This week was about credibility criteria for quantitative research. In previous weeks, we studied one for qualitative research, so it was interesting to compare two different approaches. The transferability in qualitative research is called generalisability or external validity in the quantitative approach. Indeed, I think those names are interchangeable and, therefore, other scholars could use different terms. However, it is crucial to note that there is some subtle difference in assessing the criterion.
I believe that external validity is quite similar in both approaches in that the criterion is concerned about the degree that the findings of certain research can be applied to a wider context. Therefore, it focuses on the sampling and the setting of the study. For instance, in this week’s activity, we critically analysed the credibility of research done by Herodotou (2018) that investigated how young children gained knowledge in projectile motions through playing mobile games. To assess its external validity, Guba and Lincoln (1982) suggest that the research should provide an in-depth description of its content or use of purposive and theoretical sampling. In our case, the researcher explained the characteristics of young children and the reason behind the selection. The author used various references to build her hypothesis that there is a “significant difference between 4 and 5 years old in their understanding of projectile motion after playing the game” (Herodotou, 2018). Thus, the findings of this research are more likely to be applied to 4-5 years old children than other age groups.
Thus, in my research, it would be crucial to decide the specific sample group first. The specific group would be dependent on the level of mathematics in the game. Ideally, the sample would be from primary school students since there was no evidence that game-based learning could have a significant impact on children’s mathematical knowledge (Bragg, 2003; Peters, 1998; Mitchell and Smith, 2001). Besides, the younger the students, the students would have more flexibility regarding the curriculum because they are not bound by national exams such as GCSE. Therefore, the sample group would be the students who began primary school.
Literature suggests that having a focus group with children can elicit their original ideas and insights which are often neglected (Adler, Salanterä and Zumstein-Shaha, 2019). Of course, there are issues with those participants, especially with qualitative methods such as focus groups. Since we are dealing with young children, the data can be limited due to the low literacy level of participants (Kennedy, Kools and Krueger, 2001). We cannot expect them to express their emotions and thoughts as fluently as older people, and the researcher might need to take further actions such as triangulation to obtain the validity. Besides, as one of my classmates discussed, there is a potential impact of classroom dynamics since they are the students. Daley (2013) confirms this idea and suggests that focus groups that involve students might be limited by the equity of contribution, social pressure and group consensus.
Reference
Adler, K., Salanterä, S. and Zumstein-Shaha, M. (2019) ‘Focus Group Interviews in Child, Youth, and Parent Research: An Integrative Literature Review’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods. doi: 10.1177/1609406919887274.
K.M Cutler, D Gilkerson, S Parrott, M.TBowne, Developing math games based on children’s literature, Young Children, 58 (1) (2003), pp. 22-27
Daley A. M. (2013). Adolescent-friendly remedies for the challenges of focus group research. Western journal of nursing research, 35(8), 1043–1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945913483881
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication & Technology, 30(4), 233–252.
A. Mitchell, C. Saville-Smith, The Use of Computer and Video Games for Learning. A Review of the Literature (The Learning and Skills Development Agency, London, 2004)
Kennedy, C., Kools, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). Methodological considerations in children’s focus groups. Nursing research, 50(3), 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200105000-00010
Yusoff, Z., Kamsin, A., Shamshirband, S. et al. A survey of educational games as interaction design tools for affective learning: Thematic analysis taxonomy. Educ Inf Technol 23, 393–418 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9610-5