Theme 4: Quantitative Research

Digital Natives as Learners: Technology use and approaches to learning.
Written by Penny Thompson
Journal: Computers & Education, Impact factor 2.775

The main focus with the paper is to study the "digital native" generation as learners. The paper contains a quantitative method in form of an online survey towards 388 freshmen in a specific university to gather data in order to evaluate if this generation of students think and learn differently than previous generations. The survey aimed to reach out to 3000 freshmen, but only got a response rate of 13 %, which means that generalization of the study is not possible to the extent as the researchers desires. The study explores the relationship between technology use patterns and approaches to learning. The description of a “digital native learner” is presented throughout the article with a table, hence the fact that they claim there is no single definition of the "digital learner" that can easily be tested through research. They use Prensky's "Ten characteristics of the Games Generation" and also include other popular writers. In order to define them further they present potential benefits and risks for learning in each characteristic, and table was used as a basis for the questionnaire, which was divided up in four parts.

The low response at the certain university shows that a sample of 388 participants is no way near sufficient to understand the depth and create a statistical analysis to observe patterns and trends for this “digital native" generation. Another problem that I do reflect upon is how the researchers aimed to get a generalized picture by only reaching out to one specific university, without keeping in mind that surrounding factors possibly will have an impact. The article shows only a scratch on the surface of the subject, the relevance to get a clear picture of “digital native” generation should answer the five W:s (why, when, where, what, who) which I believe is accurate in this type of study. And in order to answer the five W:s they should have used a combination of qualitative and quantitative method. They mention in the concluding remarks that findings from the study is that teachers can play a critical role in preparing students for success in the digital world, which yet again only could be based upon this outcome at this certain university.

Summary of Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection. Benefits, limitations of quantitative vs. qualitative methods.

The aim with the paper is to examine the relationship between physical activity level and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). The writers aspire to see if there is a connection between physical activity and perceived stress. In order to do this they use a quantitative method in form of web questionnaires. The study involved 1509 participants in the age between 20-60 years, during a 4 months period of time with 5 follow up questionnaires that reached 74% of the total participants.

The first thing I relate to while reading the question about quantitative methods is that this is a method that Statistiska Centralbyrån is using. By analyzing the paper Physical Activity, Stress, and Self-Reported Upper Respiratory Tract Infection, viewing their outcome of the study that is conducted, I draw certain conclusions about benefits and limitations. The beneficial parts of this method are that it can be used for a large scale of data collection, in this case, 1509 participants. The result provides a lot of information and is easily presented in graphs and other statistical visualizations. It creates a possibility to combine data and compare these to each other – which enables to introduce a correlation between outcomes.

The main disadvantages with this approach of method are for example that questions in the survey could be subjectively interpreted. It is also hard to get a deeper understanding for the subject. A quantitative method is not something that is permanent over time, which means that the result can vary. In the study we also see that the aim was to reach out to 5000, but only got 1509 participants and 3195 non-responders. In the end it was only 74% that answered to all 5 follow-ups, which shows us that it sometimes is difficult to get the amount of data-collection you intend to get. In this particular case, it may depend on the way they decided to approach the participants – by mail.  Table 2 shows us that there are a smaller number of participants between the ages 50-60 comparing to participants between 20-29.

Compared to quantitative methods, qualitative methods are conducted to gain necessary information and answer the question why. The method is used to comprehend more narrow situations in a deeper sense, which often is a benefit. Qualitative collection can be in form of focus groups and observations. The limitations in this case are that it is not achievable to represent conclusions and generalize anything about “the rest”, besides from the group you have observed or analyzed.

References:

Thompson, P, (2013). Digital Natives as Learnes: Technology use and approaches to learning, Computers & Education, Volume 65, pp.12-33 Avaliable at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.focus.lib.kth.se/science/article/pii/S0360131513000225

Fondell, E. et al., (2011). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 43(2), pp.272–279. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20581713