Now Playing: Today I started loving you again (Merle Haggard)
Well, got my proposal due next week Friday – so thought I will roughly draft my methodology section here.
Alright, let’s first start with the aims of the research and from that possibly the methods will follow as to why I did things. Well, the aim of this research is to determine how linear programming is taught by different disciplines particularly with respect to coverage and method of delivery (with respect to computers). The point of this is to understand how software is used in linear programming and to what extent can this be used for studying the intermediate steps in linear programming. Alright that takes care of the linear programming part of the questionnaire. What was the reason for the ATI and the ASI?
Not sure why I’m doing the ATI and ASI as yet – because read in some literature that the ATI and the ASI should apply to a whole course rather than a specific component – but saying that – I think there was some controversy in the literature on that it should not be used a whole programme, but only courses within a programme (or was this for the course experience questionnaire???) – so, I guess in the same vein I can say that all sections of a course may not be delivered or studied in the same way.
Anyway, so let me dig up within myself for the reasons for the ATI and the ASI – well, I know politically why I am doing it – since this is IET – needed to get something on teaching and studying. I think one of the key aspects was perhaps check and see whether what type of approach is made most common in teaching LP – and if these approaches differ by discipline – i.e. student focussed or teacher focussed – or perhaps dependent on the type of course – i.e. not discipline but rather it is aimed for people in the workplace or as a knowledge retentive. Well, in the same way checking if students approach linear programming as a deep approach, surface or strategic approach (yup sending out the ASSIST questionnaire rather than the ASI since it is more updated – the one I have is called the short version though – not sure what is meant by that).
Anyway, I’ve started this since morning – and it is quickly approaching 5 – want to catch the No. 10 to go home – so got to wrap this up quickly. So, that is perhaps the reasons for doing the research roughly. Anyway, got to say why I chose my sample. Well, chose the sample of lecturers that is simple, because only they can answer how they deliver and the coverage they do. I guess alternatively we could have checked the students and see how they perceived the delivery and what they know to understand the coverage … nevertheless I think I was following the methods from the Albritton et al research. Further, the sample was sort of quota sample – since there was a known list of LP lecturers – one of the best source would have been the internet with course details – alternatively could have used an OR society list – but the problem with these lists – not sure who teaches LP, and all lecturers in the universities may not be associated with a society. At least with the internet, was able to find persons who were more likely to teach linear programming – but could only limit it to a certain number of persons – because uncertain of what the population was – not sure when the list will be exhaustive or representative. Although perhaps came close to exhaustive for Australian and New Zealand universities since their populations fo universities are smaller. Decided on limiting the persons on the lists to 100 on both the US and UK, this however, was an arbitrary number – hoping to give some indicative findings – rather than representative. Not sure why 100?? Will sort this out later – got to go now.