Researcher With Andrew example essay topic

Manchester University MEd Educational Psychology Student Registration Number: 440880 MD 699 Research Issues in Psychology Critical Review of a Research Article Pupils who exhibit gifted characteristics along with another disability are referred to as 'twice-exceptional students' (Morrison, 2001; Nielsen 2002). This term is used in the article that I have chosen to review, which analyses the responses and perceptions through interview, of one particular individual (Andrew) who was identified as being gifted and talented (G / T) and who had emotional and behaviour al disabilities (EBD). What the researchers aimed to accomplish through this analysis was a clearer understanding of Andrew's community and school experiences, as they stated that there was a lack of empirical data focusing upon pupils who displayed such behaviour's. The features of the research design were straightforward and simple: a qualitative analysis with one participant; a structured interview, recorded then later transcribed and analysed to produce 3 themes; a conclusion which produced findings of Andrew's experiences as a twice-exceptional student.

It is the appropriateness of the methods that were used in this study which will inform my first critique of this article. I will then move on to discuss the data which was collected, before finally examining how effective the conclusion is. Morrison and Omdal chose to include only one participant in their study, which compares quite significantly to the research of others in similar areas that have included a greater number of participants (Gross, 1994; Sankar-DeLeeuw, 2004; Howe et al, 1998). This particular participant, named under the pseudonym of Andrew, was 22 years of age when he consented to partake in the research. A brief description of his formidable successes both academic and socially, pointed out that he was currently employed as a 'permanent substitute teacher' (p. 2). The reader is immediately drawn to a young man who has accomplished and triumphed against his 'disabilities'; instantly gaining the respect of the readers' as his successes show strength of character and determination.

Surely then questions must arise about the validity of using such a small, select sample. Can the quality of data that has been gathered be representative of the population (Cohen et al 20002) of twice-exceptional students? It is my assumption that no, it cannot. Especially since the chosen participant is a teacher reflecting upon his educational experiences that occurred some years ago. The fact that he was in the teaching profession, immediately infers that there may be some bias in his reflections during the interview.

Teaching, according to the Teacher's Training Agency, ". ... is a job for those who like and respect young people" (2005). Andrew clearly from his responses, suffered during his schooling, and perhaps felt disrespected as a result of being labelled. His position as an educator a number of years later, enable him to look quite critically upon his educators, almost, one could argue with an expert eye. As well as the questions which are raised about the size of the sample that was used, it is also necessary to point out the lack of detail present concerning how the sample was chosen. Andrew's reflective experiences several years after they occurred surely cannot be as valid as for example, a sample of children displaying twice-exceptional abilities within schools at the time of commencing the research. Perhaps Morrison and Omdal had valid reasons for choosing Andrew as their lone participant, but this detail is missing from their study.

There is no evidence either to suggest whether Andrew was de-briefed about the nature of this study, which could prove significant with regard to his responses to the interview questions, especially as he talks with such fervour about his experiences. Since they only had one participant for this research, an interview was an appropriate method to gain access to Andrew's experiences in school and in the community. An interview as stated in Cohen et al (2002)", [is] an interchange of views between two or more people on a topic of mutual interest... ". (p. 267). In this study there was no deficit in the amount of data collected by the questions asked by the researcher, with Andrew providing 'depth and clarification' (p. 3) in some replies.

The findings that the researchers identified (p. 3) form the next part of my critique. The themes which were found through analysis of the data compare to other researchers who find that gifted children in particular suffer from various social vulnerabilities as a result of their special needs (Porter, 1999; Lovecky 1992; Schuler 2003). What strikes me about some of the data is the bias which comes across from Andrew's reflections. He states, "They uprooted me and put me in a classroom because of my behaviour instead of trying to deal with the behaviour in the classroom" (p. 3). The researchers analyse this as being the participant's anger and frustration towards his labelled disabilities.

He then goes on to describe, "I don't remember a single thing that we did in there that I considered as being educational" (p. 3). Were these statements an actuality of what he would have stated at the time in question, or were they the result of his ability to reflect from a teacher's perspective? Nevertheless the statements he makes, which are often quite controversial e.g. "We did not learn about math or science that I recall" (p. 3), do seem to be conducive to the type of evidence that the researchers may have required to support their preconceived ideas. Andrew's reflections of feeling like an 'outsider in his neighbourhood' (p. 4), as a result of his placement into a specific program for children with his needs, corresponds with authors such as Louise Porter who states that the consequences of low peer acceptance can lead to feelings of loneliness and feelings of isolation, "isolated children have fewer supports for coping with the daily stresses of life, and less confidence in and experience at eliciting support from others" (1999, p. 154). It can be argued therefore that Andrew's experiences were similar to that of other children with his needs, especially that of children who manipulate the system to 'fit-in's o that they appear normal amongst their peers (Ablard, 1997). According to Morrison and Omdal, Andrew taught himself coping strategies in order to control and banish, "a world where he manipulated and blamed others for the events of his life" (p. 5).

As we know, Andrew became successful and was able to integrate socially back into the community. What strikes me about his successes is that the researchers fail to offer any guidance as to how Andrew actually achieved this. Was it purely through perseverance and a strong desire? Or were there any interventions suggested by teachers or parents? If another twice-exceptional student were to read this article, they could perceive it as both inspiring and frustrating. In other words, they could empathize with the issues raised by Andrew, but might be confused as to what he actually did to turn his life around.

The discussion that follows highlights that Andrew demonstrated resilience by confronting events and making careful decisions that would benefit his situations. Porter (1999) points out that less than half of the most high-risk children, who experience a number of social traumas and stressor's, go on to endure adjustment problems as adults, this, ". ... is often attributed to their 'resilience' " (p. 141). Interestingly the discussion then continues to say, that 'Andrew viewed his behaviour's as a choice', this is significant as many researchers would argue that this would be difficult to achieve without the assistance of external support. As stated his twice-exceptional behaviour was a direct result of the combination of being G / T and having EBD, coupled with being labelled as such from an early age (although the actual age is missing from the study). Individuals who have EBD can display symptoms such as, "the inability to learn, relationship problems, inappropriate behavior, unhappiness or depression, and physical symptoms or fears" (Cullinan et al, 2004). Whereas individuals labelled as G / T can demonstrate symptoms such as perfectionism, the fear of failure, feelings of inadequacy and isolation and depression (Plucker et al, 2001).

Margi Nowak (2001) claims that being given a label, is like having a defence strategy, validating the children's right to be different both at an intellectual and social level. In some cases, it is the parents who enforce the labelling of the child, so that they may be ability grouped or receive additional support in the hope that they avoid being seen as social outsiders and to protect themselves from anxieties and stress. Nowak also argues that some parents use the label to protect themselves from criticism of their parenting (2001). Morrison and Omdal here, in my opinion fail to reach the needs of their potential readers, by almost creating a false image of how one can overcome such personal obstacles: 'by choice'.

Indeed for some sufferers this may seem an overwhelming option; therefore it may have been more appropriate for them to have acknowledged that the help of outside agencies may be required in some instances for some individuals. This piece of research certainly highlights some of the difficulties which a twice-exceptional student may encounter in school or in the community, with Andrew's responses providing a detailed account of his personal experiences. What the research fails to do is substantiate these issues within its method and design. Morrison and Omdal rely too heavily on Andrew's account, whose situation in life at the time of the research may have exerted an influence upon his judgement's concerning his experiences; rather they could have taken a more objective stance by interviewing a larger sample, thus enabling the data to be more reliable and valid (Cohen et al, 2000). Reliance upon the data shaped by one individuals account, without acknowledging that this may form a biased opinion within the data, could be seen as a definite limitation, as it does not satisfy the reader that they have considered the possibility of alternative methods. Perhaps there were budgetary constraints forcing them to work within rigid boundaries; perhaps they had difficulty finding appropriate candidates to partake in the study.

Whatever the motives behind their decisions is difficult to tell. What could be encouraged in further research is to broaden the sample size, extend the age range, and perhaps incorporate a form of longitudinal research, which would employ the tracking of certain pupils from one year to the next. This would enable researchers to ascertain how students cope with their twice-exceptional behaviour, and the different methods that they deploy to survive in schools and within the community.

Bibliography

Ablard, K. E (1997) Self-perceptions and needs as a function of type of academic ability and gender.
Roeper Review, vs. 20 n 2 p 110 (6). Cohen, L, Mani on, L & Morrison, K (2000) Research Methods in Education, Routledge, London.
Cullinan, D. & Sabor nie, E.J. (2004) Characteristics of emotional disturbance in middle and high school students, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Vol 12 (3), 157-167.
Gross, M.U. M (1994) Factors in the social adjustment and social acceptability of extremely gifted children, web social / Gross FactorsInTheSocialAdjustment.
shtml Howe, J. A; Davidson, J. W & Sloboda, J. A (1998) Innate talents: Reality or myth? , Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21,399-442 Lovecky, D.
V. (1992) Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children, Roeper Review, 15 (1) 18-25.
Morrison WF & Omdal SN (2000) The Twice Exceptional Student, Reclaiming Children and Youth, vs.
9 i 2 p 103 Morrison, F (2001) Emotional / Behavioural disabilities and gifted and talented behaviour's: Paradoxical or semantic differences in characteristics? , Psychology in the Schools, Vol.
38 (5), 2001 Nielsen, M.
E. (2002) Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities: recommendations for Identification and Programming, Exceptional ity Vol.
10 (2), 93-111 Nowak, M (2001) Double Inequity, Redoubled Critique: Twice-Exceptional (Gifted + Learning Disabled) Students, the Equality Ideal, and the Reward Structure of the Educational System web Plucker, J.
A. & Levy, J. J (2001) The Downside of Being Talented, American Psychologist, Vol 56 (1) 75-76 Porter, L (1999) Gifted Young Children - A guide for teachers and parents Open University Press, Buckingham Sankar-DeLeeuw, N (2004) Case studies of gifted kindergarten children: profiles of promise.
On Gifted Students in School) Roeper Review, vs. 26 i 4 p 192 (16) Schuler, P.A. (2003) Gifted kids at risk: Who's listening? , web social / Schuler GiftedKidsAtRiskWhosListening.