Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 656 de 957
Results
Figure 1: DAET versus interview coding system comparison
Results from the three phases of this study are presented here. In Phase 1, transcripts
indicated that interviewer dynamics were notably different between interviewers, where
children tended to be more willing to work with strangers if they sense a connection with
them, but seemed intimidated by more senior level interviewers (school personnel and/or
age related), which is important to note for future modifications of the protocol. The
interview analysis results showed a difference in interview length (treatment versus
control group where the total length of treatment group interviews (averaging 11
minutes) were longer than those of comparison group interviews (averaging 8 minutes).
More in-depth analysis of interviewer and length of time spent interviewing revealed,
however, that one interviewer in particular spent less time on interviews with control
group (eight minutes) pupils than with treatment group (11 minutes) pupils. The different
times were used to determine the number of questions to be added for Phase 2.
For Phase 2, five categories were developed and added for phase three analysis and
triangulation. In Phase 3, we found 80% reliability between the drawing and the interview
(Table 2). However, reliability was difficult to achieve in some areas like “who will benefit
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011