El concepto de cultura

The first purpose of this study was to outline characteristics of curricula that ideally support learning with understanding (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p.8), as it relates to primary children’s app-mediated learning of early algebra concepts. The second purpose of this study was to use qualitative content analysis to describe the ways in which, and the general extent to which, the curricular components of three current iOS, mathematics education apps for primary children, compare with the “ideal” characteristics of curricula, I previously outlined. To this end, my research questions are as follows:

1. What curricular characteristics ideally support primary children’s potential to learn early algebra concepts “with understanding”, through multi-touch, mobile, iOS mathematics education apps?

2. To what extent do three, multi-touch, mobile, mathematics education, iOS apps reflect curricular characteristics that ideally support primary children’s potential to learn early algebra concepts “with understanding”?

To answer these questions, I adopted a qualitative approach to this research. In general, the use of a qualitative approach in study enables a person to interpret covert material by allowing for the exploration of personal and social meaning. Specifically, I aimed to analyze certain “textual” meanings of multi-touch, mobile iOS software applications (apps). Hence, to

accomplish the kind of descriptive analysis I was seeking, on the specific content of my research interest, I utilized a method of research called Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA).

QCA is a systematic method for “describing the meaning of qualitative material”

(Scherier, 2012, p. 1). It is an established empirical method of study, calling for the creation of a coding frame that contains categories, definitions, examples, and indicators, and later, the application of these descriptors to the material of focus. This type of approach enables a

researcher to focus on the contextual particulars of a situation, and study a phenomenon in depth (Schreier, 2012, p. 28), and often, across multiple descriptive facets. In this study, because of the latent nature of the meanings within the multi-modal texts (verbal, visual, conceptual), and my desire to focus on the contextual particulars of the texts, qualitative content analysis (QCA) offered a fitting methodological choice.

Qualitative content analysis (QCA), differs from other qualitative methodologies, in that, it requires a researcher to assign every relevant unit of coding taken from the material to at least one subcategory of the coding frame during analysis (Schreier, 2012) [see Exhaustiveness]. This diverges slightly from other qualitative approaches that ask the researcher to abstract themes from data, but not necessarily to divide all relevant data into units of coding and classify each unit. Additionally, QCA differs in its aim to reduce data instead of offering expanded views (Schreier, 2012, p. 7). While this characteristic is also found in forms of reductive coding

(Schreier, 2012, p. 38), other qualitative approaches tend to use coding as a conceptual device or otherwise aim to “open up” expanded meanings of texts (Schreier, 2012, p. 39; also see Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Saldaña, 2009). Thus, in QCA, the description of analytical findings is typically expressed in a way that is less narrative than other forms of qualitative research, and which provides qualitative description, at least partially, through the extent to which the text

material satisfies categories of the coding frame.In other words, in QCA, the detailed description that tends to be a cherished part of qualitative research is typically found within the categories, definitions, examples, and indicators of the coding frame, instead of within verbose narrative passages.

In some ways, QCA differs from other types of qualitative analysis, such as in its use of traditional quantitative criteria for assessing the quality of the coding frame (e.g., validity, reliability), but as a method it shares most similarities with qualitative approaches. First, as in all forms of qualitative study, QCA researchers do not attempt to infer that patterns interpreted from the phenomenon under study, apply to a larger population or other phenomena. Second, the aims of QCA do not center on frequency counts of highly discernable content, as found in quantitative approaches to content analysis. Instead, QCA researchers seek to “systematically describe the meaning of qualitative material… by classifying (its) parts… as instances of the categories of a coding frame” (Schreier, 2012, p. 8).

Although, as in most qualitative research, the findings of a QCA are never presented as the only interpretation of meaning, they are meant to represent the conclusions of those who share the perspective of the researcher (Schreier, 2012, p. 34). As such, a primary objective of a systematic analysis like QCA is to help a researcher not only exceed his or her own current understanding (Scherier, 2012, p. 6), but also to represent the viewpoint of peers who share the researcher’s perspective. This is achieved in QCA by the researcher’s adherence to a step-by-step process that leads him or her to generate well-defined categories and definitions that are typically both concept-driven and data-driven, and to conduct a data analysis using these categories. Additionally, in both the category generation phase and the data analysis phase, the researcher consults like-minded peers to check for reliability. Likewise, to ensure peers share the

perspective of the researcher, as well as to safeguard readers’ authentic vicarious experience of the case, the researcher’s thinking and beliefs are made as transparent as possible.