Research Methods in Education - Literature review Example

Educational research (Name) (Institution) (Course) (Instructor’s Name) Date of submission Introduction Research is a fundamental process in the modern world where knowledge and information play a very strong role in the day to day life. Decisions about the unknown future are made depending on the information available at the moment of making decisions. Predicting future conditions has been problematic. Man has developed various tools to help him predict the future most common among them is based on history in the belief certain a phenomenon follows a certain pattern. This has given rise to research where findings from observations from past events are used to predict the future. As the demand for information grows, so does the need to carry out research on various spheres in life. Again demand for information is fuelled by changes such as environmental, technological and human factors. Consequently, experts in research have developed guiding principles to be used in gathering data and presenting the data in a comprehensible manner as information. Technology use in education research like any other form of research in the modern world is subject to a number of considerations that legitimize and increase the credibility, reliability and accuracy of the findings among other issues. There are two major paradigms in collecting data: quantitative and qualitative. The choice of paradigm used depends on the type of data to be collected though in some situations both approaches are used. This paper discusses two research articles about technology in education namely “Comparing web based and classroom based learning: A quantitative study” by M.O. Thirunarayanan and Aixa Perez Prado and “Technology-Using Teachers Comparing Perceptions of Exemplary Technology Use to Best Practice” by Peggy A. Ertmer, Sangeetha Gopalakrishnan, and Eva M. Ross. These articles are used as the basis for discussing and analysing ethical issues in research, research paradigms and research methodology and methods using books and journal articles. Paradigm/approach There exists differing views on the best approaches to any given research. Some researchers argue that research approach is best determined by the discipline while others believe that the type of data should be the determining factor. The choice of approach also determines the methodology and data collection methods to be used. This choice also remotely influences the ethical concerns that will face the researchers in the process of collecting data in addition to influencing the credibility, reliability and accuracy of the findings. The two major approaches in data collection are also considered umbrella classifications of paradigms into positivist and interpretivist. There exist major differences between these two approaches. Each approach has its weaknesses and strengths. However, Lather (2006) and Johnstone and Onwuegbuzie (2006) indicate that there is a new school of thought, pragmatism, which advocates combining the two paradigms in what is called a mixed research paradigm to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Not many researches have been conducted using the mixed research approach as there still remain major philosophical differences. The two main articles in this discussion use the often conflicting paradigms; positivist/quantitative and interpretivist/qualitative (Lather 2006). This paper uses them as basis for discussing the different perspectives of positivism and interpretivism. Research paradigm in Thirunarayanan and Prado In their article, Thirunarayanan and Prado seek to find out if there is any difference in performance between online and classroom-based students. In the paper, the authors explicitly indicate that their research in quantitative in nature which oftentimes follows a positivist approach. This approach assumes that the students’ performance is not affected by other factors such as perceptions towards the course, the course content or other subjective factors. The authors’ choice of paradigm allows them to assume that such subjective factors have no influence on the research and hence their findings remain objective. Research studies are meant to add some level of knowledge about a certain phenomena without considering the influence of the researcher in the whole investigative process (Gallagher, 2005). On the positivist perception of knowledge Krauss (2005) says that “the object of study is independent of researchers; knowledge is discovered and verified through direct observations or measurements of phenomena; facts are established by taking apart a phenomenon to examine its component parts” (p. 759). Thirunarayanan and Prado follow this lead to assess dismantle the myth about differences in achievements of online and classroom based students by analysing the results of just two tests to make a generalised conclusion. Lather (2006) indicates that a quantitative/positivist paradigm recognises truth as singular in nature. Hence, adopting such an approach implies that the hypothesis either approves or negates. This is evident in the simple purpose statement in Thirunarayanan and Prado’s article; to find out whether there is any difference in performance between online and offline (classroom-based) students undertaking a teaching course in English. The findings of the research through a t-test show that there is no significant difference in performance between online and offline students though there is numerical difference between the two. The findings in this research are direct and do not require much interpretation. Thus truth is that the theory holds, and there is no other form of truth. They assume that such results can be observed in other tests hence a pattern that derives theory. The way that positivist treat theory is different from the way interprevists treat it. Positivists develop a theory and then test its credibility. In Thirunarayanan and Prado article, they recognise that past researches have indicated that there is minimal difference in performance between online and classroom-based students. However, they go ahead and seek to verify or negate this theory in their research which is affirmative. In their purpose of the study section, the authors state that “the general research-based consensus is that there is no significant difference in the achievement of students enrolled in distance education courses when compared with the achievements of students enrolled in the traditional or classroom-based courses” (Thirunarayanan and Prado, p. 131). Their research statement reads “the purpose of this study is to make a small contribution to the research-based dialogue regarding student achievement in web-based courses as compared to student achievements in the traditional courses” (Thirunarayanan and Prado, p. 132). Therefore, the authors embark on verifying a theory and not necessarily adding new knowledge as it cannot be changed. The approach used in a research also influences the methodology and methods used in data collection. While this article discusses, the latter in another section, it is important to show the influence of research paradigm in data collection. Lather (2006) says that positivist paradigm assumes that subjectivism does not matter. This therefore implies that adopting such a paradigm in research, the methodology used will not capture any subjectivist form of data. Lather (2006) writes that among the major assumptions made in a positivist approach is that discourse is structured, transparent and reflects reality. This type of approach commands more authority and the findings in such a research are conclusive and not abstract. The findings of the research are assumed to be true and reflect the reality. Thirunarayanan and Prado do not mince words in stating their findings. They write that “the research found no statistically significant difference in achievement between students enrolled in online and classroom-based courses” (p. 136). Positivism is thus suited for testing theories and not actually testing hypothesis or just exploring phenomena. As aforementioned, positivism and interpretivism are conflicting in nature, it would be expected that the latter tests what the former fails to test. To capture this argument is a discussion on a qualitative research paper. Research paradigm in Ertmer et al The interpretivist approach, as the name suggests, relies on interpreting data to arrive at the truth (Lather 2006). This approach assumes that truth exists in plural. Ertmer et al use this approach to compare perceptions of technology use by teachers. They ascent to an interpretivist approach through their research’s statement of purpose which reads; “using a qualitative case-study design, we examined the pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices of 17 exemplary technology-using teachers” (p. 1). This indicates that there is no absolute truth to be expected in their findings. This research does not compare two physical phenomena but rather social ones- perceptions held by teachers and contemporary knowledge as indicated in technology use literature. In fact, the research’s final conclusion indicates no absolute truth. The authors write that “As suggested by McLaughlin (as cited in Dexter et al., 1999), best practice may be an unrealistic goal” (Ertmer et al, p. 21). As aforementioned, interpretivism treats knowledge, which any research study seeks to attain, very differently from positivism. Interpretivists say that “knowledge is established through the meanings attached to the phenomena studied; researchers interact with the subjects of study to obtain data; inquiry changes both researcher and subject; and knowledge is context and time dependent” (Krauss, p. 759). In this paper, Ertmer et al assess how attitudes and perceptions affect learning though use of technology. These variables are not definite and are subjective in nature. An intepretivist paradigm will require that subjectivism be captured as it influences natural phenomena to be tested and hence qualitative methods of data collection will be used (Lather 2006). Ertmer et al have to capture the subjective elements of nature that influence their data which they refer to perceptions of best practice in technology infusion in learning by teachers. To capture this type of data, the most feasible way is through observation which is not consistent. From an interpretivist paradigm, the authors infuse the interaction between teachers, their students and learning materials which have a significant bearing on the results. Lather (2006) says that interpretivists assume that reality is subjective and that people experience reality in different ways. This implies that the results of their finding do not apply in other situations are the circumstances that surround other learning situation are not the same as those of this particular research. While comparing findings with past research and existing literature in order to place the research in context and show its contribution to the topic, a research is not to be educative of itself. This is a common error in the intepretivist approach where the research findings credibility is subject to approval by past literature. Lather (2006) cites Britzman who says that “educational research should become increasingly unintelligible to itself in a way that is outside epistemological capture” (p.42). By this, Lather (2006) implies that a research should seek to produce new knowledge rather than juxtapose existing one. However, Shtarkshall (2004) as cited in (Krauss 2005) argues that an intepretivist paradigm uses the inductive thought process where the validity of findings has to be scrutinised and endorsed by others. This is very different in the case of a positivist paradigm that assumes that knowledge is accurate and that and objective true reality free from environmental influences exists. Interpretivists seek to construct a theory out of a number of multiple realities. The researchers have to consider the subjective element to the variables in order to understand a phenomenon. This approach assumes that out of chaos created by a number of realities, it is possible to recognise a pattern shaped by both the social and cultural environment. Lather (2006) puts it more simply by saying from an ontological point of view, interpretivists seek to understand things but not really know will absolute certainty because knowledge is constructed. This is different from what Thirunarayanan and Prado assume that similarity in performance between online and classroom-based students is fact or a falsehood. Interpretivists like in the case of Ertmer et al in their research suggest that there is no right of wrong answer in their research as there is nothing to prove but rather an attempt to understand what is perceived to be the best practices in technology use in teaching according to teachers sample din their study and existing literature. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2008) bring out another contrast between the two approaches and say that “Qualitative purists also are characterized by a dislike of a detached and passive style of writing, preferring, instead, detailed, rich, and thick (empathic) description, written directly and somewhat informally” (p. 14). This is observable from Ertmer et al’s article that uses numerous sources in the literature review section to develop a case for their research. In fact, results in this qualitative research are also presented in comparison to the literature review rather than the observations made only. For instance, “the exemplary teachers in this study were relatively less experienced than those described by Becker (1994) and Hadley and Sheingold (1993)” (Ertmer et al p. 13) Ethical issues Ethics is an integral and sensitive issue in research. Gallgher (2005) says observing ethical concerns in educational research is important in ensuring that the conclusions made in the research are valid and beyond reproach and also justifies the methodology used. James and Busher say that “educational researchers have a responsibility to ensure that in whatever research paradigm they work, the research that is conducted is done so within an 'ethic of respect' to those who participate.” Ethics is described by Kanuka (2007) as professional code of conduct expected from persons especially in the same profession, in this case researchers. Although there are the common ethical issues such as privacy and confidentiality of respondents that arise, other ethical issues are unique to an individual research. Kanuka adds that, deontological perspectives (rule-based) in ethics develop and evolve over time and are applicable in many researches. However, the teleological perspective (ethical relativism) suggests that ethical concerns are determined by prevailing circumstances whereby the consequence of the act determines what behaviour is ethically acceptable and which one is not. The major ethical issues are as follows Consent Consent, same as informed consent in healthcare, is fundamental principle in the field of education research (Kanuka 2008). Informed consent must be obtained from all participants except in cases where deception is relatively benign before the research or immediately after. Kanuka notes that in the classroom based scenario, obtaining consent form participating students is easy as it involves distribution of consent forms for signing to the students in the classroom. This is not the case when the participants are online students. Conventionally, researchers tend to include issues of consent in their research by showing how the sample was arrived at. In most cases, researchers indicate to have recruited a large number in their sample but with some dropping off either by refusal to consent to some matters in the research or matters pertinent to the research. Consent in Thirunarayanan and Prado In this research, the participants were both online and classroom-based students though the authors do not indicate any issues with consent. It can be deduced that since the researchers did not make use of direct contribution of the students, their consent was ignored except that of the teacher. Kanuka supports the idea of ignoring the issue of consent by saying “in the case of the examination of ephemeral course transcripts recorded by a webcam or audio recorder, it has also been argued that the individuals being studied are not research participants in the normal use of the word because they are not being asked to do anything specific by the researcher and, as such, obtaining consent is not required” (Kanuka p.27). However, Kanuka cites Hudson and Bruckman who through a series of quantitative observation research similar to that of Thirunarayanan and Prado noted that many ‘participants’ being observed without their knowledge were angered by the fact that they had not been informed and they had not consented to such. Thirunarayanan and Prado do not mention participants’ consent. Consent in Ertmer et al In majority of qualitative researches, participants’ consent is a prerogative as the researcher may have to meet face to face with the participants through interviews or when distributing questionnaires. Same as in the case of quantitative research, where participants’ direct involvement is not required, consent is not a necessity. In the case of this research, teaches were directly involved (Kanuka 2007). They were expected to discuss what they perceive to be best practice in technology use in class which was to be compared to what the literature says. Respect of confidentiality This applies to the confidentiality of the respondents or participants in the research. A breach of confidentiality may best be understood as the failure to maintain the privacy and security of data that can possibly identify individual participants through various stages of the research project. Advanced methods of data storage and processing have increased the challenges of maintaining confidentiality for the researchers. To handle this issue, researchers oftentimes use pseudonyms to hide the identity of the participants (Nolen & Putten 2007). However, not many researchers are stretched to the point of using pseudonyms as observed in the two research articles. Thirunarayanan and Prado have used no actual names of pseudonyms in the whole paper same case from Ertmer et al. Autonomy of participants Researchers and participants must agree on the perception of the voluntary nature of participating in the research more so based on the researcher-respondents relationships. Nolen and Putten (2007) say this is important given that most educational researches are conducted by teachers with participants being their students. Teachers have no ethical basis of forcing their students to participate in researches they wish to conduct. The consent of the participants must be sought first. Nolen and Putten (p. 403) cite Pritchard (2002, p.5) who say Practitioners may have a right to devote their own time and effort to research, but they do not have a right to demand the cooperation of others. In American society practitioner researchers do not have a right to compel people—including their students—to cooperate in their research. They have the academic freedom to air their own opinions, but they do not have the freedom to air other people’s opinion if they have promised not to do so. (p. 5). Consent in Thirunarayanan and Prado In this research, there is no indication that the students, both in the online and classroom scenarios were informed of the research. It would be expected that the student should have been informed about the results though only test results were used. Overlooking this requirement is more common in the case of online students as they have no idea of what the researcher cum teacher enquires from the rest of the students. Copy right issues This pertains to the ownership of the research findings and subsequent use. This is an important issue in research as organizations are involved in funding research projects. Although the researchers hired to carry out the research have access to such information, the use and publishing of such remains an initiative of the organizers of such operations, some research finings might be privy o organization objectives hence such cannot be published due to competition. Copyright in Thirunarayanan and Prado The nature of this research was simple and could be carried out with minimal resources. It carries little implication as its findings already exist in theory. Such researches with little implication on participants and the knowledge have very little copyright concerns. Again, the research was of little magnitude. As such, the research has no indication of copyright. Again, assuming that the students were not informed of the research, they have no moral interest in the findings as they are unaware of it. However, the instructor has the moral right to know research findings as part of teaching material. Copy right issues in Ertmer et al Qualitative research has unique issues when it comes to data ownership and subsequent archiving. Copyright as the intellectual property rights confers the rights to use and control materials and findings from a particular research. In many qualitative researches, interviews are used to collect data. When an interview is used and recorded, there two separate sets of copyrights. The respondent has the copyright of his words while the researcher or the organization that funded the research holds the copyright of the recorded responses (Parry 2004). In this research data was collected “through a series of written responses, telephone and e-mail conversations, and extended face-to-face interviews and classroom observations, we examined how teachers defined and implemented exemplary practice in their classrooms” (Ertmer et al, p.6). Parry notes that many research participants are not aware of their copyright in terms of responses. Nonetheless, this copyright, like in the case of property is transferable to another, can be waived or the owner can retain ownership and control but license others to use it. He observes that many researchers insert a clause that automatically transfers the copyright of the participant’s responses to the researcher upon signing the consent or agreement document. Majority of educational researches especially those that have teachers as respondents are conducted as joint endeavour. This implies that the copyright is conferred on both the researcher and the respondent though it is the researcher who holds a greater legal claim to these rights. Empirical observations show that educational institutions that participate in such researches rarely claim these rights leaving them to the funders of such researches until the data is archived. However, every player retain moral interest in the data set, all rights by the participants and the researchers are relinquished after the data is archived something that is applicable both for qualitative and quantitative data (Parry 2004). Use of secondary data in Thirunarayanan and Prado and Ertmer et al Kanuka (2007) says that many researchers often disregard the ethical concerns in using secondary data in research. Qualitative research studies are most affected as they are inseparable from past data which is heavily used in asserting and understating results obtained. As earlier discussed, Ertmer et al use the findings of other research studies to qualify their data. They also extensively cite other research and even detail the findings. The quantitative approach used by Thirunarayanan and Prado makes use of secondary data though sparingly. The authors cite other works by researchers in the same topic to develop a framework for their study but not as a endorsement of their findings. In fact, the research endorses the literature. Methodology in Thirunarayanan and Prado and Ertmer et al Many scholars make the mistake of confusing research methodology and research methods. Research methodology gives the philosophical inclination of the research method same way research paradigms. There are four major classifications of methodologies: historical research, survey, causal comparative and experimental research. Historical research deals with the past while survey research deals with the present. Causal comparative research is used to investigate variables that have already occurred in the natural setting while experimental research seeks to derive basics relationships among phenomena under controlled conditions to simply to identify the conditions underlying the occurrence of given phenomenon (Pathak, 2008). Methodology in Thirunarayanan and Prado and Ertmer et al Both the qualitative research by Ertma et al and the quantitative research by Thirunarayanan and Prado used a normative survey methodology as the researchers sought to identify the influence of teachers’ attitudes on the adoption of technology in learning. The research seeks to show the possible effects of pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices as a variable on the perceptions of best practice in technology use in teaching. Such a methodology follows the following steps: selection of the problem, statement of the problem, identification of data, selection or development of tools, selection of the sample, collection of data, analysis and interpretation of data and writing of the research report (Pathak, 2008). Research methods As aforementioned, the paradigm used in any given research determines the methodology and methods of data collection. On the other hand, the purpose of the research influence the methodology used while researchers’ experience and preference, population size, time and availability of other resources also count (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2007). Observation is one of the favoured methods of data collection in qualitative research. However, the method is also applicable in qualitative research. Both Ertmar et al and Thirunarayanan and Prado used observation to demonstrate how this method of data collection can be in both approaches. In the case of qualitative approach, the data observed is in most cases numerical or can be calibrated. In cases where there are no existing means of measurements, researchers can develop their own scales or systems of calibration. In Thirunarayanan and Prado, the authors observed the performance of classroom-based students and online ones over their performance in a number of tests. Methods in Thirunarayanan and Prado Observation holds a major advantage over other methods of data collection in quantitative research because the data is ‘live’ and is in the natural setting. The researcher does not have to rely on second hand accounts but makes his own observation. This eliminates the influence that the respondents have on the data because what people say often differs from what they actually do. For instance, if the participants in the quantitative research by Thirunarayanan and Prado were asked to say by word of mouth what they had scored in their tests at the beginning and at the end of the semester, some would have lied in an attempt to impress the researcher or out of shyness. This would definitely affect the research findings which would be all wrong. There are two major types of observation: structured and unstructured. Structured observation involves the observer generating numerical data from observations which then facilitate the making of comparisons between different settings, frequencies, tends and patterns to be calculated. In this case, the observer assumes a passive role by not intruding and only noting down observations. Thirunarayanan and Prado used this structured observation as they never interacted or intruded in the day to day learning for the online and classroom-based students. This ultimately adheres to the concept behind quantitative/deductive research where the researcher plays an objective role by not interfering with responses from participants. Methods in Erterm et al Unstructured observation involves the observer noting down many aspects rather than one. In this situation, the observer is yet to develop a hypothesis and hence observing many traits simultaneously affords him flexibility in the research as the research problem has yet to be identified precisely. In this research, researchers were open to identify a number of attitudes and perceptions. However, there is not solid guideline on how to categorise a particular behaviour as an attitude. This therefore allows flexibility on part of the observer and also on the results. Conclusion There exist major differences between research paradigms though pragmatists tend to emphasise on the similarities between positivism and interpretivism. The choice of paradigm needs to the first step in any research study as it influences on the choice of methodology, data methods collection and even the ethical issues that will face the research. The two research studies used as the basis of discussion in this paper have served well in understanding the different issues that are relevant to different paradigms. This paper has thus achieved the objective of simplifying the different approaches in education research that is necessary in conducting education research successfully. References Cohen, L., Manion, L. & K. Morrison (2007). Research methods in education. 6th ed. Sydney: Routledge Ertmer, P., S. Gopalakrishnan & E. Ross (2002). “Technology-Using Teachers Comparing Perceptions of Exemplary Technology Use to Best Practice.” Journal of research on computing in education. 33(5), 1-39 Gallagher, W. (2005). “An examination of ethical issues pertaining to educational research.” Dublin institute of technology school of management articles. Issue #3. Retrieved online on31st Aug 2010 from Johnson, R. & A. Onweuegbuzie (2008). “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come.” Educational researcher. 33(7), 14–26 Kanuka, H. (2007). “Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research.” International journal of qualitative methods. 6(2), 20-39 Krauss, S. (2005). “Research paradigms and meaning making: a primer.” The qualitative report 10(4), 758-770 Lather, P. (2006). “Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion.” International journal of qualitative studies in education 19(1), 35–57 Nolen, A. & V. Putten (2007). “Action research in education: addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices.” Educational researcher, 36(7), 401–407 Parry, O. & Mauthner, N. (2004) “Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data.” Journal of sociology. 38(1), 139-152 Pathak, R. (2008). Methodology of educational research. London: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. Thirunarayanan, M. & A. Prado (2002). “Comparing web based and classroom based learning: A quantitative study.” Journal of research and technology in education. 34(2, 131-37 Read More