The Likert-scale survey provided an interesting complement to the interview data, in that the responses were not always directly aligned with the comments or responses made by the participant during the interview. This study was focused on the parent’s perceptions of the IPRC process, and what became clear during the interview was the fact that perceptions of a situation are dependent on numerous factors. Having the participant return the survey in advance of the interview would provide the research an opportunity to review the responses and be alert to any questions which might require a follow up prompt for clarification during the interview. 

     During the analysis portion of the study, the qualitative and quantitative data, including the documents which provided both types of data, brought out questions and in some cases discrepancies in the participant’s responses. It is because of the complementarity of the two measures that they were able to bring forward these anomalies. In their response to questions in the Likert-scale, the participant agreed that the placement decision made by the team (IPRC team) was appropriate and also agreed that the team made an effort to understand their child. However, in another statement, they provided a neutral response regarding their feelings towards their satisfaction with the outcome of the meeting. By having the qualitative data to put this information together with, the researcher could speculate that perhaps this was the related to their lack of comfort asking questions during the meeting. 

​

Lessons Learned

     Conducting a pilot study provided an opportunity to not only determine if changes were necessary to the interview protocol based on participant feedback, but also to allow for the researcher to implement the entire study methodology and reflect on the process. Lessons learned in this process were both takeaways for improvement in the future as well as reflections on aspects which were successful and merit replication. To ensure that the questions are more focused and targeted to answer the research questions, have the survey questions (even though they would be more general in nature) target some of the same topics and issues addressed by the interview questions.

     Although this pilot study only required a small sample, it became very evident that finding participants who met the criteria was a significant challenge. This is a low-incidence population and as such it is difficult to reach the target population and find families willing to participant. In future, expanding the methods of sample collection outside of a social media search, would be necessary. 

     In situations where it will be possible, having the survey returned to the researcher prior to the interview will provide time to incorporate questions which may arise from the data into the interview probes. If data collected during the interview are incongruent with information from the survey, clarity can be achieved during the interview rather than at a later date. In addition, increasing the breadth of descriptive survey questions will provide a richer understanding of the participant. Increasing the survey data collected to ensure that it is sufficient improves the complementarity of the quantitative and qualitative data. This was all brought together and became increasingly important when triangulating the data to substantiate the reliability.  

     Data were collected about the age of diagnosis for both hearing loss and autism. The survey did not offer a space to add any other diagnosed learning challenges or disabilities. There are many syndromes and disorders which occur comorbidly with hearing loss (Cejas et al., 2015) and as such there would be an increased likelihood that the children of the participants in this study could potentially have additional needs. Providing space for the addition of other learning challenges or disabilities would have been helpful in this study and in the researcher’s upcoming dissertation. Any additional challenges or learning needs also need to be considered when reflecting on the parents’ perceptions of the IPRC meeting. Placement decisions reflect a student’s exceptionalities. When there are multiple exceptionalities to consider, there are implications, as was noted by the participant during the interview. 

..it was pretty interesting because the resource teacher just sent me an email and said, hey, um, so what do, what diagnostic (exceptionality) do you want to see on the IEP and the IPRC? and I’m like, excuse me?… And she says, yeah, like we can only put two.

     Conducting research requires strict protocols and the need for consistency between participants became obvious, regardless of the fact that this study had a sample of one. Documents provided by the participant in this study were a useful data source. While documents were requested by the researcher at the outset of the study, and suggestions were made, there were no requirements. This has the potential to lead to variations between the materials shared by the participants in the researcher’s upcoming dissertation. Comparing the data and analyzing the results will be challenging without a similar set of documents shared.

       Throughout this process, the value of the collaboration between the researcher and participant became increasingly evident. This was particularly essential when conducting an investigation guided by the epistemological stance in which reality is co-created. Developing a strong rapport with the participant was a useful tool in establishing the collaborative process (Creswell & Poth, 2018). It was also beneficial in improving the validity of the study.

​

Study Limitations

     There are inherent limitations when conducting an action research pilot study. The most obvious limitation which resulted from the study design was the sample size of one. While this typically would limit the ability to generalize any results, this is not an issue as the intent of the study was to pilot the interview protocol in an effort to determine if changes were necessary. The results from this study will serve to inform the researcher’s upcoming dissertation which will include a larger sample. Regardless of the sample size, the characteristics of the particular participant would also make generalizing the results not possible. Another factor which separates this participant would be the repeated exposure to the initial IPRC process as a parent. As a result of having moved to different school boards, there were multiple initial IPRCs. Each subsequent meeting attendance would increase the participant’s learning curve. 

     The effect of maturation may have affected the participant’s ability to recall the details of all the IPRC meetings, particularly the very first one which took place 12 years prior to the time of the interview (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The documents shared by the participant were helpful in counteracting the effects of maturation. The results could also be limited by the participant’s role as an educator in the field of deaf education and special education. Her position would likely have given her knowledge about the IPRC process, which other parents of DHH/ASD children would not have been able to access. 

The Canadian context of the study does not limit the relevance of the perspective shared by the participant however, it should be taken into consideration as the regulations of the IPRC meeting differ in some ways from the IEP meeting in the United States. 

 

Potential Implications for Practice

     According to the rates reported, the number of children being diagnosed with autism continues to increase (CDC, 2021). The rates of hearing loss in children are harder to confirm, however it is possible to extrapolate that given the rise in autism, the number of children who have hearing loss and also have autism will increase as well. This action research pilot study directly focused on addressing an issue within this community and attempted to illuminate the need for change. Several potential implications resulted from the implementation of this study. 

     This study brings to light issues and inequities which exist within a process central to the education of students within the special education program. The participant discussed her various levels of satisfaction among the different IPRC meetings within the different school boards. The school boards, although all operating under the same provincial Ministry of Education, function with a notable degree of difference. There is a reasonable expectation that within the province, the school boards should have a more unified and consistent process. Creating a streamlined IPRC process which applies to all boards, including paperwork, will allow for ease of transfer between school boards and increased accountability. 

     The need to inform and educate members of the IPRC teams so that they have a basic understanding of the exceptionalities they encounter is imperative. The participant in this study shared her experiences when dealing with school personnel and team members who did not understand her child’s exceptionalities or strengths and needs. Providing professional development in this area as well as in how to create a collaborative parent/school relationship would serve the school and the child well in the decision-making process. 

     The IPRC team members should be regularly reminded and educated regarding working and collaborating with families for whom English may not be their first language. Regardless of whether or not parents or caregivers are able to converse in English, they are still entitled to an interpreter if they feel that the language of the meeting is not within their comfort zone. 

​

Implications for Upcoming Dissertation

            Many insights were gained from conducting this action research pilot study. Based on both participant feedback and experience having implemented the study, aspects of the protocol will be altered in preparation for the researcher’s upcoming dissertation. In addition to the survey and interview protocol, other aspects of the larger study will require adjustments as a result of issues which required further attention. 

         In addition to the research questions which had been posed during this study, other questions and topics became relevant and interconnected with the topic. The researcher became aware that despite the fact that Ontario school boards are all under the jurisdiction of the same Ministry of Education, there variations in how each interprets and implement the regulations and laws. Adding this to the focus of the dissertation by way of including participants from multiple boards of education, would allow for the comparison of the various IPRC processes. 

     Although not a specific topic of the current research, it became clear as the participant shared her experiences, that her child had moved through multiple school placements. This experience is not in keeping with the results noted in Kurth et al. (2015) where they found that students typically stayed in a placement once a decision was made. In the upcoming research collecting information about educational placements and the journey from the time of the initial IPRC until present will be valuable to informing change. 

     The researcher noted the added value that would have been gained from having collected the same language data from another caregiver in the child’s life who might have been present at the IPRC. Should another parent/caregiver be in attendance as well, it would be useful to collect information on the language they are most comfortable communicating in, and whether they require or prefer an interpreter. In the current study, although the child’s father attended the IPRC meetings, he was not part of this study and so he did not contribute to the interview. Unlike the participant, his first language is not French and so perhaps his responses regarding the language questions would have been different. In the researcher’s upcoming dissertation, collecting additional information on language as well as family culture will aid in providing a richer understanding of the participants and perhaps allow for some connections to be made regarding the implications of social and cultural capital.

     In order to maintain consistency between the participants, it is necessary to ensure that the materials collected are all similar. This will allow for comparisons to be made between the participants and allow for data analysis. In the current study, documents were requested from general categories but the option of what the participant wanted to share was left open. In the upcoming dissertation, providing a set checklist of documents will create parity and ease of analysis. Documents over and above the requested ones would be welcomed but not required. 

     In addition to this, it would be beneficial to collect more specific information about what materials the parents brought to the meetings, such as audiograms, reports from doctors, as well as specific information about the materials shared with them by the school before the meeting. Whenever possible, it would be helpful to have families share a copy, although the researcher is aware that many families might no longer have those documents. 

     A final area which was overlooked during this study but is exceptionally relevant given the fact that the focus is on parents of children with hearing loss and autism, is the actual severity of the hearing loss and the level of support needed related to the autism. Both of those factors should have been collected as part of the survey data so that the opportunity could exist to reflect on the connection between it and factors involved in placement decisions or assignments of exceptionality. Although based on the information provided by the participant during the interviews, the placement decisions were based on whatever was available rather than the most suitable placement. Going forward in future research, it would be valuable to examine any possible connections between the decision and the student characteristics. 

​

​