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.

Blog #3: Selecting a Topic and Identifying Literature  

After reading Galvan’s chapters 3 and 4 about selecting a topic and analyzing literature, I researched several different databases for scholarly materials. I found that the class session with the librarian helped me immensely when using the databases. Initially, was able to generate a listing of over 100 articles; then I narrowed the keyword and descriptors to refine my search.

I chose two peer-reviewed articles about technology integration in foreign language instruction and responded to the blog questions.

Article #1:

Diaz, A. R., & Hortiguera, H. (2016). TELL-ING IT LIKE IT IS: Practical implications from a critical stance on technology-enhanced language learning. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 22(1), 54-79.

Article #2:

Veerappan, V., Wei, H. S., Wong, S. P., & Paramasivam, S. (2014). Mobile assisted teaching and learning in an institute of higher education. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(1), 68-79.

Question 1. Both articles included a summary of the literature review in the beginning. Veerappan et al (2014) had an identified sub-heading section. However, Diaz and Hortiguera (2016) did not identify a section for a literature review, but referenced sources at the beginning and throughout the article. Diaz and Hortiguera (2016) did not have a “methods” section. Their experiment was an action research investigation where the professors were updating and changing the focus to support intended goals. On the other hand, Veerappan et al (2014) presented their aim or hypothesis as research questions at the end of the introduction section and prior to the literature review. Diaz and Hortiguera (2016) argued the methodological gaps between teaching Spanish in the traditional F2F style and integrating technology that could be adapted to suit individual professors’ teaching preferences. Their action research activities outlined efforts to meet teaching and learning needs. Veerappan et al (2014) investigated the readiness of professors and students for using mobile devices during instruction.

Question 2. Using categories and sub-categories, I created an outline for describing my topic.

I. Technology integration in foreign languages

A. Technology-enhanced language learning (TEL)

a) CALL (computer-assisted language learning)

b) MALL (mobile-assisted language learning)

II. Universal design for instruction/learning

A.   Learning (dis)abilities, styles and preferences

B.   Curricula redesign

C.   Instructional methods and strategies

Question 3. I am continuing to refine and sharpen my outline to select my articles to read first. My initial reading list is comprehensive. As I continue to research, I find newer articles updating previous research and/or presenting innovations related to my topic.