Evaluating qualitative research

Blog #4

Galvan, chapter 6 - Analyzing Qualitative  Research Literature

Article:

Gikas, J. & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones,smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002

Gikas and Grant (2013) completed a qualitative research study exploring MLearning strategies and using mobile computing devices. They studied a focus group of university students and their perceptions of using their hand-held devices and the impact of social media during mobile learning. For the study, the researchers used a purposive sample of university professors and students implementing mobile devices in teaching and learning. Gikas and Grant conducted a maximum variation sample to differentiate student characteristics and demographics. Participants were described as undergraduate and graduate students in history, social work and communications courses. The criteria for professors were that they taught in a four-year university, implemented M-learning for instruction for at least 2 semesters, and used mobile devices to facilitate teaching.  Students for the focus group were invited electronically by their professors via email and interviewed on Skype.

Qualitative data analysis was based on three rounds of inductive analysis through constant comparisons. The researchers collected the data and coded it for connections to develop themes and categories of the rich descriptions. To ensure trustworthiness of the data, Gikasand Grant (2013) applied three strategies: review interview transcripts with the participants, peer debriefing, and an audit trail. The researchers reported two specific themes related to information access. Findings revealed participant satisfaction with advantages of using mobile devices for fast communication and content collaboration. However, they expressed frustration regarding anti-technology professors, device challenges and connectivity, and devices as a distraction during teaching and learning.

Although the study was interesting and useful for Mlearning, the major flaw was the small sample size. Considering the data collected,Gikas and Grant (2013) could build upon this study using a mixed methods approach. The categories and themes could become part of questionnaires and surveys, with an in-depth follow-up to explore additional data not included. This methodology could allow for generalizability as the sample size would be larger. There is much-needed research for implementing MLearning in higher education.