More on the methodology

Mood:  chillin’
Now Playing: Some indian song – that I know – but can’t remember the name 🙂
Topic: Methodology

Well, continuing from yesterday as to my methodology. Well, my sample was aiming to be indicative rather than representative as the distribution of LP lecturers in Britain (or elsewhere is not known) – or there disciplines. 100 was chosen as an arbitray value – I should really do some power analysis to check out what size the population should be to get a good effect size. Anyway, 100 was chosen. Now, why did I decide to branch out into different countries? That I can’t remember why!! Got to go check my meeeting notes. Alright found it out, the reason why we went to different countries was to boost the number of respondents – and that was James suggestion (7th March, 2005 meeting). But it seems I’ve got my brain confused – I really thought I was going to be comparing different countries – well, guess we can do that too. To test to see if there are differences in how LP are taught in different countries probably because of different teaching approaches??? Anyway, to boost responses there doesn’t seem to be any reason for choosing the 100 criteria. So, I guess the reasoning could be to test teaching approaches in different countries and was using 100 as an indicative value for different countries and also to be used to boost overall responses.

Now, the survey was sent electronically as this was a cheaper and faster method and allow contacts in Australia, New Zealand and USA. Also, information could be directly stored into database and hence minimize inputting errors and increase reliability (well of data input). Also, this was able to meet the limiting time – to get lecturers during term time and ensure that if persons had queries can quickly resolve problems and fix any problems in the questionnaire (wording or instructions).

Initially, the ASI questionnaire was to be sent to lecturers and be dispensed by the lecturers to the students. These lecturers will be the ones who had answered the questionnaire. However, since the request for distribution was sent late this meant that lecturers were no longer teaching students and found it impossible to dispense the questionnaire to students. Hence, an alternative method of sending the questionnaire URL to the lecturers and they forward it to their students was devised. This ensure that the students anonymity was preserved (not sure if I was suppose to pass through the ethical boards of the universities for this – anyway – its going to happen without their approval!!). The lecturers could not provide the student’s mailing list to ensure privacy and anonymity. The exchange for the lecturers doing this was that they will get a summary of the results of thier students.

Anyway, got to go catch the bus to go home