‘Time to figure out what to do’: understanding the nature of Irish post-primary students’ interactions with computer-based exams (CBEs) that use multimedia stimuli

Figures & data

Figure 1. Item from ‘Groundwater Extraction and Earthquakes’ unit (static, dynamic).

Table 1. Profile of participants.

	Condition	CBE Part A	CBE Part B
Participant 1 (P1)	Static	73% (M)	81% (H)
Participant 2 (P2)	Dynamic	40% (L)	6% (L)
Participant 3 (P3)	Static	100% (H)	81% (H)
Participant 4 (P4)	Dynamic	67% (M)	63% (M)
Participant 5 (P5)	Dynamic	67% (M)	63% (M)
Participant 6 (P6)	Dynamic	67% (M)	81% (H)
Participant 7 (P7)	Dynamic	53% (L)	81% (H)
Participant 8 (P8)	Dynamic	67% (M)	100% (H)
Participant 9 (P9)	Static	60% (M)	69% (M)
Participant 10 (P10)	Dynamic	53% (L)	63% (M)
Participant 11 (P11)	Static	47% (L)	56% (M)
Participant 12 (P12)	Static	73% (M)	88% (H)

Table 2. Application of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework for thematic analysis.

Step	Description/Actions
Familiarisation	Audio recordings (233 min) were transcribed. These transcripts were read multiple times by the first author to facilitate familiarisation.
Initial Coding	The data were then organised into smaller ‘chunks’ or ‘codes’ in a meaningful and systematic way using an inductive approach.
Theme Search	The initial codes were then organised into broader themes. These were descriptive in nature.
Theme Review	The initial themes were modified and refined and the data contained within each theme were reviewed.
Theme Definition	Efforts were made to ‘ … identify the essence of what each theme is about’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 92). Relationships between and within themes were also identified.
Write-up	The final thematic framework was finalised after discussion with all authors.

Figure 2. Thematic frame representing principal themes and subthemes.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

 Google Scholar