BRIEF RESEARCH BACKGROUNDS
Two research papers are taken in this paper and evaluated critically using appropriate academic frameworks. Both the papers analysed were research done in the field of education. The first research paper is entitled “The Self-Worth, Physical and Social Activities of Graduate Students: A Qualitative Study”, done by and published in the College Student Journal in 2006. As the title implies, the study is of a qualitative nature, the purpose of which was to explore graduate students’ perspectives of how graduate school affected their participation in physical and social activities and their self worth. The results of the research indicated that the occupation of being a graduate student affects one’s social and physical activities in a typically negative fashion, and overall sense of self-worth in both a negative and positive way.
The second research paper has a title “Comparing Web-Based and Classroom-Based Learning: A Quantitative Study”, conducted by in 2001 for the Journal of Research on Technology Education. This quantitative study compares the achievement of students enrolled in two sections of a course on teaching English to speakers of other languages (ESOL), one taught in a classroom setting and the other offered online to make a small contribution to the research-based dialogue regarding student achievement in both sections. The findings of the study suggest that students in the Web-based section of the course learned slightly but not significantly more than students in the classroom-based section of the course.
MODE OF ENQUIRY EMPLOYED
The research papers were chosen mainly for the difference in the mode of enquiry that they used. For purposes of this paper, the qualitative study conducted by and will be pertained to as ‘QL study’ in the remainder of the paper, while the quantitative study performed by and will be identified as ‘QN study’. First, there is a need to define the modes of enquiry as used in the two studies. (2002) has defined qualitative study as the study of processes and behaviours in their natural settings, through which the researcher tries to make sense of phenomena and the meanings that people attribute to them. In agreement with that, the QL study attempted to interpret and understand the phenomena happening to graduate students in their social, institutional, political, economic, technological, institutional and organizational contexts. The study’s participants’ physical and social activity and self-worth were reportedly all impacted by being a graduate student; at times, some areas of their lives (i.e., school) received magnified attention at the cost of other areas. The qualitative researcher in the study employed focus groups in an attempt to interpret and understand self-worth, physical and social activities of the graduate students, and, in so doing, offers multiple perspectives that incrementally add to the understanding of its operation and its implicit meanings (2000).
Another distinctive feature of the QL study is the researcher’s role as the primary research instrument, since the research is invariably conducted through the researcher’s direct engagement in intense, prolonged and direct exposure to the group amidst situations that form the everyday activities and processes of people, organizations and institutions. This engagement serves the researcher’s objective to capture the perceptions and understandings of the actors ‘from the inside’ so as to better understand how they make sense of and manage their daily activities (1994). Also, although researchers have a topic and an agenda which fuel their research progress, they are usually committed to exploring new and often surprising avenues that emerge as informants reveal their understandings and interests. Research procedures may be unstructured, adaptable and sometimes spontaneous. At times the research process may even be described as rather ‘messy’ as researchers attempt to unpack the complexities of the social world. This is where qualitative studies come in. These type of studies are normally characterised as flexible, that allows researchers to discover new avenues in their work. Finally, in comparison with the quantitative researcher’s analytical reliance on statistics, the QL study’s analysis is based on a careful and deep understanding and use of language, concept and argument.
Despite its strengths, qualitative inquiry is not without its limitations. One of the most common criticisms is that it is too subjective. Those holding to a quantitative research orientation sometimes accuse qualitative studies of being too impressionistic and subjective. However, subjectivity is the aim of qualitative research, as we noted with regard to ‘participant viewpoints’ in the previous section. By paying attention to criteria of reliability and validity (or authenticity and trustworthiness), the study will go some way to overcoming this charge.
(2002) describes quantitative data as ‘data which can be sorted, classified, measured in a strictly “objective” way – they are capable of being accurately described by a set of rules or formulae or strict procedures which then make their definition (if not always their interpretation) unambiguous and independent of individual judgments’. This choice of enquiry by the QN study was justified in their objective to compare the achievement of students in the online and the offline sections of the course, which was only possible through direct measurement (test scores) characteristic of quantitative studies. In sum, the quantitative research in education emphasizes the discovery of existing facts by employing neutral scientific language. Philosophically, this view is based on a ‘subject-object relationship (1983) in which human reality is able to be isolated and exists independently from the researcher’s subjectivity. The results of the data analysis, therefore, are presented in a numerical and objective way.
One of the research goals of the QN study is a discovery of universal value. Universal value means that the research value is universally applicable regardless of time, place, culture and other factors (2002). This concept is largely linked to the generalizability of research. In quantitative research, in order to make generalizability, objectivity of the research is particularly emphasized by using neutral scientific language. The strength of the quantitative research approach, especially as used in education, is that the research results are derived by discovering exact facts and, therefore, the same research methods and the results are generalized. In other words, it can be applied to a large number of other situations because it is objective and value free (1990). That is to say, a researcher’s subjectivity is separate from the research and the research is able to show exact facts objectively. In (1983) words, the value is ‘free’ from researcher’s perspective.
(1984) points out some strong points of the quantitative research approach in education, which was also evident in the QN study. They are: first, the theory is not context-bound but is universal. It consists of axiomatic principles. Second, theory is considered to be value-free. Readers, thus, may judge or understand the facts without knowing the researcher’s value judgment. Third, the use of mathematical statistical analysis can reduce ambiguities and contradictions which would exist in the research. Thus, it is possible to be generalised. In the study, the finding that that students in the Web-based section of the course learned slightly but not significantly more than students in the classroom-based section of the course can be made to apply to all Web-based courses, thus paving way for ongoing research to continuously test the effectiveness of evolving Web-based course delivery technologies. One weakness of the quantitative research approach in education is that the researcher’s viewpoint is not considered in the explanation of the research. Even though there are psychological issues which affect the research results, the quantitative research approach does not pursue the connection of the human mind, as also implied in the QN study. In addition, the quantitative research approach pays no attention to the individual differences of the subjects. (1978) states that quantitative analysis is less comfortable for linguists when it is used to generalise linguistic differences. According to (1978), many linguists worry a great deal about various difficulties posed by quantification, but as for the focus of the course in the QN study on meeting the needs of the linguistically and culturally diverse student population found in the nation’s elementary schools, this did not appear to be a problem because the subjects were not grouped according to their language or culture.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE UTILISED
A maximum variation sample, which provides researchers with perspectives and experiences of study participants who have varying characteristics (2002), was recruited for the QL study. It was hypothesized that different academic disciplines may offer differing experiences for their graduate students. Therefore, master and doctoral level students from a wide-variety of academic disciplines were recruited for this study. Inductive content analysis was also used to analyze the data. Each member of the research team independently coded emerging themes, and, once individual analysis of the data was complete, the researchers compared their findings. To enhance the trustworthiness of the study findings, strategies such as member checking, independent analysis and peer debriefing were utilized, as recommended by (1989).
Qualitative approaches demand different sampling techniques from the randomly selected and probabilistic sampling which quantitative researchers generally use. They are less rigid and do not start with the establishment of a strict sampling frame, as in quantitative studies. This is because qualitative sampling develops during the research process as the researcher discovers new avenues and clues to follow up. Likewise, this kind of sampling are far less complicated to set up, are considerably less expensive, and can prove perfectly adequate where researchers do not intend to generalize their findings beyond the sample in question, or where they are simply piloting a questionnaire as a prelude to the main study. On the down side, this kind of sampling is disadvantaged in that it fails to become representative of the whole population. The subjects in the QN study were students enrolled in TSL 4141 during the fall 1999 semester. The students were not randomly assigned to the online and classroom-based sections of the course. However, when students enrolled in one of the two sections of the course, they had no way of knowing whether they were registering for an online or offline section of the course. The decision to teach one of the sections online was made by the instructor after the official course registration period ended. Whilst it may satisfy the researcher’s needs to take the whole population as subjects of the study, it may not be so practical for a quantitative study with a large population to not stick to sampling, as it will prove time-consuming and costly.
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE USED
In the QL study, the focus group interview was used as a data collection technique. The focus group interview method of inquiry has become immensely popular and influential in contemporary culture. The focus group interview has been chosen as the data collection technique for the QL study as it can be used in addressing issues associated with nearly any theoretical or applied problem. Whatever the perspective or problem, focus group interviews are most useful when employed with the assumption that knowledge is socially constructed and where the reality of interest is the result of social interaction, which is the case in the QL study, it being focused on exploration of the graduate students’ perspectives of how their occupation of being a graduate student affects their participation in physical activity and social opportunities and their overall sense of self worth. The QL study operates from the perspective that research is a series of negotiated acts, dependent upon language that results in shared knowledge (2000). Generative group interaction is the defining feature of the focus group (1993). During the seven semi-structured focus group interviews that were conducted with full-time graduate students, the moderator is able to observe how people make private opinions public and how that process shapes the formation of their stated opinion.
Experts in the focus group interview method acknowledge that participants are informing one another (1994; 1993). Rather than providing short responses to structured questions, focus group participants engage in thoughtful discussion and may actually influence one another. Motivation for interacting can usually be assumed when participation is voluntary; people generally give of their time—at least with serious research subjects—when they have more personal investment in the subject. The motivation of participants required for effective focus groups calls for caution in the interpretation and extension of study findings. However, there are weaknesses to their choice of data collection technique. The researchers of the QL study admitted that since the study used only one data collection method, it may invite bias and inaccuracy. Many strategies were used to try and combat this limitation and ensure trustworthiness of the data, including member checking, peer-debriefing, and multiple analysts and coders. However, these strategies would be further enhanced through the use of an additional method of data collection, which the authors of the QL study recommend for future research.
On the other hand, the QN study employed the direct measurement technique using the test scores administered to the subjects of the study, which included the core concepts and ideas covered in the course. A pretest was administered to the online and offline groups at the beginning of the semester. The same test was administered as the posttest at the end of the semester. The test included the core concepts and ideas covered in the course. The pre- and posttests were independently scored by the course instructor and a colleague of the instructor. The attraction of this method of data collection is that such a ‘homegrown’ test will be tailored to the local and institutional context very tightly, i.e. that the purposes, objectives and content of the test will be deliberately fitted to the specific needs of the researcher in a specific, given context. In an educational research, they offer teachers a valuable opportunity for quick, relevant and focused feedback on student performance. In discussing ‘fitness for purpose’, Gronlund & Linn (1990) set out a range of criteria against which a commercially produced test can be evaluated for its suitability for specific research purposes. The scope of tests and testing is far-reaching; it is as if no areas of educational activity are untouched by them (2000). Achievement tests, like the one employed in the QN study, are largely summative in nature and measure achieved performance in a given content area, in the study’s case, the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that will enable the students to select and apply the most effective language communication and teaching strategies for all aspects of classroom instruction. Further, an achievement test is more specific and often tied to a specific content area, it will be useful as a predictor of future performance in that content area but will be largely unable to predict future performance out of that content area. Particularly, this summative testing given at the end of the programm is designed to measure achievement, outcomes, or ‘mastery’. However, (1995) asserted that not only might it be time-consuming to devise, pilot, refine and then administer the test but, because much of it will probably be non-parametric, there will be a more limited range of statistics which may be applied to the data than in the case of parametric tests.
CONCLUSION
What can be observed in recent developments in educational research is the importation of ideas and methods from spheres outside education, furthering the notion that interdisciplinary inquiry is both a developing trend and, indeed, the way forward at the cutting edge of research. With these recent developments come the improvements in how the methods of enquiry are being carried out by contemporary educational researchers. It is important, then, for the researcher to be clear on the purposes of the needs analysis being undertaken, for this will determine the focus, methodology and outcome of the assessment. Consequent to this, it is necessary for the needs analysis to be clear on its remit, focus, sampling, methodology, data collection, and prescription for intervention. Particularly for the last criterion, the intention is to ensure that interventions are appropriately matched to perceived problems or needs, indeed that competing and alternative proposed interventions are evaluated. The data required for needs analysis can be derived from several sources, for example, in quantitative data from: structured surveys; ‘key person’ (informants) surveys; structured interviews; data from official public sources and documents (e.g. census returns, test and examination data, and other surveys); simulations and prediction analyses; test, assessment and examination data; application, attendance, retention, withdrawal and success rates; and in qualitative data from: semi-structured interviews with individuals and groups; focus groups; case studies; critical incidents and events; public meetings; nominal group technique and Delphi techniques; Ishikawa cause-and-effect diagrams.
Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the variety of research methods available for use not only by educational
researchers but for the whole lot as well, is needed to identify the appropriate methods related to specific research objectives. As evidenced in the analysis of the two research papers, their respective authors utilised the research methodologies which they deemed most fit for the achievement of their research objectives. Doing research has changed dramatically over the past few decades. With few exceptions, until the 1980s, the typical research training in universities focused on statistics, measurement, and experimental methods, with little or no attention to other approaches to research. The decade of the 1990s raised new challenges to research practice, with scholarly debates around the power differentials in researcher—participant relationships, ethical issues in the conduct of research, and in ways in which researchers represent participants in written accounts, particularly when participants are women and people of colour. Much of this debate was of a philosophical nature based on post-modern challenges to traditional modernist notions of research assumptions and practice. As the 21st century is here, these theoretical and methodological debates continue as scholars critique and rethink what has been and explore what might be in research. Researchers today are keenly aware of the multiple methodologies available for contributing new knowledge to the disciplines and the challenges entailed in the use of each of those approaches. As (1986) reminded us, ‘There are many ways to do science’ (105).
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment