2-Method

Method: Briefly explain your study. You can use the firefighter paper as a guide. Explain the methods, procedures, research schedule, data collected, data analysis, sampling method and the difficulties associated with interviewing colleagues.

 Six team members were assigned to interview at least two other Educational Technology Doctoral students. They recorded and transcribed two 45 minute interviews with the interviewees. The team came together and created a list of questions which were all used in the interviews. The team focused on the benefits and difficulties of working an Educational Technology doctoral program that is online. The interviewers needed to request an interview both with members on their team and outside. The interviews were conducted either in person, by phone, or online.  The varieties of interviewees were mainly from Florida but contained samples from all over the country as well as outside. The sample had many different levels of Educational experience in taking classes online. The sampling was based on several different strategies. The first is homogeneous sampling in that the group according to Glesne (1999) “selects all similar ases in order to describe some subgroup in depth” (p 35). The sample came from students in the same program. The second was maximum variation sampling in that there were students interviewed from different parts of the country/out of the country who might have had different experiences.



__Method__

__Respondents__

The research team was comprised of six members. Each member was responsible for conducing, recording, and transcribing two interviews with different member of The University of Florida’s (UF) second cohort in educational technology. Interview question ideas were shared through the team’s wiki page, and a final list of questions (see Appendix A) was then created through a group elluminate meeting. Potential respondents were contacted through email or phone to request an interview. Each researcher was responsible for setting up and arranging an interview time on their own. All interviews were conducted over the phone with a variety of recording methods used. No UF cohort members were interviewed twice for this study. The resulting sample of respondents was a mix of men and women of a variety of races. In addition, the sample represented cohort members with varying professions and varying experience with online courses prior to entering the UF cohort. Appendix B contains a table with a demographic overview of the study respondents.

__Procedure__

All interviews were arranged in advance with a specific interview time and date. After a brief introduction, the researcher began the formal interview. Consent was given to record, document, and utilize respondent answers. Interviews were recorded and transcribed later by the researcher in order to allow the team member to focus on the respondents’ answers, take vital notes, and probe for deeper data with relevant follow up questions. Researchers used the interview questions list to conduct each interview; however, they also probed in between listed questions to get more comprehensive data. After the interviews were completed, each research team member was accountable for transcribing his or her interview (see Appendix D for protocols). At the top of each protocol was basic information about the researcher, respondent, study topic, and time and date of the interview. In addition, each protocol and every line was numbered to help reference the protocol later. Below the basic interview information was the contents from the interview, both questions and answers. Protocols that are referenced in this report are done so by using the initials of the researcher’s first and last name, the protocol number, the page number, and the line number of the data being referenced. For example, RS/2/5/14 would be Rebecca Shields’ second protocol, fifth page, and fourteenth line.

__Research Schedule__

The twelve interviews for this report were collected over a two-week period. They were completed between March 21, 2011 and April 1, 2011. The protocols were created directly after each interview and the coding and analysis process began after each protocol was created. This process continued until the end of the study April 22, 2011.

__Quantity of Data__

The twelve interviews conducted for this study lasted an average of 30-50 minutes each. The twelve interviews produced 60 pages of single spaced typed protocols. Although the interviews varied in length, the respondent’s answers in all of the protocols produced codes that were saturated and lead to first and second order constructs for the report.

__Data Analysis__

The group used Spradley’s X/Y method of coding to code each protocol. After the first protocols were completed each researcher coded their individual protocols using this method. The team then used the wiki to share the codes that they used in their first protocol. The team then used the data from the wiki to code and shape all second protocols. These codes were shaped by the nature of the questions and the overall theme of the study. This allowed the researchers to study the data for recurring patterns and find first and second order constructs to explain the data. The wiki was used for data sharing to accommodate for the varying available schedules of the research team members. Once the individual code sheets were completed by the team members on comprehensive code excel document was created to hold all the codes. This method was chosen, because each individual had the best understanding of his or her own protocols, and because of the limited time available for the study. Once each individual had created their own code sheets, they posted their protocols and codes to the wiki for other group members to review and determine if more codes need to be added. The limited time available restricted the amount of codes each individual team member was able to review, but another team member other then the individual that conducted the interview reviewed each protocol and code sheet.

__Researcher Subjectivity and Sensitivity__

All six members of the research team are also active members of UF’s second cohort in educational technology. Because of this, each researcher was familiar with the respondents on some level before the interviews took place. The level of familiarity varied among the research team members from some previous contact to frequent previous contact. Some members from within the group were also interviewed.