Susan Ramlo, PhD
- Experienced professor with a demonstrated history of leadership in higher education and industry.
- Proven researcher with over 50 publications related to STEM education, physics education, and subjectivity (Q methodology).
- Recognized for teaching excellence at the department, college, university, regional, state, and national level.
Supervisors: Isadore Newman and Francis Broadway
- Proven researcher with over 50 publications related to STEM education, physics education, and subjectivity (Q methodology).
- Recognized for teaching excellence at the department, college, university, regional, state, and national level.
Supervisors: Isadore Newman and Francis Broadway
less
InterestsView All (27)
Uploads
METHODS RESEARCH
The purpose of this chapter is to identify two
multivariate techniques that can be used to
facilitate the interpretation of mixed methods
research. These techniques can aid researchers
in answering their research questions by
demonstrating how to disaggregate or aggregate
their data. More specifically, our purpose
is to introduce two multivariate techniques,
Q methodology and Q factor analysis, to
readers by describing these techniques as well
as by giving examples that should assist readers
in performing their own Q methodology
and Q factor analysis studies. Finally, we discuss
how researchers can take their research a
step farther by answering more-sophisticated
research questions that include groups of
people. For instance, these groups, whether
derived empirically such as via Q factor analysis
or theoretically such as psychosocial stages,
can be used as variables within other types of
multivariate analyses.
larger mixed methods community and in social science research in general about how research methods and philosophies can be mixed. Implications for examining debates within mixed methods communities and future research are discussed.
move into the online course and program market that was previously
associated with for-profit institutions of higher education. Public
university administrators state that students seek the flexibility of
online courses. But do students want to take courses online, especially
freshmen-level science courses perceived to be difficult?
Purpose: This study investigated student views related to the
potential of a physics course they were currently enrolled in being
offered online.
Sample: This study took place at a large, public, mid-western university
and involved students enrolled in either the first or second semester
of a face-to-face flipped physics course for engineering technology
majors.
Design and methods: Discussions with students during the semester
about their online course experiences and expectations were used to
develop the concourse and subsequently the Q sample to perform
a Q methodology study about students’ views regarding taking
physics courses online. Additional statements for the concourse and
Q sample were taken from communications with administrators at
the university. In this way, the statements sorted by the students
included those from students and those from administrators. Factor
analysis of the Q sorts resulted in three factors, each representing a
unique perspective. Interpretations of these perspectives included
the analyses of the Q sorts, the researcher’s interactions with students
and administrators, and students’ written responses regarding their
previous online course experiences and their sorting decisions.
Results: Three unique student views emerged were named: keeping it
real and face-to-face, Online could be ok depending upon the course
and instructor, and Online not for STEM classes. Consensus among
the views is also discussed.
Conclusions: Overall, students’ views are negative concerning having
physics courses, including labs, online and those views conflict with
statements expressed by administrators regarding students’ desires
for online courses at the university.
experiences. Yet we found no studies in the literature that included an evaluation of the effectiveness of
reading circles. In this study, faculty who selected a teaching and learning themed book were part of selfdirected
reading circle groups. The evaluation used Q methodology, a measure of subjectivity (Brown, 1986;
Stephenson, 1953). The analysis revealed two distinct perspectives, with 23 out of 24 Q sorters represented by
one factor. This factor indicated that the reading circles were successful in getting nearly all participants to
reflect on and transform their teaching.
of this method and, instead, introduces Q methodology as a means of program assessment especially in the area of needs assessment. In essence, Q offers an objective way to measure subjectivity about any topic. Unlike Likert-scale surveys, Q is a mixed method that reveals the multiple unique views as well as
consensus within the group of participants. In this study, Q was used to determine views of a construction engineering technology program. How the results will be used to improve the program is presented.
METHODS RESEARCH
The purpose of this chapter is to identify two
multivariate techniques that can be used to
facilitate the interpretation of mixed methods
research. These techniques can aid researchers
in answering their research questions by
demonstrating how to disaggregate or aggregate
their data. More specifically, our purpose
is to introduce two multivariate techniques,
Q methodology and Q factor analysis, to
readers by describing these techniques as well
as by giving examples that should assist readers
in performing their own Q methodology
and Q factor analysis studies. Finally, we discuss
how researchers can take their research a
step farther by answering more-sophisticated
research questions that include groups of
people. For instance, these groups, whether
derived empirically such as via Q factor analysis
or theoretically such as psychosocial stages,
can be used as variables within other types of
multivariate analyses.
larger mixed methods community and in social science research in general about how research methods and philosophies can be mixed. Implications for examining debates within mixed methods communities and future research are discussed.
move into the online course and program market that was previously
associated with for-profit institutions of higher education. Public
university administrators state that students seek the flexibility of
online courses. But do students want to take courses online, especially
freshmen-level science courses perceived to be difficult?
Purpose: This study investigated student views related to the
potential of a physics course they were currently enrolled in being
offered online.
Sample: This study took place at a large, public, mid-western university
and involved students enrolled in either the first or second semester
of a face-to-face flipped physics course for engineering technology
majors.
Design and methods: Discussions with students during the semester
about their online course experiences and expectations were used to
develop the concourse and subsequently the Q sample to perform
a Q methodology study about students’ views regarding taking
physics courses online. Additional statements for the concourse and
Q sample were taken from communications with administrators at
the university. In this way, the statements sorted by the students
included those from students and those from administrators. Factor
analysis of the Q sorts resulted in three factors, each representing a
unique perspective. Interpretations of these perspectives included
the analyses of the Q sorts, the researcher’s interactions with students
and administrators, and students’ written responses regarding their
previous online course experiences and their sorting decisions.
Results: Three unique student views emerged were named: keeping it
real and face-to-face, Online could be ok depending upon the course
and instructor, and Online not for STEM classes. Consensus among
the views is also discussed.
Conclusions: Overall, students’ views are negative concerning having
physics courses, including labs, online and those views conflict with
statements expressed by administrators regarding students’ desires
for online courses at the university.
experiences. Yet we found no studies in the literature that included an evaluation of the effectiveness of
reading circles. In this study, faculty who selected a teaching and learning themed book were part of selfdirected
reading circle groups. The evaluation used Q methodology, a measure of subjectivity (Brown, 1986;
Stephenson, 1953). The analysis revealed two distinct perspectives, with 23 out of 24 Q sorters represented by
one factor. This factor indicated that the reading circles were successful in getting nearly all participants to
reflect on and transform their teaching.
of this method and, instead, introduces Q methodology as a means of program assessment especially in the area of needs assessment. In essence, Q offers an objective way to measure subjectivity about any topic. Unlike Likert-scale surveys, Q is a mixed method that reveals the multiple unique views as well as
consensus within the group of participants. In this study, Q was used to determine views of a construction engineering technology program. How the results will be used to improve the program is presented.
Jack Block once described this as a brilliant idea!