Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 479 de 957
Table 2: Context Maps Secondary Coding System
A confirmatory inter-rater reliability (IRR) procedure was used to validate the secondary
coding system. Due to the action research nature of the primary coding system, only one
coder (the facilitator of the intervention) coded the responses. To validate the secondary
coding system, the first coder (the facilitator) coded the student responses. All Semantic,
Personal, and Emotions-Values-Aesthetics responses were given secondary codes in order
to gain deeper insights into these responses. A second coder then coded the responses to
check for agreement and disagreement with the first coder. This round of coding
prompted a discussion and several modifications/clarifications to the coding system. A
second round of coding (n=9 maps) revealed a 100% IRR. After an adequate IRR was
established, the first coder coded the remaining 51 maps using the secondary coding
system.
Results
To answer the first research question, “What engineering meaning, based on the Contexts
of Meaning framework, emerged from the students’ context maps after the engineering
intervention?” the responses were compiled according to each of the Contexts of Meaning
categories. Table 3 provides information about the context map responses. Note: No
Metaphor responses emerged from the students’ context maps, so this category is not
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011