 |
Technology in Interpretation Results: Focus Groups with Students |
|||||
|
Please choose a topic below for more information:
Focus groups were chosen to analyze students’ attitudes and impressions toward the technology training. Since the instruction methods were so different between the training modules, two separate focus groups were planned: one for the desktop publishing module, and one for the digital presentation module. All 46 students that had participated in either module were invited to attend a focus group session. Seventeen students from the desktop publishing training and 15 students from the PowerPoint training agreed to take part in a discussion. Seven of those students received both training modules, and agreed to participate in both focus group sessions. Therefore, 25 of the 46 students, or about 54%, contributed to the effectiveness analysis of the technology training. Two other students, that could not join a focus group due to scheduling conflicts, agreed to fill out a questionnaire with their thoughts and suggestions. Originally, 4 digital presentation focus groups and 3 desktop publishing focus groups were planned during the week of April 1 to April 5. Due to scheduling conflicts with other classes and activities, the Friday sessions were cancelled. Ultimately, 3 digital presentation and 2 desktop publishing focus groups were conducted with group sizes ranging from 4 to 13 participants. Only the one focus group with 13 participants went outside of the original acceptable range of 3 to 10. This was necessary, however, to overcome the limitations of student schedules and obtain the maximum amount of participation. The complete listing of participants and focus group dates is included in Appendix C. Coding of
Transcripts and Importance The focus group discussions were recorded, and the researcher transcribed the tapes during the week of April 8-12. To analyze these comments more effectively, the statements were grouped according to similar content. Forty coding categories were identified for the desktop publishing module, while 30 were identified for the digital presentation module. The coded transcripts for both modules are listed in Appendix C. To make appropriate recommendations for the technology training, the categories needed to be organized by importance. In essence, the most important comments or suggestions would be given more weight when creating the recommendation list. The importance of a category was designated through two primary criteria. First, the researcher had identified important research questions before the focus groups were conducted, as witnessed in the question guides (Figure 1 and 3). The researcher was searching for answers to these specific questions, which seemed to be essential components of the effectiveness analysis. However, one of the major advantages of a focus group is the ability of participants to identify topics that the researcher had not considered. The second criterion of importance was the amount of discussion about a central topic or theme. The more participants talked about a certain subject, the more likely that the topic was something very important to them.
|
||||||
| Introduction | ||||||
| Related Readings | ||||||
| Results | ||||||
| Thesis | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For More Information, contact: Jim Buchholz Schmeeckle Reserve University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (715) 346-4992 jbuchhol@uwsp.edu
|
All pictures and text are copyrighted by Jim Buchholz, 2002. No part of this website may be duplicated without written permission of the author. | ||||
