GROUP PROJECT

ON
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR
MANAGEMENT

QUALITATIVE STUDY

SUBMITTED TO – PROF. ARGHYA RAY

SECTION B

Submitted By – GROUP - 9

Lipika Bachhawat 23PGDM080

Priyanka Maheshwari 23PGDM090
Satyam Kishor 23PGDM098
Saumyajit Ghosh 23PGDM099
Shubham Kumar 23PGDM106
Sneha Saha 23PGDM107
 ABSTRACT

Our aim is to understand how students learn is crucial for effective course design. This study
investigates student views on incorporating practical data analysis tools into coursework,
compared to a purely theory-based approach.
We employed a qualitative approach, interviewing two students and conducting thematic
analysis on the transcribed data using NVivo software.

INDEX
 S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE.NO
1. Problem Statement 4-5
2. Objective 6
3. Methodology 6
4. Description of Statistics 7-8
5. Data Analysis 9-11
6. Organizational Impact 12-13
7. Limitations of the study 14
8. Conclusion 14

1. Understanding the contextual issues of the problem

 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Theory-based learning, in which pupils mostly concentrate on gaining and memorization of

theoretical concepts, is frequently emphasized in traditional education. Although this method
gives pupils a solid basis, there are moments when it lacks student involvement and real-
world applicability.

Many instructional tools have been made available by the digital age, such as NVivo for
qualitative data analysis and SPSS Statistics for quantitative data analysis. With the use of
these technologies, students can: Interact directly with data, testing and visualizing
theoretical ideas to gain a deeper comprehension. By using these resources, students can
develop transferable analytical skills that are highly valued across a wide range of
professions.Compared to strictly theoretical lectures, interactive tools have the ability to
increase student engagement and stimulation during the learning process.

Although educational technologies have the potential to be beneficial, it is still unknown

how best to mix theory with tool-based learning. In order to close this gap, our study will
look into the following important questions:
 In comparison to conventional techniques, do students think that educational tools like
SPSS and NVivo are useful for comprehending theoretical concepts?
 Do students think that using these technologies instead of only theory-based education
is more engaging and beneficial for learning? If so, how?
 Do students have any major difficulties when utilizing these resources in the
classroom? If so, how can teachers overcome these obstacles to get the most out of the
situation?

Teachers can gain important insights from this research by knowing how students see
educational materials. Teachers are able to create courses that successfully combine theory
and tool-based learning, promoting the development of more profound comprehension and
useful skills.Teachers can design more dynamic and engaging learning experiences by
having a better understanding of the learning styles and preferences of their students.Making
the most of technology's advantages: Best practices for integrating instructional technologies
into the curriculum can be found in the research, enabling teachers to use technology to get
the best possible learning results.

This study looks into how students feel about particular technologies as well as how
they affect learning as a whole. We can work to make the learning environment for
students more productive and interesting by addressing the harmony between theory
and real-world application.

1.1 Understanding the unit contribution

Our aim is to delve into the perspectives of students concerning the integration of various
tools, such as SPSS, Statistics, and NVivo, within their academic coursework in comparison
to conventional theory-based teaching methods. To accomplish this goal effectively, a
structured interview format needs to be developed, comprising questions tailored to capture
the nuances of student experiences, opinions, and insights related to the utilization of these
tools in their educational settings.

The interview questions are strategically designed to cover several key areas. Firstly, our aim
to stimulate discussions around the perceived effectiveness of using tools versus traditional
theory-based teaching approaches. By prompting students to reflect on the advantages and
drawbacks of each method, researchers can gain valuable insights into how students assess
the impact of these differing instructional techniques on their learning experiences.

Furthermore, the interview questions are designed to elicit preferences and recommendations
from students regarding the integration of tools into coursework. By exploring students'
preferences for more hands-on tool-based learning or traditional teaching methods,
researchers can discern patterns in students' learning preferences and potential areas for
improvement in curriculum design.

Moreover, the questions delve into the perceived impact of using tools on students' learning
outcomes and academic performance. By probing into whether students believe that the
incorporation of tools enhances their understanding of course material and contributes to
their academic achievements, researchers can gauge the effectiveness of these tools in
facilitating student learning and success.

Additionally, the interview questions aim to identify barriers and challenges that students
may encounter when using these tools in their coursework. By understanding the obstacles
that hinder students' full utilization of these tools, educators and curriculum developers can
devise strategies to address these challenges and optimize students' learning experiences.

Lastly, the questions explore students' perspectives on the future trajectory of tool integration
in coursework, aiming to uncover their expectations and predictions regarding the evolving
role of tools in education.

Overall, the interview questions are carefully crafted to provide a comprehensive

understanding of students' views on the use of various tools in courses compared to
traditional theory-based teaching methods, thereby contributing valuable insights to
the objectives of the study.

METHODOLOGY
2. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Understanding student views on the use of different tools (like, SPSS, Statistics,
NVivo, etc.) in courses over theory- based teaching in the course.

2.1 We have done qualitative research by taking interviews of the two members (member
1, member 2) of the group. Then we transcribed the video and then two other
members (member 3, member 4) of the group did thematic analysis using the tool
NVivo.

To measure the inter rater reliatibility of the two members, we applied the Cohen’s
Kappa statistic and then analyzed the findings.
The validity and the reliability of the instruments were ensured while conducting the
interviews. Further, ethical considerations were promised to the interviewees.
.
2.2 Questions asked during the interview:

 What are your views on the performance of students in a theory-based course?

Prompts/Hints: Easy to understand or difficult to understand

 What are your views on the performance of students in a tool-based course?

Prompts/Hints: Easy to understand or difficult to understand

 According to you, how should the course be taught to improve the learning and
performance of students?
 3. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE STATISTICS USED IN THE STUDY

 Percentage Agreement:

DEFINITION FORMULA
Percentage agreement or The percentage agreement is calculated using the
Pr(a) is a measure that following formula:
indicates the proportion of
agreement between two
Pr(a)=
∑ of the total number of agreement *10
raters or methods. It is Total no . of observation
calculated by dividing the 0
number of agreements by the
total number of observations,
then multiplying by 100 to
express it as a percentage.

 Expected Agreement:

DEFINITION FORMULA
Expected agreement or Pr(e) represents The Expected agreement is calculated using
the agreement that would be expected by the following formula:
chance alone. It is calculated based on cm 1∗rm1 cm 2∗rm2
+
the marginal frequencies of the observed Pr(e)= n n `
categories. n

Where ,
 cm1 represents column 1 marginal
 cm2 represents column 2 marginal
 rm1represents row 1 marginal
 rm2 represents row 2 marginal
 n represents the number of
observations (not the number of
raters).
  Cohen’s Kappa

DEFINITION FORMULA
Cohen's Kappa (𝜿) is a statistical The Cohen’s Kappa is calculated using the
measure of inter-rater agreement for following formula:
categorical items. It adjusts for the
agreement occurring by chance. It ranges Pr ( a )−Pr ( e )
from -1 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect 𝜿= ¿ ¿
1−Pr ( e )
agreement, 0 indicates agreement
equivalent to chance, and -1 indicates
perfect disagreement.

 STANDARD SIGNIFICANCE OF C0HEN’S KAPPA

The standard significance of Cohen's Kappa is used to determine whether the observed
agreement (Kappa value) is significantly different from what would be expected by chance
alone. It is often used to assess the statistical significance of the Kappa value.

Standard Error of Cohen's Kappa (SE𝜿)

The standard error of Cohen's Kappa quantifies the variability of the Kappa estimate due to
sampling variation. It provides a measure of the precision of the Kappa estimate.

SE𝜿 =
√ Pr (a)( 1−Pr (a))
n∗(1−Pr ( e ) )

Significance of the Kappas value at the confidence level of 90%

Lower Limit = 𝜿-(1.645*SE𝜿)
Upper Limit = 𝜿+(1.645*SE𝜿)
 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

4. Thematic Analysis of the two group members:

Interviewee 1 Person 1 Person 2

Question 1 Demand extensive mental efforts Expressing ideas becomes subjective since it relies
and impede efficiency solely on writing.

Question 2 Analysis and Visualization Streamlines the process, saving time and effort.

Question 3 Without practical application, A lack of practical applications severely hampers

student struggle to handle real the effectiveness of theoretical learning,
world challenges efficiently

Interviewee 2

Question 1 Without a clear grasp of Failing to grasp the importance of understanding

theoretical basics, practical rules and functions severely undermines one's
application falters. ability to achieve desired results.

Question 2 Combination of theories and real Enables individuals to articulate their perspectives
time application effectively

Question 3 Practice is vital for proficiency A combination of theory, practical experience, and
ongoing practice is vital for proficiency and
successful application
 5. Cohen's Kappa Calculation -

Calculation of Percentage
Agreement
Person Person
1 2
Interviewee 1
(A) 1 0 1
(B) 1 1 0
(C) 0 0 0
Interviewee 2
(A) 0 0 0
(B) 1 1 0
(C) 1 1 0
Number Of Zeroes 5
Total no. of Questions 6

6. Confusion Matrix

Confusion Matrix
Person 2
Positiv Negativ Row
e e Marginals
Person Positive 3 1 4
1 Negative 0 2 2
Column
Marginals 3 3 6

Pr (a) = Overall Agreement 0.833333333

Pr (e) = Chance Agreement 0.5

κ 0.666666667 Moderate level of Agreement

 Significance of κ at confidence level of The value of 90% confidence level is
90% 1.645
Standard Error 0.30429031
Lower Limit 0.166109107
Upper limit 1.167224226

7. Findings of the study: The study's results indicate a moderate level of agreement,
with a 66.67% consensus observed between the two raters. The Kappa value falls
within the range of 0.16 to 1.16 and is statistically significant at a confidence level of
90%. These findings suggest that practical knowledge plays a vital role in ensuring the
tool's efficient and effective utilization.

8. Understanding the organizational impact

Recommended solutions completely and accurately consider effects and implications for
other similar scenarios.
In considering the effects and implications for other similar scenarios, it's essential to
recognize that the questions provided are tailored to gather insights specifically on theory-
based versus tool-based courses within the context of the study objectives. However, the
underlying principles can be applied to other scenarios involving comparisons between
different instructional approaches or methodologies. Here's how the recommended solutions
can be adapted to similar situations:

 Understanding Student Perspectives:

In scenarios where different teaching methods or approaches are being compared,
similar questions can be crafted to gather insights into students' experiences and
perceptions. This could include comparing traditional lecture-based instruction with
active learning strategies, online courses versus in-person classes, or any other
relevant comparison.
By understanding student perspectives on different instructional methods, educators
and researchers can gain valuable insights into the effectiveness of various
pedagogical approaches and identify areas for improvement.

 Assessing Performance and Preferences:

Questions aimed at evaluating student performance and preferences in different
learning environments can be adapted to suit the specific context of the comparison
being made. For example, if comparing the effectiveness of online versus offline
learning, questions might focus on students' perceptions of their understanding,
engagement, and satisfaction with each modality.
Assessing performance and preferences provides researchers with data to determine
which instructional methods resonate most with students, helping to inform decisions
about curriculum design, teaching strategies, and resource allocation.

 Gathering Improvement Suggestions:

Soliciting recommendations for course improvement is a valuable practice in any
educational setting. Questions seeking suggestions for enhancing learning experiences
can be tailored to address specific aspects of the curriculum, instructional delivery,
assessment methods, or student support services.

9. Integration of different functional areas for problem solution:

The Cohen's Kappa value of 66% indicates a substantial level of agreement between theory
and practical learning. However, it's important to note that this doesn't inherently i mply that
practical-based learning is definitively better than theory-based learning. Instead, it suggests
that there is a significant alignment between the two approaches.
That said, here are some potential business implications:

 Balanced Curriculum: Businesses involved in education or training might consider

incorporating both theoretical and practical elements into their curriculum. This
ensures that learners receive a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter,
catering to different learning styles and preferences.

 Skill Development Programs: Companies investing in employee training and

development can use this information to design programs that strike a balance between
theoretical knowledge and hands-on experience. By offering opportunities for
practical application, employees can better internalize concepts and enhance their
skills effectively.

 Product Development: In industries where innovation and product development are

key, understanding the balance between theory and practical learning can influence
R&D strategies. This may involve allocating resources to both theoretical research and
practical experimentation to optimize product outcomes.

 Decision-Making in Hiring: When evaluating candidates, recruiters can consider

their balance of theoretical knowledge and practical experience. Depending on the role
and industry, individuals with a strong combination of both may be preferred, as they
are likely to have a well-rounded skill set.

 Continuous Improvement: Businesses can use this insight to continually refine their
training and educational programs. By regularly assessing the effectiveness of
theoretical versus practical learning methods, organizations can adapt their approaches
to maximize learning outcomes and stay competitive in their respective industries.

 Marketing and Positioning: For companies offering educational products or services,

emphasizing the effectiveness of their approach—whether it's theory-based, practical-
based, or a combination—can be a selling point. Highlighting the alignment between
theoretical concepts and practical application can attract learners seeking a
comprehensive learning experience.

10. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

 The survey only focuses on students' views regarding theory-based teaching versus
tool-based teaching, neglecting other potential factors that could influence learning
and performance, such as teaching methods, course materials, instructor expertise,
student engagement, etc.
  The survey does not define what is meant by "performance" of students, leaving room
for interpretation. Performance could encompass various aspects such as grades,
understanding of concepts, application of knowledge, etc. Without clear definitions,
responses may vary widely and be difficult to compare.

 \The survey questions provide only two options for respondents to choose from (easy
to understand or difficult to understand), which may oversimplify the complexity of
students' experiences and perspectives. It does not allow for nuanced responses that
could capture the diversity of student experiences.

 The main limitation of this research is the limited number of sample sizes. The
reliability of the result could have increased if the number of sample sizes or the
participant giving the interview were more in numbers.

11. CONCLUSION

The study investigates student perspectives on incorporating practical data analysis tools into
coursework compared to a purely theory-based approach. It utilizes qualitative research
methods, including interviews and thematic analysis, to explore student views. The analysis
reveals a moderate level of agreement (66.67%) between raters regarding the alignment
between theory and practical learning.

Key findings suggest that while practical knowledge is crucial for efficient tool utilization, it
doesn't imply superiority over theory-based learning. Instead, there's a need to integrate both
approaches to create a balanced curriculum that caters to diverse learning styles. Potential
business implications include the importance of balanced curriculum design, skill
development programs, informed hiring decisions, continuous training improvement, and
effective marketing strategies for educational products.

However, the study has limitations, including its focus solely on student perspectives,
oversimplified survey questions, and a small sample size, limiting the generalizability of
findings. Recommendations for improvement include increasing sample size, defining
performance metrics, using a mixed-methods approach, including diverse perspectives, and
refining survey questions for richer data collection. Addressing these improvements can lead
to a deeper understanding of effective teaching and learning strategies in educational
settings.