After finishing the first question of the second analysis, now I’m done with the second question and working on the third question which is about the fundamental change. While I was working on the second question, there were some questions in my mind. For example, Is the question similar to the first question? Should I combine the result with the first question? Again, the first question is about how engaging with activities influence their current role. And the second question is about how research help to carry out their role. Engaging with activities also includes reading literature. Thus, the answer might be overlapped. However, I separated the answer into different sections. In the codebook, Dr.London will see the code specifically for the second question. In addition, it appeared to be only a few participants that answered specifically for the second question. Some stakeholders have no information about it. We could discuss this in the meeting whether we would combine the code of the second question with the first one.
The third question is much more fun than the previous two. The responses to the question can be very long and each participant provided interesting ideas of what could be changed fundamentally in engineering education. What I organize in this question is talking about the change, what is it? what is the issue? and what can we do about it?–or a solution. This seems like a big and significant part of the paper. And I believe that from this question we will get great insights of how we could make more impact in engineering education. There’re a lot of great ideas that participants mentioned. Dr.London can take a look at the codebook in the document file that I shared as well to see how things go.
Have a great day!!