EL SÉXTUPLE PROPÓSITO DE LA VISITA DE GABRIEL A DANIEL

My research relies on a Mixed Methods research approach involving quantitative

and qualitative data. Hughes and Hayhoe (2007) describe mixed methods approach as

using more than one research method in one research project. Like many other

composition researchers, I use typical quantitative and qualitative techniques to gather my

data. For instance, my study, similar to Martinez, Kock, and Cass’s study (2011) and

Pajares, Johnson, and Usher’s study (2007) uses a survey instrument to gather quantitative

data, and like Carroll’s (2002) and Cox’s studies (2009), my study uses students’ recorded

and transcribed conversations to gather qualitative data. These methods were good to use

for my study for several reasons: 1) the survey allowed me to learn how a large group of

FYC students thought about and felt about FYC; thus, the survey allowed me to gather

“breadth” of data. From the survey I was able to understand FYC students generally; 2) the

27

focus groups allowed me to learn detailed information regarding how students thought

about and felt about FYC; thus, the focus groups generated “depth” of data. In other words,

the focus groups allowed me to learn a lot about what a smaller group of students thought

and felt specifically about FYC and why. Using only quantitative data collection methods

would not have provided the “depth” that I wanted, and using only qualitative data

collection methods would not have provided the “breadth” that I wanted.

I addressed my research question in two ways—through a survey instrument and

through focus groups; both approaches generated quantitative and qualitative data. The

survey portion required more quantitative analysis than qualitative analysis since it

generated more quantitative data. I used Qualtrics to collect survey data, and I used

Qualtrics and NVivo to analyze data. The focus groups data required more qualitative

analysis than quantitative analysis since it generated more qualitative data; I used NVivo to

analyze focus group data.

In the spring of 2013, I surveyed a broad portion of Methodist University’s FYC

students to learn their attitudes toward and valuation of English 101, composition. To

gather data, I used a convenience sample of Methodist University English 101 students. I

asked permission from fellow FYC faculty members to include students enrolled in their

sections of English 101. Most of my colleagues teaching English 101 agreed to allow their

students to participate. Once I determined via instructor consent the sections of FYC

eligible for my study, I contacted the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness for

the classes’ rosters. I e-mailed the students listed on each roster and invited them to

participate. The e-mail invitation provided students with a description of the study,

provided informed consent, and explained that clicking on the survey link indicated

28

students’ willingness to participate. I e-mailed approximately two hundred students, and

eighty-two students participated in the survey; they accessed the survey online through

Qualtrics and could choose to participate in an interview.

From the survey, eight students self-selected for the interview, but only one showed

up for the interview. While I collected his data, I omitted it since one interview alone was

insufficient for my purposes. Instead, I held focus groups during the fall 2013 term to

generate qualitative data. To recruit student participants for the focus groups, I approached

my colleagues and asked their permission to speak briefly to their classes. Several

colleagues agreed. Upon visiting classes, I described my research, indicated students could

choose not to participate, and indicated that students who did participate would get pizza.

This incentive proved helpful since students who were disinterested before my mentioning

the incentive changed their minds after hearing it and agreed to participate. I circulated a

sign-up sheet through each class, so students could supply their names and contact

information. I later e-mailed students asking them what days they could meet for the focus

groups. I scheduled meetings, and students met in groups to discuss FYC. Twenty-one

students participated in the focus groups. None had taken the survey; instead, these

students comprised a new participant group.

To analyze survey data, I used chi-square analysis, frequencies, and identification of

narrative themes (per commonly repeated words or phrases). For the focus groups’ data, I

identified narrative themes to learn students’ attitudes toward and valuation of FYC and to

learn what the sources of students’ attitudes toward and valuation of FYC might be. I coded

qualitative survey data and focus groups’ conversations using a scheme that I developed.

Using NVivo, I looked for words that suggested positive, neutral, or negative attitudes

29

toward or valuation of FYC as well as commonly mentioned topics. For instance, student

comments that regarded teachers’ teaching techniques I coded in the node “teachers.”

Within the node “teachers” one comment might read, “the teacher is friendly and helpful;

she makes FYC fun,” a positive comment, while another comment might read, “the teacher

is unorganized and critical,” a negative comment. I subjected students’ comments made in

the open-ended survey questions and focus group conversations to the coding process just

described to learn whether students’ attitudes toward or valuation of FYC courses is

related to (and possibly a predictor of) students’ FYC success.

During my study, I followed IRB protocol by applying with ECU’s Institutional

Review Board (IRB,) along with MU’s IRB, for study approval. I provided students with

informed consent, allowed them to opt-out of the study at any time, protected them from

potential harm, and protected their identities by assigning students pseudonyms as

identifiers. As an aside, I did not include my own students as study participants to avoid a

potential conflict of interest: bias on my part and discomfort on students’ parts at critiquing

their instructor personally.