Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:57:42.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 26 - Quantitative and Mixed Methods Research

Approaches and Limitations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

Barbara M. Moskal
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Teri Reed
Affiliation:
Dwight Look College of Engineering and Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A;&M
Scott A. Strong
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Introduction

A concern across the field of education, as well as within engineering education, is the identification of effective instructional approaches. “Effective” can be defined in many ways, including increased learning gains, improved attitudes, and changes in the general appeal of a subject or topic to students. To determine the effectiveness of an approach, it is often necessary to measure changes in student constructs over time or to acquire a snapshot of students’ performances at a given point. In addition, teachers and researchers may be concerned with determining whether their approaches are equally effective across different student populations.

In engineering education, each of these assessment purposes receives increased emphasis at the program and student level owing to the existence of an accreditation board, ABET, Inc. (formerly known as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology or ABET; see www.abet.org/history.shtml). ABET, Inc. requests that each accredited program demonstrate that its graduating seniors have achieved a set of program outcomes that can be found at the referenced website.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addison, V., Hipp, C., & Lyons, J. (2007). A study on the effects of timing on engineering students’ abilities to solve open-ended problems with computers. In Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Honolulu, HI, Paper 2007-1383.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Bernard, R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Douglas, E., & Amelink, C. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P., & Hunter, J. S. (2005). Statistics for the experimenter: Design, innovation and discovery. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Stanely, J. T. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corder, G., & Foreman, D. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: A step-by-step approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, A. B., & Osboren, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved from Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Felder, R., Felder, G., & Dietz, E. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, B. M., Imbrie, P. K., & Reed-Rhoads, T. (2011). A holistic review of gender differences in engineering admissions and early retention. In 15th International Conference for Women Engineers and Scientists. Adelaide, Australia, Paper 0243. Retrieved from Google Scholar
Holloway, B. M., Reed-Rhoads, T., & Groll, L. E. (2011). Women as the miner's canary in undergraduate engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Paper 2011-1382.Google Scholar
Hopkins, K. D. (1998). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (8th ed.). Nedam Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Huck, S. (2011). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hunter, S. H., Tobolowsky, B. F., Gardner, J. H., Evenbeck, S. E., Pattengale, J. A., Schaller, M. A., Schreiner, L. A., & Associates, (2010). Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Immekus, J. C., Imbrie, P. K., & Maller, S. J. (2004). The influence of pre-college factors on first-year engineering students’ academic success and persistence. In 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, Savannah, GA (pp. F3F-1–2).Google Scholar
Immekus, J. C., Maller, S. J., Imbrie, P. K., Wu, N., & McDermott, P. A. (2005). Work In Progress: An analysis of students’ academic success and persistence using pre-college factors. In 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, IN (pp. S2C-3–4).Google Scholar
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. G., & Onweugbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashy, D., Albertelli, G., Kashy, E., & Thoennessen, M. (2001). Teaching with ALN technology: Benefits and costs. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgore, D., Atman, C., Yasuhara, K., Barker, T., & Morozov, A. (2007). Considering context: A study of first-year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, F., & Kowalski, S. (2008). Exploring the role of tablet PCs in promoting active learning and real-time communication to enhance learning in the university setting. Retrieved from
Leydens, J., Moskal, B., & Pavelich, M. (2004). Qualitative methods used in the assessment of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matusovich, H., Streveler, R., & Miller, R. (2010, October). Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students’ motivational values, Journal of Engineering Education, 289–303.
Merino, D., & Abel, K. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of computer tutorials versus traditional lecturing in accounting topics. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Educational measurement (3rd ed.). Linn, R. L. (Ed.), New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M. (1995). Coefficient Alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2(3), 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskal, B. (2011). Bechtel K-5 educational excellence initiative. Retrieved from
Moskal, B., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10). Retrieved from Google Scholar
Moskal, B., Leydens, J., & Pavelich, M. (2002). Validity, reliability and the assessment of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskal, B., & Skokan, C. (2011). Supporting the K-12 classroom through university outreach. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(1), 53–75. Retrieved from Google Scholar
National Academy of Engineering, (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Ogot, M., Elliott, G., &Glumac, N. (2003). An assessment of in-person and remotely operated laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olds, B., Moskal, B., & Miller, R. (2005). Assessment in engineering education: Evolution, approaches and future collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed-Rhoads, T., & Imbrie, P. K. (2008). Concept inventories in engineering education. Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Workshop 2 October 13–14. Retrieved from
Reid, K. & Imbrie, P. K. (2008). Noncognitive characteristics of incoming engineering students compared to incoming engineering technology students: A preliminary examination. In Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, Paper 2008-1995.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S., Atman, C., Stevens, R., Fleming, L., Streveler, R., Adams, R., & Barker, T. (2004). Studying the engineering student experience: Design of a longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, Paper 2004-1736.Google Scholar
Sicker, D., Lookabaugh, T., Santos, J., & Barnes, F. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of remote networking laboratories. In 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, IN (pp. S3F-7-12).Google Scholar
Suhr, D. D. (2003). Principal component analysis vs. exploratory factor analysis. In SUGI 30 Proceedings. Retrieved from
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, and National Center for Education, Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices Supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Retrieved from
Yadav, A., Subedu, D., Lundeber, M., & Bunting, C. (2011). Problem-based learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 254–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×