The packages are just tools, through which you apply/track your hard work and thoughtful decisions about the data. However, choosing Mac over PC (or the other way around) won't do much to influence your ability to produce excellent creative writing any more than choosing NVivo over Atlas.ti will alter your ability to do rigorous qualitative work. There are differences, and some experts appreciate the nuances in ways that allow for a debate of one package against another. My two cents - please note that I am not trying to offend anyone (just to examine the debate in a different way), and I'm still open to some persuasive arguments if others have different perspectives (and thanks to CAQDAS for all of the excellent and hard work in trying to map out the differences among the packages!):ĭebating Atlas.ti versus NVivo is like debating Mac versus PC. By far the majority of collaborations are text based (I suspect I will transcribe relevant parts of the lecturer audio, and just describe how students are interacting with other tools such as the whiteboard).
So I suspect I will be coding contributions by the type of thinking they reflect. I'm particularly interested in analysing the ways in which different learning tasks and interface designs that are set in the virtual classroom affect the types of collaborations students conduct. I know this is a really broad question, but I'm sure that your intimate experience with these tools (and lack of familiarity with the data) will still be able to make a better decision than I could, because there's only so much you can pick up from reading reviews and brief experimentations with trial downloads.
I have 24 lessons worth of Synchronous Virtual Classroom data (Macromedia Breeze - mainly text chat but with some whiteboard and audio overlay) that I will be analysing, mainly for the text chat. I'm a PhD student from Australia who is trying to decide which software I should use to analyse my research data.
0 kommentar(er)
