The information that is gathered in a qualitative analysis on pet peeves is categorized accordingly to identify the specific codes or themes to point out the strengths and weaknesses that is dependent upon the studied information. The process involved is termed as coding which according to Burns, Grove, and Gray (2013) is the process that labels quotations and phrases to identify the patterns and themes. Through the process of coding, the raw data of the population is obtained and then labeled into areas of interest. Regarding the research found by Burns et al. (2013), the merged code label is said to be interpretive, and it is sometimes called a theme if it is repeatedly identified in the data. Therefore, the main issues can be categorically divided into subdivisions if the data that is presented is broad and remains unaffected if the information allows.
Focusing on the Pet Peeves study, the research offers a challenge to the students to enable them to locate some specific phrases or words which enable the identification to meet some specified scheme criteria. For instance, a sample of ten students that are selected can list at least three items which Peeved them as they pursue excellence in their coursework and their learning institution. For the pet peeve study, a list of twenty-one codes was developed by the researcher who based on the students repetition of presenting statements that had unclassified information and three options.
Notwithstanding the fact that the data allowed students to offer three responses, that could result in an opportunity for 30 comments, a total of twenty-one responses were received. Most pet peeves the requirements of the course and majority of the codes recorded classified that students showed unrealistic expectations. Categorically, the theme that was under student-teacher relationship showed that student doesn't like a kind of professors who communicate with students by a condescending tone. Another common theme was the dislike of all the other students who distract their fellows by making lots of unnecessary noises.
In the course of the assessment of this research, I realized a theme from the sample which explains why the codes were chosen. For instance, student oo1, 010 and 008 are so vocal about their discord with the professors yet not listing any other pet peeves that are in the line of their fellow students behavior. In examining other variables like course load, gender or even current grades would offer a platform for evaluating the motivation behind the students disgruntlement. The reason why the state of the sample was listed was the theme that was not identified in the sample. However, student number 004 showed clarity in identifying why code 07 was particularly selected. Therefore, there is a need for clarification of the information presented for a wide opportunity of an improvement in the chosen areas.
According to student 010s peeve, it's hard to categorize and decipher appropriately the way I wanted to make several locations of coding. In respect to my opinion, student 010s statement could properly fit category 15, 10 or 14. Therefore, if the team conducting the research is unable to put the comment in its code group, then the information may be rendered invalid or with code 99 (Eskine, Hammer, & Gipson, 2017).
In a close analysis of this qualitative study, there is data analysis that is within the coding system. A better analysis would be obtained if the topics would be narrowed and if the research would involve a broader sample size to capture a variety of sample opinion. Burns et al. (2013) claims that through translation of the actions and words of the participants into viable meanings, a better understanding can be made for the consumers and readers. Lastly, this research allows the members of the team to put more focus on the ways of improving their course outcomes, classroom interactions, and student-teacher relationships.
Burns, N., Grove, S. K., & Gray, J. R. (2013). The Nursing practice research: Generation of evidence, Appraisal, and Synthesis (7th ed.). St. Louis, MS: Elsevier.
Eskine, K. E., Hammer, E. Y. & Schulte-Gipson, L. (2017). Students Perspectives on the First Day of Class: A Replication. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 5.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the collegeessaywriter.net website, please click below to request its removal:
- Response to the Business Research Method - Essay Sample
- Respect for Freedom and Dignity of Human Research Participant
- Exploratory Research on the Leadership Theory
- Effects of Plant Population, Cultivar and Hail Damage on Maize Yield. Article Sample.
- Paper Example on Advantages and Disadvantages of Interview Method
- Things to Be Done and What Not to Be Done in a Research-Based Presentation in a Work Place
- Report on Research Ethical Standards of the Institutional Review Board