This section details the selection of the research sample, including the:
Selection of schools (Section 3.4.1);
Selection of classes and teachers (Section 3.4.2); Selection of students (Section 3.4.3); and
Identification of at-risk students (Section 3.4.4).
3.4.1 Selection of Schools
Convenience sampling, based on the researcher’s contacts with Catholic schools in Western Australia, was used to select schools for the present study. Convenience sampling involves the selection of the most accessible participants to the researcher (Marshall, 1996). Within the selection of schools known to the researcher, purposive sampling (based on the researcher’s knowledge of the individual schools) was utilised to select the schools from which the classes, involved in the research, were drawn. Purposive sampling is the process of selecting participants based on the qualities that they possess and is reliant upon the researcher’s judgement (Fink, 2003). In this study,
85
the purposive sampling technique was used to increase the generalisation of the findings by ensuring that a wide range of schools was included.
The criteria used for the selection of schools were that:
The sample of schools should include a range of Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage6 (ICSEA) values, including schools above and below the average ICSEA score;
The sample should include schools located in both metropolitan and regional areas; and
The sample should include schools with a range of enrolment sizes. All of the schools that were included in the sample were Catholic. This was a consequence of the convenience sampling used due to the researcher working within the Catholic Education of Western Australia system and thus having a knowledge of the school contexts and access to school principals within this system. The principals from 12 coeducational Catholic schools were approached regarding participation in the project, and expressions of interest were sought. The acceptance rate of principals approached was 100%.
The ICSEA values for the selected schools ranged from below average (the lowest value being 977 for a school in regional Western Australia) to above average (the highest value being 1123 for a school from the Perth metropolitan area). This range of ICSEA scores ensured that the participants would include a range of socio-economic backgrounds. The selected schools included one regional school (115 kilometres from the city of Perth), three outer metropolitan schools (ranging in distance of 35 to 50 kilometres from the city of Perth), and eight metropolitan schools. This geographic distribution was generally representative of Catholic schools in these regions at the time that this research took place.
6 The Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) was created by the Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) to represent numerically the influence that students’ family backgrounds (parents’ occupation and school education) and other factors such as geographical location have on students’ educational outcomes. ICSEA scores allow meaningful comparisons to be made between schools. The average ICSEA score is 1000.
86
The 12 schools were also selected based on their enrolment numbers to provide a sample of schools of different sizes. Specifically, the selection was based on the number of classes in each year level. The sample for the present study included six schools with one class at each year level, two schools with two classes at each year level, three schools with three classes at each year level. One school included in the sample was a kindergarten to year 12 college. The total school enrolment numbers ranged from 140 to 1800 students. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the school ICSEA values, locations, and sizes.
Table 3.1. Range of schools involved in the study
School ICSEA value Enrolment number Location
School 1 1092 230 Metropolitan
School 2 1066 240 Metropolitan
School 3 1025 690 Metropolitan
School 4 1037 220 Outer metropolitan
School 5 1024 730 Metropolitan
School 6 1060 210 Metropolitan
School 7 1047 520 Metropolitan
School 8 1018 670 Metropolitan
School 9 983 380 Outer metropolitan
School 10 1123 1800 Metropolitan
School 11 1025 180 Outer metropolitan
School 12 977 140 Regional
3.4.2 Selection of Classes and Teachers
Once the principal of each of the twelve schools had provided permission for the study to take place (as described in Section 3.4.1), information regarding the study was sent to all classroom teachers within the schools who worked in years 4, 5, or 6 (as the three surveys were designed for students in these year levels), and expressions of interest were sought. In total, 60 teachers were invited to participate in the study, and, of these, 32 teachers expressed an interest to be involved.
87
Given that research objective 6 sought to compare the perceptions of academically at- risk students with those of students who were not at risk (see Section 3.2), each of the classes that was selected was required to include at least three at-risk students (the identification of at-risk students is detailed further in Section 3.4.4). Of the 32 expressions of interest, all of the teachers who had a minimum of three at-risk students in their class were included in the sample. Despite teachers’ expressions of interest, one year 4 and one year 5 class were excluded from the study as they did not meet this criterion. In total, 30 teachers and 31 classes participated in the study (with one teacher administering the questionnaires to two classes). The sample included 11 year 4 classes, 11 year 5 classes, and nine year 6 classes.
3.4.3 Selection of Students
Given that research objective 6 sought to compare the perceptions of students who were academically at risk and those who were not at risk, it was important to ensure not only that the sample was generally representative of the population but also that there was a representative sample of at-risk students. The NAPLAN minimum standards provide an indication of the level of learning that students should typically demonstrate by a particular point in their schooling (ACARA, n.d.). Students who fall below the minimum standard in a particular area, have not achieved the expected learning outcomes for their year level. Hence, they are at risk of being unable to make appropriate progress without some form of intervention. A more detailed explanation of the national minimum standard and students considered to be at risk are provided in Section 3.4.4.
The criteria for the selection of students from each class (including but not limited to academically at-risk students) were that the students:
Did not have a diagnosed learning disability (for ethical reasons outlined in Section 3.7);
Had provided verbal consent to participate in the study; and
Had received written consent to participate in the study from a parent or legal guardian.
88
All of the students who fulfilled this criterion and were present on the day of administration were included in the sample. Administration of each survey to a total of 609 students was conducted on two separate days. Given that some students were not present on either one of the administration days, a matched sample was used consisting of only those students who were present on both days. 609 students responded on the first day and, due to absences, 583 students responded on the second day, providing a reduced sample of 574 students.
This sampling method provided a sample of 574 students, 283 of whom were male and 291 of whom were female. A total of 170 of the students were identified as at risk (according to the identification protocols detailed in Section 3.4.4), and 404 of the students were not at risk. The sample included 158 students in 11 year 4 classes, 252 students in 11 year 5 classes, and 164 students in nine year 6 classes. Table 3.2 provides a breakdown of the 574 students included in the sample.
Table 3.2. Breakdown of students in the sample according to gender and ability
Gender / Ability
Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total
(11 classes) (11 classes) (9 classes) (31 classes)
Male 83 121 79 283
Female 75 131 85 291
At-risk 31 68 71 170
Above minimum standard 127 184 93 404
Total 158 252 164 574
N = 574
3.4.4 Identification of At-Risk Students
For the purposes of this study, the Australian National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results were used to determine whether a student was considered to be academically at risk. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is an independent statutory authority that manages the implementation of the national curriculum, nationwide student assessment, and reporting of educational outcomes at a school level. ACARA has responsibility for the
89
development, implementation and reporting of the NAPLAN assessment. The NAPLAN assessments are administered annually to all Australian students in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 and test skills that are considered to be essential to progress through school and life (ACARA, n.d.). Students are assessed in reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation, and numeracy. Reading, writing, and numeracy results were used to determine whether students were at or below the minimum standard and therefore academically at-risk for the purposes of the present study, as these were determined by the researcher to be the three core assessment scales given that the other two scales, spelling and grammar and punctuation, are skills within the writing process.
To make judgements about students’ achievement and expected performance, ACARA has set a minimum national standard for each assessment in the form of a specific point of reference or benchmark on the assessment scale (Klenowski & Wyatt- Smith, 2010). Each of the NAPLAN assessment scales (reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation, and numeracy) is divided into ten hypothetical bands. These bands cover the entire range of student achievement for that assessment with band 1 representing the highest group of scores and band 10 representing the lowest. Each band contains a range of scores and the national minimum standard is represented by a particular band at each year level. In the NAPLAN results, each student is identified as being above, at, or below the minimum standard for each NAPLAN area. The NAPLAN minimum standards provide an indication of the level of learning that students should typically exhibit by a given point in their schooling (ACARA, n.d.). Students who fall below the minimum standard in a particular area, have not achieved the expected learning outcomes for their year level. Hence, they are at risk of being unable to make appropriate progress without some form of intervention (Brinkman et al, 2013) and are at an educational disadvantage (Louden, Chan, Elkins, & Greaves, 2000). For the purposes of this study, academically at-risk students were defined as those students who performed either at or below the minimum standard in their year 3 or year 5 reading, writing, and/or numeracy NAPLAN tests.
The criterion of identifying students who scored below the NAPLAN minimum standard as being at risk was selected for the present study as this criterion indicates that these students have not achieved the expected outcomes for their year level. Students who scored at the standard were also determined to be at risk for two reasons.
90
First, the standard is a minimum requirement, that is, the lowest point of acceptable attainment. Second, it is difficult to ensure that students who may be at this minimum standard will not slip below the standard without additional support, particularly students who score towards the bottom of the minimum standard band or range of scores.
For ethical reasons (as outlined in Section 3.7), students with diagnosed learning disabilities were not included in the sample for the present study. Although such students were likely to meet the criteria of performing at or below the minimum NAPLAN standard, they were excluded from the sample for three reasons. First, a student’s learning disability could potentially mean that they were unable to adequately read and comprehend the survey questions. Second, these students may have experienced distress due to difficulties in comprehending and completing the questionnaire. Finally, students with significant learning disabilities are often granted exemption from completing the NAPLAN assessments, resulting in a lack of assessment data; consequently, it would not have been possible to determine whether or not such students met the sample criterion for this study.
As described in Section 3.4.3, from the sample of 574 students, 170 students were identified as being academically at risk and 404 as being not at risk. Of the 170 at-risk students, 94 were male and 76 were female. Thirty-one of the at-risk students were in year 4 (14 male and 17 female), 68 in year 5 (42 male and 26 female), and 71 in year 6 (38 male and 33 female). Table 3.3 provides a breakdown of the at-risk students included in the sample based on gender and year level.
Table 3.3. Breakdown of at-risk students in the study sample based on gender and year level
Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total
At-Risk Male 14 42 38 94
At-Risk Female 17 26 33 76
91
The data from the sample of 178 at-risk students, that is, students who scored at or below the national minimum standard in their reading, writing or numeracy NAPLAN results, were utilised in the present study to assess whether learning environment perceptions and outcomes (in terms of self-efficacy, enjoyment of class, and enjoyment of ICT) differ for at-risk students compared to those of students who were not considered to be at-risk (and therefore addressing research objective 6).