (i.e., selecting individuals [that meet inclusion criteria] who will illuminate the issues of

study through information-rich insights) was utilized allowing for an in-depth

investigation through a reasonably small sample or single case (Patton, 2002). Potential participants were elicited for interviews through the distribution of recruitment letters. Recruitment letters were developed by the researcher and provided potential participants an overview of the researcher and the study (i.e., the purpose). The recruitment letters asked that interested individuals respond to the researcher via email or telephone to obtain more information and/or to indicate their interest.

Student Recruitment

Student recruitment was first conducted through the distribution of the

researcher’s recruitment letter, within the disability service office’s monthly newsletter, emailed to all students with disabilities. The first dissemination, in November, generated two responses, however, both were graduate students and so could not be included. The disability service office included the recruitment letter again in their January newsletter and one student responded but again was a graduate student and was excluded. The researcher then asked several fellow researchers and instructors to distribute the

recruitment letter to students. Approximately 10 instructors sent the recruitment letter to over 12 courses plus one researcher sent the recruitment letter to a participate pool of students with LD. In addition, two undergraduate student organizations (Student Council for Exceptional Children and Disability Advocacy Student Coalition) distributed the recruitment letter to their organization members. An estimated 1000 plus students

received the recruitment letter, approximate number with LD unknown. Through

recruitment students emailed the researcher and indicated a willingness to be interviewed.

Instructor Recruitment

The researcher asked dissertation committee members to provide names of instructors to contact and request participation. The researcher also obtained names of instructors to contact from former and current students of the university and from instructors known personally to researcher. All instructors whose name was provided were sent an email with recruitment letter. In total, approximately 40 instructors were contacted.

Selection

For both instructors and students less than the maximum number responded and therefore all who responded were included in the study. After individual agreed to participate via email the researcher and participant set up interview date and time.

Interviewing

Interviews took place during the end of the fall semester and beginning of the spring semester (i.e., end of October through the end of February), of the 2017-2018 academic year. The researcher conducted all interviews, which consisted of: (a) one interview per participant; (b) one-on-one interview; (c) interview in an agreed upon location by researcher and participant; (d) interview lasting approximately no more than one hour; (e) interview consisting of approximately 25 questions asked; and (f) audio

recorded interview. The researcher received signed consent from the participant before beginning the audio recording.

Interviews started with introductions and the exchange of pleasantries (Yin, 2016). The researcher and participant sat facing one and another and the researcher conducted the interview by asking questions based on the interview guide, as well as from statements by the participant in order to gain more detail and keep the interview flowing. At the conclusion of the interview, the researcher stopped the audio recorder and politely thanked the individual for their participation.

Analysis Procedures

The researcher followed the analysis strategies of Creswell (2013). The researcher took a holistic analysis approach that looked for developing themes throughout the entire case. The following steps were taken for interview data (as well as qualitative survey and questionnaire data) to reveal the emergence of themes and formulate a comprehensive conclusion about the resulting meanings (Creswell, 2013). Analysis was done by group of participants. All interviews for instructors were completed first followed by student interview.

1. Organizing the data: All interviews were transcribed electronically from audio recording and saved to a computer. The researcher paid to have audio

recordings transferred as text to electronic copies and then printed (i.e., transcripts). Four transcripts from instructor group and three transcriptions from students group were compared to the original recording for transcription accuracy.

2. Reading and Memoing: Each transcript (i.e., interview) was read in its entirety to gain a sense of the interview as a whole. Each was then reread and memos (i.e., short phrases, ideas, and key concepts) were noted. After reading over all interviews, initial categories (or codes) were formed. Categories are major ideas that form from the data.

3. Coding: Transcripts were read again and smaller categories were aggregated from data, and evidence from different data sources were gathered to establish patterns (i.e., similar categories within different data sources). In vivo coding (i.e., forming categories from a word or short phrase taken from text) was used to capture exact words of participants. For each participant group a set of categories was compiled, supported from in vivo coding.

4. Describing and Classifying: A detailed description of the case (i.e., the issue of accommodations for students with LD at the university) was produced by coding data further into themes (i.e., units of information that divulged from several categories to form a common idea). This was achieved by comparing patterns found in data sources.

5. Interpreting the Data: Themes were organized to extract the larger meanings within the data. That is themes were organized and interpreted (through insights, intuitions, and hunches) to form larger conceptual understandings that make sense of the data. The researcher also developed naturalistic generalizations, which are the generalizations that readers can learn from the case.

6. Display Data: Categories and themes were identified across groups of

participants and compared for similarities and contradictions; descriptive and visuals (e.g., graphs, tables, charts) were created to represent the data.

Intercoder Agreement

A second researcher coded approximately 30% of interviews conducted with each participant group (i.e., four instructor transcripts and three student transcripts). Each coder independently coded, following the procedures outlined above by Creswell (2013). Interviews coded by two researchers were compared to establish intercoder agreement (i.e., percentage of agreement amongst coders and their consistency of codes within data; Saldana, 2016), which was established to be at least 90% agreement.