Main Qualitative Study

Invitations via email were sent to students from Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Professionals who had participated in the ILS questionnaire. The selection of the students took into consideration that each group should have a mix of male and female students from different ethnic backgrounds, and a few international students where possible. It was anticipated that such a group mix might provide for a wider variety of responses. Two interview groups for each level (Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3) and the Professionals were formed, each comprising five to six students. The size of the groups was chosen such that they were not too large so that each student would have ample opportunities to discuss his or her views about their learning experiences without leaving anyone out (Morgan, 1992). This is within the limits of the usual recommended number of participants per group which can range between four to twelve (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Kitzinger, 1995; Bender & Ewbank, 1994; Stewart, Shamdasani & Rook, 2007). A total of eight interview groups were organised and scheduled according to the available time slots for both interviewer and students. Most of the interviews with the full-time students were scheduled during their break times or after classes. The interview sessions for the Professional groups had to be scheduled outside of their work schedules, and the ideal time was found to be on Saturdays when they were on campus for classes. One group was interviewed before class started, and the other group was interviewed after class. Venues chosen were tutorial rooms familiar to the students. These rooms provided a relaxed environment with no external distractions and noise.

98

I personally conducted all the interviews to avoid possible across- group variations that can arise when interviews are conducted by different interviewers (Dillon, Madden & Firtle, 1994; Welch, 1985) . In the process of conducting the interviews, I was also keenly aware of researcher bias and realised that I could be in danger of imposing preconceived perceptions on my interpretations. A key strategy that is often used to understand researcher bias is reflexivity, which means that a researcher engages in critical self- reflection about his or her potential biases and predispositions in the interview process (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). To minimise researcher bias in my situation, I constantly checked and reminded myself to be as objective as possible in my data collection. In addition to that, I was also cognisant that behaviour and wording are culturally inflected, that is, they could be subject to various interpretations by students of different cultures. This could give rise to the interviewees' misunderstanding of the context and meaning of questions I asked. At the same time, I might also misunderstand what I heard as responses. To minimise this, I encouraged the interviewees to seek immediate clarification if my questions were not understood clearly, and likewise I also checked my understanding of their responses when it was necessary. Fortunately, being an Asian like the students, and having interacted closely with students at the institution on a daily basis, the cultural differences were not significant. There were several occasions when I found myself translating particular terms into the common slang, or rephrasing my questions into common phrases used by the young adults to ensure they understood me.

99

To reduce the need for me to take detailed notes which might slow down or disrupt the flow of the discussions, I sought the interviewees’ consent to use a digital voice recorder to record the interviews with anonymity assured in the recording and in the final report. Each interview session lasted between 1½ to 2 hours. To minimize the discussions from being dominated by any particular group member, I moderated the process of responses from the members by encouraging and giving time for the quieter members to speak, and yet allowing some interactivity to refine ideas, help clarify and extend their thoughts (Morgan, 1996). I also assured the students frequently that there were no right or wrong answers, and that they were only required to reflect and share about their own learning experiences. This was intended to help, to some extent, ease any psychological pressure individual members may have felt to give answers they might think I would want to hear, or that the group would respect.

A semi-structured approach was adopted, using the interview guide that I had prepared, to ensure that I covered the key questions I wanted to discuss (Appendix B). I began each interview with a brief description of the purpose of the study and outlined Vermunt’s ILS and its four domains to frame the context of the interview. The questions began by asking the students to think and share what they understood by the terms learning and

understanding. This was intended to gain some insight into the students'

conceptions of learning and how they would compare the two constructs.

The interview questions guided the students to discuss their own learning approaches to their current Engineering subjects and also non- Engineering subjects. They were also asked to discuss what they felt were

100

the factors that might have influenced the way they learned, if they think they had changed their approach over a period of time. Some flexibility was allowed during the interview for students to offer observations and insights that might move outside of the original questions. The Professionals groups were requested, in addition to the common questions, to share what motivated them to come back to school to continue their education, and if this had influenced the way they approached their studies. Finally they were asked to think and share what they felt were important learning patterns for professionals like themselves to succeed in continuing education. At the end of all the sessions, the interview recordings were transcribed, coded and analysed using the Weft Quality Data Analysis (QDA) software tool. The codes were distilled into a priori themes using Vermunt's (1998) four learning domains: processing strategies, regulation strategies, learning orientations and mental models of learning, and to each subscale under each of the domains.

101