Educational Enquiry: Research Methods for Exploring Learning - Essay Example

? Education Inquiry Task Learning has been present since the inception of the world. Learning is considered contradictory and is often contested within different cultures and societies that use its concepts and linguistics due to its different meanings (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). These authors in supporting this statement claim that learning is a constructed concept that is usually developed by individuals for the purposes of understanding complex perceptions. Hodkinson and Macleod use two qualitative research, life history and mini-ethnographic methods. They also use quantitative methods, cross-sectional surveys and panel surveys (Hammersley 12-18). The first approach is considering learning as participation. As Hodkinson and Macleod (173-189) conducted research on learning participatory theories, they used an ethnographic approach that studies social life such as cultural practices in a certain place. This approach was used for the purposes of decentralizing the students. As such, this describes the participatory nature of the study by focusing on activities carried out at a learning site. However, it is due to this focus on these participatory activities that researchers argue learning is embodied into different cognitive activities (Davies 151-174). There is an assumption made by Hodkinson and Macleod (173-189) that there is a difference between formal and informal learning based on the learning site as either outside or within the learning institution. In relation to this one, a major weakness is valuing the learning received within the educational institution and devaluing formal instructions. The second weakness has to fully involve individuals into participating in theories that mainly focus on activities present in educational institutions. The second approach used by these authors was in exploring learning being a construction through life history theory by making an individual the investigation subject (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). As such, it is a continuous approach that analyzes individuals based on their stories, personalities and their responses in interviews. It is similar to the ethnographic nature of studying complexity of individuals’ lives within different patterns. As individuals concerned reveal their life experiences through stories or interviews, they are able to construct the learning process and perceptions (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). In relation to this, its positive impact is viewed in being the approach that elaborates the process of learning through their account of events surrounding their lives. Life history has its own strengths. Firstly, it is easy to differentiate between the informal and informal learning through the continuous study of the individual life (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). As such, the researcher is more aware of its presence in comparison to themselves. Secondly, the fact that it is a progressing approach over a period of time. As such, it is understood and studied continuously unlike the mini-ethnographic one carried out shortly (Fuller and Unwin 407-426). Thirdly, this approach is able to investigate its target in different contexts such as historical, social and economic (Newman et al. 56). Similarly, life history has weaknesses. First, it is argued to have less understanding of practices surrounding an individual’s learning institution (Fuller and Unwin 407-426). As such, it is difficult to differentiate learning through participation and as a cultural practice. Therefore, this approach limits the understanding capability of learning being a construction of a different version if it is done as part of a cultural practice (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). The third method and first quantitative approach used by these authors is survey analysis on describing learning as being acquired. It is more like the life history as it focuses on individuals rather than the learning institutions (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). However, its capability strength is its statistical nature of providing data in numerical terms in a social environment. Therefore, the entire survey is based on observing different characteristics that describe a variable in learning, for instance, the period spent in training, and qualification level (Shawer 333-359). As a result, this makes it possible to quantify its identified characteristics as acquisition in that it states the learning material and the different types of education levels in specific learning environments (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). Surveys have weaknesses but they cannot be listed as having major concerns like the qualitative one when they are considered as acquisition. As such, observations cannot be carried out when studying on learning as participatory or construction since they are not objective but subjective. However, its major weakness is in the complexity of the phenomenon under study that results in complexity in identifying its validity (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). While conducting the cross-sectional survey, there is a problem in conducting participatory learning as it does not directly impact the learning. In addition, the research team had differences in describing learning differently as acquisition or participatory. This is because qualifying in a certain category is termed as acquisition while the process of qualifying is referred to as participation (Becker and Bryman 234). In addition to this weakness, it is also a problem in a cross-section survey to study a single individual through his or her ongoing learning process. This is based on arguments regarding bias and lack of comparability in the sense that intuition differs from one person to the other, and the rate of learning as well as understanding levels do vary from one person to the other (Becker and Bryman 234). Similarly, a panel survey was carried out to quantify the acquisition factor of learning. This survey studies learning as a continuing process. The survey conducted by Macleod proved to be a challenge while quantifying informal learning. Its major strength as a panel survey is its ability to recognize and analyze the changes in individuals over a period of time (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). Hodkinson and Macleod (173-189) in their research argue that different learning conceptualization is a result of different methodologies of research. Thus, they agree that participatory learning views are related to mini-ethnographic issues, acquisition element in learning is related to the advantages and disadvantages of survey methodology while constructed learning is related to the limitations and benefits of life history approach (Hodkinson and Macleod 173-189). However, their success is based on their acceptability that, in turn, decentralizes assumptions on research. As such, these research methodologies – even though they cannot be determined – are able to affect learning conceptualization. In relation to their argument and by concluding their work, Hodkinson and Macleod (173-189) agree that empirical research is neutral in favoring one type of learning while undermining the other one. Therefore, it is only essential for researchers to be oriented in a certain methodology while undertaking research on learning. Orientations cover the theoretical, technical and conceptual things. This approach is very crucial for the benefit of general understanding as well as tackling specific aspects of such a research. A very important point to keep in mind is that the research has the objective to inform and the interested parties have to understand what the researcher is putting across. Task2 According to Brannen (5-8; 173-185), combining research methods enhances the skills of a researcher so that they are able to achieve knowledge and skill at the same time. Secondly, a mixture of approaches is a drift from the theoretical approach. As such, it forces the researcher to think critically on the methods (Brannen 5-8; 173-185). Thirdly, the entire process of mixing research methods is a training experience that improves learning. Fourthly, it is the response to the changing environment that expects a researcher to be familiar with the practical and theoretical part of a research. Thus, they are in a position to disseminate information differently. Fifthly, it is in line with the combination of statistical and qualitative analysis or secondary and primary analysis in a successful research paradigm (Freeman et al. 25-32). Therefore, in listing these advantages of mixing research methods, the writer agrees with Hodkinson and Macleod’s (173-189) entire research work on strengths and weaknesses of this perception. Usually, quantitative researchers perceive their qualitative counterparts as being unrepresentative in their work and that they focus more on the context (Brannen 5-8; 173-185). Similarly, lack of context and simple work are terms used by qualitative researchers to describe quantitative researchers (Brannen 5-8; 173-185). Paradigms are also explained on the dimensions of being objective and subjective (Brannen 5-8; 173-185). In that, the researchers are in a position to study the society and the individuals as objective and subjective respectively, as stated by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2-16). Therefore, the selected method should be able to categorize clearly these dimensions so that the results can be due to different levels and the specific type of result (Healy 118-126). These results will then lead to developments of arguments in favor and those against the findings, thus, continuing the study and acknowledging other views from different individuals (Healy 118-126). In a paradigm it is perceived that the researcher will pick their research method based on his or her epistemological and ontological philosophy. Several researchers describe this scenario as paradigm wars. In response to this, Brannen (5-8; 173-185) describe a paradigm as a perception that there are competing philosophical principles between the quantitative and qualitative research; thus, they tend to be incommensurable. Hammersley (221-231) notes that both quantitative and qualitative research methods tend to be more complex than it is believed to be on a close scrutiny. Therefore, the research method should be decided upon based on the purpose for conducting the research so that it is in accordance with epistemological assumptions (Trochim). In conclusion, quantitative research is not suitable for a small sample of individuals, and as such, a variable that is qualitative is used instead, as noted by Shawer (333-359). However, the rising variable is not used to cancel the already identified characteristics of the living sample. Rather, it is used as a complement. Hodkinson and Macleod (173-189) argue in favor of this statement that not every variable can be treated or held constant. Therefore, there is a need to mix different methods so as to create an interpretive paradigm. In that, the research can be concluded as being in depth; thus, it can produce reliable and valid results after the analysis. Task 3 Research question: Religion in terms of experience and psychology differs greatly among individuals because of their different meanings, so there is a need to explore the religiosity among the youths. In order to explore in depth of this concern, quantitative and qualitative methods will be used at the same time. This is because together, there is a need to maximize different research methods during collection of data, as noted by Trochim (para. 3). The entire process will aim at gathering information on religious behaviors, experiences, religious groups, members involved with different groups and in understanding religiosity among the youths. Globally, different world views surround the experiences in different religions and the youths are coming out in large numbers to be associated with these religions. It is as a result of this observation that a research on their experiences and psychology would be an appropriate research question. The epistemological philosophy will be used to expound the knowledge of the presence of ontology, so there is a need to mix both the qualitative and quantitative research (Thomas 96). The process will try to answer what is known by the researcher and how he or she came to know about it and what is considered as knowledge. Therefore, the subject will be the researcher and the facts will explain what the researchers already know, and they will be identified through a phenomenon. A phenomenon exists due to the ontological beliefs that every person views the world differently, thus, getting different experiences and justifying the perception that there are various realities (Krauss 758-770). The research will be supporting Krauss (758-770) that the entire approach of mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches is not methodological, as perceived, but philosophical. After all, a theoretical paradigm guides in understanding the nature of a study in that it is a belief surrounding a scientific investigation through propositions, orientations and assumptions in research thinking (Krauss 758-770). Barnes (3-17) argues that the theoretical nature is what summarizes a study topic and, as such, can be considered a scientific research. Quantitative method is very objective and tries to assign measurements to the data under analysis and, thus, reports the outcome in form of mathematical findings. This is opposed to the qualitative approach, which is more subjective and depends on intuition or individual perceptions held by someone. Similarly, the research will involve the realism paradigm that combines constructivism and positivism elements as listed by Krauss (758-770). Therefore, it will be considerate to the values in a human system and those of the researcher. As such, the research will be carried out with the agreement that realities differ. Thus, individuals do not necessarily understand their religion independently in a social setting. Krauss (758-770) argues that knowledge contributes to formation of reality; thus, observation and unseen structures are very independent in the generation of events and knowledge. In regard to realism, for the purposes of understanding the reasons for occurrence of events, qualitative and quantitative approaches will be used (Bruner 41-46). For example, both formal and informal interviews, case studies and equation modeling will be appropriate in this realism paradigm (Healy 118-126). Qualitative methods are used because of the fact that mathematical formulations and analysis from quantitative methods to be applied cannot stand alone and, thus, need to be explained. The qualitative method takes the descriptive approach. Works Cited Barnes, Colin. “What a Difference a Decade Makes: Reflections on Doing an Emancipatory Disability Research” Disability and Society 18.1 (2003): 3-17. Print. Becker, Saul and Bryman, Alan. Understanding Research for Social Policy and Practice: Themes, Methods and Approaches. Bristol: The Policy Press, (2004): 234. Print. Brannen, Julia. “Mixing Methods. The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process.” The International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8.3 (2005): 5-8; 173-185. Print. Bruner, Jerome. The Culture of Education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996: 41-46. Print. Davies, Bronwyn. “The Fairy Who Would Not Fly: A Story of Subjection and Agency.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5.2 (2005): 151-174. Print. Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K. and St. Pierre, E.A. “Standards of Evidence in Qualitative Research: An Incitement to Discourse.” Educational Researcher, 36.1 (2007): 25-32. Print. Fuller, Alison, and Felstead Unwin. “Learning as Apprentices in the Contemporary UK Workplace: Creating and Managing Expansive and Restrictive Participation.” Journal of Education and Work, 16.4 (2003): 407-426. Print. Hammersley, Martyn. “The Relationship Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research: Paradigm Loyalty Versus Methodological Elective.” Handbook of research in psychology and the social sciences, (1996): 12-18. Print. Hamersley, Martyn. “Varieties of Social Research: A typology.” The International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 3.3 (2005): 221-231. Print. Healy, Michael. “Comprehensive Criteria to Judge Validity and Reliability of Quantitative Research Within the Realism Paradigm.” Quantitative Market Research an International Journal 3.3 (2000): 118-126. Print. Hodkinson, Phil, and Flora Macleod. “Contrasting Concepts of Learning and Contrasting Research Methodologies: Affinities and Bias.” British Educational Research Journal 36.2 (2010): 173-189. Print. Krauss, Steven. “Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer.” The Qualitative Report 10.4 (2005): 758-770. Print. Newman, Denis, Griffin, Peg, and Michael Cole. The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1989): 56. Print. Shawer, Sad. “Communicative-Based Curriculum Innovations Between Theory and Practice: Implications for EFL Curriculum Development and Student Cognitive and Affective Change.” Curriculum Journal, 21.3 (2010): 333-359. Print. Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. (eds) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, (2009): 2-16. Print. Thomas, Gary. How to do Your Research Project. London: Sage, (2009): 96. Print Trochim, W. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2000. Retrieved 17 February 2012 from . Read More