Contoh penulisan desain penelitian
Sebuah contoh yang bagus untuk menulis desain penelitian, disini disebut sebagai study design, ditempat lain disebut sebagai metode penelitian. Dalam bahasa Inggris memang, namun menarik untuk diperhatikan alur penulisannya. Selamat menikmati :)
*dikutip dari Ruokonen, Inkeri. 2011. "They have always supported my choices"Creative catalyst in university student's learning environment. Procedia, 29 p. 412-421
Study design
The purpose of this comparative study is to determine which are the most effective and valuable learning experiences in the learning environment. The factors in the learning environment that we focused on were home, school, culture, community, hobbies, gender and chance.
The approach of this research is qualitative. The data was collected from the writings of 59 Estonian students and 56 Finnish students. The students were from the Estonian Music Academy (28), Sibelius Academy (18), Tallinn University (31) and the University of Helsinki (38) they were especially talented in music or another artistic field. The research method used was a qualitative content analysis. The students were asked to write an essay in which they reflected on their lives and describe the most important and meaningful learning environmental experiences that have been or were connected with the development of their giftedness to talent and their creativity.
In the content analysis of data, the phenomenographic carried out following the procedure described by Marton (1994). To analyse the university students’ hand-written products, Marton categorized in-text segments with qualitative codes. Because experiences of meaningful learning situations or meaningful persons can be expressed in different units, such as individual sentences or several sentences together or whole paragraphs, text segments must be delimited flexibly rather than by means of a fixed analytic unit. The content analysis was done with a flexible coding of this kind to find the different kinds of learning environments and characters of meanings in these classes.
*dikutip dari Ruokonen, Inkeri. 2011. "They have always supported my choices"Creative catalyst in university student's learning environment. Procedia, 29 p. 412-421
Study design
The purpose of this comparative study is to determine which are the most effective and valuable learning experiences in the learning environment. The factors in the learning environment that we focused on were home, school, culture, community, hobbies, gender and chance.
The approach of this research is qualitative. The data was collected from the writings of 59 Estonian students and 56 Finnish students. The students were from the Estonian Music Academy (28), Sibelius Academy (18), Tallinn University (31) and the University of Helsinki (38) they were especially talented in music or another artistic field. The research method used was a qualitative content analysis. The students were asked to write an essay in which they reflected on their lives and describe the most important and meaningful learning environmental experiences that have been or were connected with the development of their giftedness to talent and their creativity.
In the content analysis of data, the phenomenographic carried out following the procedure described by Marton (1994). To analyse the university students’ hand-written products, Marton categorized in-text segments with qualitative codes. Because experiences of meaningful learning situations or meaningful persons can be expressed in different units, such as individual sentences or several sentences together or whole paragraphs, text segments must be delimited flexibly rather than by means of a fixed analytic unit. The content analysis was done with a flexible coding of this kind to find the different kinds of learning environments and characters of meanings in these classes.
The categories do not exclude each other at the individual level. Instead, in writings individual students may have
described several conceptions. Phenomenography does not aim to discover types of individuals but forms of
understanding phenomena, the conceptions that individuals express.
Accordingly, the unit of analysis was not an individual in the first phase. Altogether 115 writings (59 from Estonia and 56 from Finland) were handled as a whole to determine “the most important pool of meanings” in their descriptions. Because the focus is on students’ conceptions of the most meaningful learning experiences to promote their giftedness and creativity, the first step of the analysis was to identify the passages that discussed the learning environments. The extracts were tagged with the code “learning environment” and the results were reflected to Piirto’s (2002) pyramid.
After this analysis of the data, the selected extracts were examined in greater detail. The writings were repeatedly read in order to determine the distinct ways in which the students described the most valuable learning experiences for their gifted development in different learning environments. In addition to differences in forms of expression, differences and similarities between two the two neighbour countries, Estonia and Finland, were also noted. When two expressions included the same meaning, they were placed into the same category. After placing the extracts into the learning environmental categories, the attributes and features of the categories were identified and compared in a detailed analysis. This analysis established the final categories of description of factors of their learning experiences. The analytic process was carried out in co-operation with Finnish and Estonian researchers, so that the first coding was made by Estonian researchers in Estonia and Finnish researchers in Finland. The results are presented qualitatively.
Accordingly, the unit of analysis was not an individual in the first phase. Altogether 115 writings (59 from Estonia and 56 from Finland) were handled as a whole to determine “the most important pool of meanings” in their descriptions. Because the focus is on students’ conceptions of the most meaningful learning experiences to promote their giftedness and creativity, the first step of the analysis was to identify the passages that discussed the learning environments. The extracts were tagged with the code “learning environment” and the results were reflected to Piirto’s (2002) pyramid.
After this analysis of the data, the selected extracts were examined in greater detail. The writings were repeatedly read in order to determine the distinct ways in which the students described the most valuable learning experiences for their gifted development in different learning environments. In addition to differences in forms of expression, differences and similarities between two the two neighbour countries, Estonia and Finland, were also noted. When two expressions included the same meaning, they were placed into the same category. After placing the extracts into the learning environmental categories, the attributes and features of the categories were identified and compared in a detailed analysis. This analysis established the final categories of description of factors of their learning experiences. The analytic process was carried out in co-operation with Finnish and Estonian researchers, so that the first coding was made by Estonian researchers in Estonia and Finnish researchers in Finland. The results are presented qualitatively.
Comments