Research Methods and Learning: Conceptualizing the Difference - Essay Example

Research Methods and Learning: Conceptualizing the Difference Task A How to research and conceptualize learning has long been a matter of hot debates. Writers and scholars in education tried to answer the main questions related to research methods in the field of learning and their effects on the public and professional understanding of learning processes. Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) make a good attempt to reconsider the current body of learning research and seek to develop valid linkages between research methods and conceptualizations of learning. In other words, the goal of their research is to understand how different methods of researching learning affect the meaning of learning and its concept. Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) assert that the choice of research methods is directly related to the concept of learning which researchers support. Moreover, the researchers assume that, by choosing one or another method of research, scholars in education try to promote their own vision and conceptualization of learning. These differences in learning conceptualizations and their relationship to research methodology should be considered. The significance of Hodkinson and Macleod’s (2010) is justified by the fact that learning lacks a single definition. On the contrary, learning is too vague to be defined in concrete terms. “Learning is a conceptual and linguistic construction that is widely used in many societies and cultures, but very different meanings, which are fiercely contested and partly contradictory” (Hodkinson & MacLeod, 2010, p.174). Since learning lacks an explicit meaning and does not possess any physical identity, differences in interpretations and conceptualizations of learning are logical and anticipated. Thus, it comes as no surprise that professionals and scholars in education use various methodologies to construct their knowledge about learning. Actually, most of what has been written and said about learning has been made possible by constructing new knowledge about complex learning processes (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010). For the purpose of their research, Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) discuss the most common and well-known conceptualizations of learning and their implications for scholarly research. It appears that acquisition and participation are the two foundational paradigms describing the field of learning (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010). Depending on the particular paradigm, researchers tend to conceptualize learning as either an activity system or the system of transferring knowledge from the source to the recipient. In addition, learning can be perceived as construction, when individuals construct new meanings of the reality in which they live and accumulate these meanings (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010). In this situation, researchers face two challenging tasks: first, which of the contrasting views of learning should be adopted and, depending on the view, what type of research methodology will fit their views on learning (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010). Here, the researchers also seek to trace the linkages between the research methods and the existing conceptualizations of learning. Based on the knowledge provided in their article, it is clear that research methods and learning conceptualizations create a circle of interdependencies: while the choice of learning ideology greatly affects and even necessitates the choice of the most appropriate research strategy, the latter also impacts the ways in which research results are interpreted and understood. From what Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) write in their article, it is possible to assume that research methodology can indicate and help to define the learning conceptualization to which each particular researcher is committed. Furthermore, the knowledge provided in the article enables researchers to define the gaps and inconsistencies that usually accompany the process of research in learning. Eventually, with the help of the article, researchers can trace the strengths and weaknesses in earlier studies and eliminate them in the future. The main strength of Hodkinson and Macleod’s (2010) argument in that the researcher exposes the complex linkages between research methodology and the various conceptualizations of learning and suggest that research methods can produce huge impacts on how the meaning of learning is interpreted and understood. The complexity of educational and learning research should not be disregarded (Bassey 2007). More often than not, research paradigms fail to embrace the multitude of learning stakeholders, and, based on Hodkinson and Macleod (2010), by choosing the most suitable research method researchers can successfully close these gaps. Moreover, in many instances, education researchers confess that learning lacks a theoretical angle (Ball, 2007). Hodkinson and Macleod’s (2010) article can lay the ground for developing new theories of learning and, consequentially, new decision making frameworks in learning research. Simultaneously, the article is not without weaknesses. Two major deficiencies should be considered here. First, Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) explore only two qualitative and two quantitative paradigms. The significance of their conclusions in terms of these research paradigms is difficult to overstate, but what about other methodologies? Bearing in mind that the rapid advancement of education research and science gives rise to new research and methodological paradigms, the links discussed by Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) may soon become obsolete. According to Edwards, Sebba and Rickinson (2007), advancement of practice is the central goal of education research, and education research constantly develops and improves. The emergence of new research paradigms will warrant further analysis of the research-concept linkages or deny the existence of such linkages at all. Second, when Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) claim that the choice of research methods greatly affects the way in which learning is interpreted and understood, what knowledge and conceptualization of knowledge do they pursue? How can they justify the choice of the research methods in their article? To a large extent, the knowledge and conclusions developed by Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) have far-reaching implications for understand the nature of all education research methods. Furthermore, it is possible to assume that, when it comes to analyzing a concept as vague as learning, the choice of research methodology will have to depend on the choice of the concept framework. Does that mean that researchers will be limited in their choice of research methods, depending on the concept or conceptualization to which they are committed? Does that also mean that researchers will not be able to choose the research framework they feel the most suitable, simply because it does not meet the criteria of the chosen conceptual framework? Finally, how to decide the ways in which concepts and research methods are related and how to deal with external influences? For example, stakeholders produce great influences on how the meanings and research results are interpreted; they can also provide alternative interpretations and expand the range of interpretations available on the problem (Edwards et al., 2007). These questions have no answers. It would be fair to say that Hodkinson and Macleod (2010) have created more questions than they are able to answer, and only future research can help to validate their assumptions and research outcomes. Task B The current state of education research is characterized by the growing diversity of methodological assumptions and paradigms. Ontological and epistemological traditions give rise to new conceptualizations of research in learning, and the most important question is whether these conceptualizations create a conflict, exist in peace, or form a coalition. The answer to this question is simple: in the atmosphere where the entire body of education research moves toward the priority of using mixed research methods, it is clear that contrasting research paradigms shape a coalition that should benefit the researcher and those who use research results in practice. Researchers in education tend to interpret the meaning of reality in totally different ways. Interpretivism is believed to be in direct conflict with positivism, based on the premise that positivism denies the existence of multiple meanings and realities and relies on the measurable phenomena and outcomes, which can be easily quantified. By contrast, interpretivism, according to Gage (2007), implies that individuals reinterpret the reality, based on their perceptions, and external reality cannot determine or change these perceptions. The positivist tradition is claimed to fall short of capturing the essence of natural sciences, whereas interpretivism has the potential to provide for greater sensitivity toward the various dimensions of human social life (Evans & Benefield, 2001). Yet, despite these dramatic differences, the potential to create a coalition of the contrasting research philosophies should not be ignored. Education researchers around the world and in the western world, in particular, constantly consider “how discourses that circulate about what is and is not appropriate and productive educational enquiry shape the possibilities for what is to be an educational researcher and for what knowledge is made available and legitimized to inform learning and how to support it” (Gage, 2007). It is clear that, in most instances, there is no definite answer to the questions raised in the process of choosing the most appropriate research method. As a result, while researchers use a mixture of methods to produce a better understanding of immeasurable phenomena, the conflict between various research paradigms gradually wanes. Moreover, by using more than one research paradigm to explore one and the same research question, researchers try to address the limitations inherent in each of the existing research paradigms and enhance the validity of their findings. The mere existence of mixed methods research implies that the war of epistemologies and ontologies is coming to an end, while researchers are shaping new views on learning and the world in which is develops (Shawer, 2010). Eventually, it is for the benefit of future education research that the vision of the research coalition should be supported and promoted. This is how researchers can resolve the existing conflicts among their views on one and the same learning phenomenon and develop better linkages among various research paradigms and the research objects they are willing to explore. Task C As the importance of education research increases and practical educators build their strategy on the most recent research findings, achieving the most appropriate balance of research methods and concepts is of critical importance for scholars. Simultaneously, the conflict and coalition among various research paradigms remains one of the critical issues of scholarly and practical analysis. Therefore, one of the most relevant questions in the context of education research methods and learning concepts is “Can mixed methods research can resolve the existing epistemological-ontological dilemmas and satisfy the growing amount of learning conceptualizations in education research?” Reasons why this question is relevant and important are numerous and diverse. Basically, and according to Hodkinson and MacLeod (2010), both the United States and the United Kingdom increasingly favor the use of mixed methods in education research. This is mainly because the use of mixed methodologies facilitates the discovery of truth, through triangulation (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010). Mixed methods reveal an unprecedented research potential in the context of learning, since the latter has no measurable identity and cannot be quantified. Moreover, learning has no definite substance and cannot be easily defined. However, despite its benefits, mixed methods leave many research issues unresolved. Therefore, it is imperative for researchers to decide whether triangulation (or mixed methods research) can meet the needs of learning research, and whether mixed methods are possible with the emerging research frameworks. The second reason why the discussed question is relevant is because there is no consensus as for the nature and philosophy of mixed methods designs. A belief persists that, despite their benefits, mixed methods do not erase but, on the contrary the existing distinctions among qualitative and quantitative methods (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010). Mixed methods offer new ways of developing and constructing knowledge about learning and reveal the new facets of learning that would be unavailable, had only one of the two methods been used. Mixed methods hold a promise to reduce the existing methodological bias in learning research (Hodkinson & Macleod, 2010). Yet, the body of knowledge concerning the utility and usability of the mixed methods is rather scarce. Future research is needed to illuminate the distinctions among the various methods of examining learning, conflicts that arise whenever these methods are used together, as well as propose ways to erase the existing distinctions for the benefit of education research. Simultaneously, most probably, even the most unbiased research will hardly lead to the development of a single, universal definition of learning. References Ball, S 2007, ‘Intellectuals or Technicians: the urgent role of theory in educational studies’, pp. 106–20. Bassey, M 2007, ‘On the kinds of research in educational settings’, pp. 141–50. Edwards, A, Sebba, J and Rickinson, M 2007 ‘Working with users: some implications for educational research’, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 647–61. Evans, J and Benefield, P 2001, ‘Systematic reviews of educational research: does the medical model fit?’, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 527–41. Gage, N 2007, ‘The paradigm wars and their aftermath’, pp. 151–66. Hargreaves, S 2007, ‘Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and prospects’, pp. 3–17. Hodkinson, P & Macleod, F 2010, ‘Contrasting concepts of learning and contrasting research methodologies: Affinities and bias’, British Educational Research Journal, vol.36, no.2, pp.173-189. Shawer, S 2010, ‘Communicative-based curriculum innovations between theory and practice: implications for EFL curriculum development and student cognitive and affective change’, Curriculum Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 333–59. Read More