RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND GENERALIZABILITY REVISITED
It is important to address again the reliability, validity and generalizability of this study
now that the results are known. The fundamental issue can be simply summarized: Are the
results what a reasonable person would conclude from this data, and would expect to conclude in
another situation from similar data?
While there are limited “triangulation” sources in the strict sense of the concept’s usage
in qualitative research, there are several “reference points” from which my conclusions were
drawn. Figure 1-2 (page 23) can now be made more specific. The primary sources for this study
are the videotapes. These led to the coded transcripts. The transcripts gave birth to the
flowcharts. Together they form the primary data.
The written solutions to the problems are related to the video, and help to clarify what the
students were discussing. These are a separate type of data and due to their written form could
be objectively evaluated.
Descriptive data relating to the size, gender and performance mix of the group, as well as
quantitative test scores enabled some “statistical” characterization of the groups. It is important
to see this data as descriptive and not normative. That is, this data helps to describe the members
of a group individually and their group as a whole. One of the most useful pieces of data of this
type were the self-disclosure statements such as “I missed class yesterday.” While these
statements come from the videos, they really are self-descriptions of the groups.
Finally there are the subjective comments that I, the transcription assistant, and my
dissertation advisor made upon viewing the tapes or reading the transcripts. At first glance, all
fourteen transcripts look a lot alike. Immediate differences are noted upon comparing different