Integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods to examine student resistance to active learning

ABSTRACT Engineering education researchers are increasingly integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods to study learning and retention in engineering. While quantitative methods can provide generalisable results, qualitative methods generate rich, descriptive understanding of the investigated phenomenon. On the other hand, a mixed methods approach provides benefits of the two approaches by incorporating them in a single study. However, engineering faculty often faces difficulty in integrating qualitative and quantitative methods and designs in their education research. This article discusses mixed methods in the context of an actual ongoing engineering education research project investigating student resistance to active learning. We describe the research design in phases that show the integration of quantitative and qualitative results, and how these data sources can help influence the direction of the research and triangulate findings. Our mixed method research experience highlights the importance of thinking iteratively between qualitative and quantitative data sources during the instrument development process.

[1]  Catherine T. Amelink,et al.  Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education , 2009 .

[2]  Maura Borrego,et al.  A content analysis of the use of mixed methods studies in engineering education , 2010 .

[3]  E. Douglas,et al.  State of Qualitative Research in Engineering Education: Meta‐Analysis of JEE Articles, 2005–2006 , 2008 .

[4]  J. P. Mohsen,et al.  Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education , 2009 .

[5]  Patricia Kearney,et al.  An attributional analysis of college students' resistance decisions , 1991 .

[6]  S. Haynes,et al.  Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. , 1995 .

[7]  Katharine Semsar,et al.  How Not to Lose Your Students with Concept Maps. , 2011 .

[8]  Matthew T. Hora,et al.  Instructional Systems of Practice: A Multidimensional Analysis of Math and Science Undergraduate Course Planning and Classroom Teaching , 2013 .

[9]  Rachel Louis Kajfez,et al.  A Mixed Methods Analysis and Evaluation of the Mixed Methods Research Literature in Engineering Education , 2014 .

[10]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  Factors that influence faculty motivation of effective teaching practices in engineering , 2013 .

[11]  J. Armstrong,et al.  Are Student Ratings of Instruction Useful? , 2005 .

[12]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Do They See It Coming? Using Expectancy Violation to Gauge the Success of Pedagogical Reforms. , 2010 .

[13]  M. Patton.  Qualitative research and evaluation methods , 1980 .

[14]  Prateek Shekhar,et al.  Student Perceptions of Instructional Change in Engineering Courses: A Pilot Study , 2014 .

[15]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[16]  Maura Borrego,et al.  From Ethnography to Items , 2013 .

[17]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Construct validity in psychological tests. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  Maryellen Weimer,et al.  Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice , 2013 .

[19]  M. Ishtiaq.  Book Review Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 2019, English Language Teaching.

[20]  Jeffrey E. Froyd,et al.  Estimates of Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Electrical or Computer Engineering Courses , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[21]  Valerie J. Caracelli,et al.  Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs , 1989 .

[22]  E. McColl.  Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design , 2006, Quality of Life Research.

[23]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[24]  Prateek Shekhar,et al.  Development of an observation protocol to study undergraduate engineering student resistance to active learning , 2015 .

[25]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[26]  A. Onwuegbuzie,et al.  Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come , 2004 .

[28]  Prateek Shekhar,et al.  Creating an Instrument to Measure Student Response to Instructional Practices , 2017 .

[29]  Anette Kolmos,et al.  RESEARCH METHODS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION RESEARCH , 2010 .

[30]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Chemical Engineering Courses. , 2013 .

[31]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Introduction to the SCALE-UP (Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs) Project , 2003 .

[32]  M Sandelowski,et al.  Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. , 2000, Research in nursing & health.

[33]  C. Koermer,et al.  Expectancy violation and student rating of instruction , 1991 .