In EDS ansehen

Which Data Gathering Method is Superior: An Open-Ended Questionnaire or a Semi- Structured Interview?

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: Which Data Gathering Method is Superior: An Open-Ended Questionnaire or a Semi- Structured Interview?
Autoren: Saglam, Yilmaz
Quelle: International Journal on Studies in Education (IJonSE); 2024, Vol. 6 Issue 3, p375-386, 12p
Schlagwörter: ACTIVE learning, SCHOOL children, CLASSROOMS, CHILD development, CAREER development
Abstract: The objective of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of two qualitative data collection methods: semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires, with a specific focus on codability. A total of twelve freshman college students, comprising two males and ten females, were involved in this study. A phenomenological case study approach was adopted in gathering and analyzing the qualitative data. The study centered around the participants' beliefs regarding some science-related phenomena. Data comprised written responses to open-ended questionnaires and those obtained through interviews. In both data collection methods, the open questions were alike, but the interviewer was allowed to delve deeper for further elaboration. The students' responses were inductively coded to discover patterns in the data. Two codes were allocated to these responses: "codable" and "non-codable." Codable responses encompass complete answers enabling the researcher to assign a code; conversely, responses requiring additional inquiry or elaboration, preventing the researcher from assigning a code, were deemed non-codable. The results indicated that almost all the data obtained through interviews was codable; whereas only 42% of the data obtained through the open-ended questionnaire was codable. Chi-square analysis further confirmed a statistically significant association between codable responses and interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal on Studies in Education (IJonSE) is the property of International Journal on Studies in Education (IJonSE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Datenbank: Complementary Index
Beschreibung
Abstract:The objective of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of two qualitative data collection methods: semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires, with a specific focus on codability. A total of twelve freshman college students, comprising two males and ten females, were involved in this study. A phenomenological case study approach was adopted in gathering and analyzing the qualitative data. The study centered around the participants' beliefs regarding some science-related phenomena. Data comprised written responses to open-ended questionnaires and those obtained through interviews. In both data collection methods, the open questions were alike, but the interviewer was allowed to delve deeper for further elaboration. The students' responses were inductively coded to discover patterns in the data. Two codes were allocated to these responses: "codable" and "non-codable." Codable responses encompass complete answers enabling the researcher to assign a code; conversely, responses requiring additional inquiry or elaboration, preventing the researcher from assigning a code, were deemed non-codable. The results indicated that almost all the data obtained through interviews was codable; whereas only 42% of the data obtained through the open-ended questionnaire was codable. Chi-square analysis further confirmed a statistically significant association between codable responses and interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:26907909
DOI:10.46328/ijonse.220