You are on page 1of 4

FI

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTNOMA DE NICARAGUA FACULTAD REGIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARIA-CARAZO RST SEMESTER 2012

Unit III: Stages of an Investigation Content Approaches to Research 1. Quantitative Research 2. Process of the Quantitative research Class objectives Students should: Learn about the quantitative research Discuss and describe its characteristics Follow and develop the process of the quantitative research Introduction Research questions and topics can be looked into from many different perspectives, approaches, and procedures. The approach that we adopt needs to be suited to the kind of research we want to carry out, and for the variables we want to control. For example, an observational process will be enough because the data we want to collect cannot be quantified, but on other occasions we may need to illustrate our findings with figures and statistics. So, the approach we adopt depends on the nature of the research we aim to do. Very often an eclectic position or a combination of paradigms may be necessary. As classroom research is defined primarily by its setting, the classroom provides the focal point for the types of data collected. However, a wide variety of approaches are used to obtain and analyse data, and the choice of approach depends upon many factors: the researcher's philosophy, the issue to be investigated, the constraints inherent in the situation and so on. Quantitative versus qualitative approaches Opposing viewpoints on how research should be conducted Differing attitudes towards intervention Differing attitudes towards control The issue of subjectivity often arises when devising The issue of objectivity often arises when devising observation schedules for recording classroom data observation schedules for recording classroom data In constructing instruments researchers distinguish: High In constructing instruments researchers distinguish: Low inference categories, learner's attention, for example, inference categories: things that can be counted or coded demand that the observer makes a judgement that goes well without the observer having to infer very much (the number beyond what is immediately visible. of times a certain student raises his or her hand, for Some data are not the product of measurement or counting, example) and thus do not result in numerical information (prose All sort of measurement that yields numerical information descriptions, diaries, and so on) generates quantitative data Once we have collected data we analyse them by reflecting Once we have collected data we analyse them by counting upon and trying to interpret them (a qualitative analysis) or measuring (quantitative analysis) Eclectic approaches Very few studies can be confidently characterised as being purely experimental (more structured, more controlled) or purely naturalistic (less structured, less controlled). In recent years observational procedures from naturalistic enquiry have been used to document the process variables involved in implementing the treatment in product-oriented experimental research. Researchers agree that an eclectic research approach which combines both experimental measures and naturalistic measures, each to be used where most fitting, is a useful one: There is no need to oppose qualitative and quantitative research. Each is capable of "critical thinking" and each has its place in IL (interlanguage) studies. The danger is ... in failing to acknowledge the contribution that can be made by "hybrid" research (i.e. research that employs both qualitative and quantitative procedures). (Ellis 1984:284) Lic. Jos Luis Garcia Guzman. Carazo. February, 2012. Jinotepe,

It should be clear that we see most value in investigations that combine objective and subjective elements, that quantify only what can be usefully quantified, and that utilise qualitative date collection and analysis procedures wherever they are appropriate. (Allwright and Bailey 1991:67) Experimental approaches The researcher exerts a high degree of control and purposefully intervenes in the setting, to determine the effect of intervention. It is important to note that intervention is not a negative thing. It refers to the " treatment" administered to some subjects (the experimental group) in order to test a hypothesis about a cause-and effect relationship. This treatment is withheld from other subjects in the study (typically called the control group). If the researchers are careful in setting up the study, these two groups can be presumed to be virtually identical in all respects, except that one gets the treatment (teaching method, materials, for example) and the other does not. After the treatment has been implemented, a test of some sort is usually administered to both groups and their results are compared. Then various mathematical procedures are used to determine whether or not there are statistically significant differences in the test scores of the two groups. From the results, the paradigm claims, we can infer that the treatment either did or did not cause a measurable change in behaviour or learning (the hypothesis effect). In experimental research, there are some preparatory stages that are currently followed. These stages (Seliger and Shohamy 1989) include the following steps: Formulating the general question or the problem which will be solved. This usually emerges from the researcher's experience, from research paradigms or from sources outside the second language field. Feasibility of the research work we aim to carry out to solve the problem. Deciding on the objectives that will be achieved. Formulating the research plan and hypothesis to be tested. In addition to the above steps, research has to be contextualised. According to Seliger and Shohamy this involves (1989:85): selecting a research problem; broadening the perspective of the research; creating a rationale for the study; a revision of the existing literature on the topic; describing the different sources for locating the literature (e.g. references to existing material, such as indices, computer searches, and bibliographies, as well as actual material such as journal articles and reviews); suggesting ways of organising and reporting the literature review; helping the researcher narrow down the research question in preparation for conducting the research; describing the criteria for determining the relevance of the material to the research topic. Planning the research takes place after the researcher has identified the focus or objective of the research: 1. Synthetic or analytic-deductive research planning: requires the careful development of a plan in which those factors to be controlled or manipulated are identified: the independent, dependent, subject, and extraneous variables. Dependent variable: the means by which the changes are measured. Independent variable: the factor the researcher manipulates in order to see what effect the changes introduced will have. Research which focuses on variables, makes predictions and tests hypothesis is primarily of the deductive type. For example, if we study the relationship between students' participation and their degree of extroversion and their final results, we may start the research plan by thinking that classroom participation and extroversion encourage good results in SLL (hypothesis). The degree of participation and extroversion are independent variables and the student's achievement is the dependent variable. 2. Heuristic (exploratory) research: approaches the research context avoiding preconceptions with the aim of generating hypothesis but not of testing them, using qualitative methods. It does not attempt to control or manipulate variables. The following checklist provides guidelines for analysing research which has already been carried out, so it can be usefully referred to for research analysis (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 80-81): A. About the research topic 1. What is the main research area? 2. What is the research problem? 3. What are the major research questions or hypotheses? Lic. Jos Luis Garcia Guzman. February, 2012. Jinotepe, Carazo.

B. About the research context 1. What other research studies were conducted in the same area? 2. What were their main findings? 3. What is the rationale of the research? 4. Why was it important to conduct the research? C. About the research method 1. What are the main variables of the study? 2. Which research design was used (experimental, correlational, descriptive, multivariate, and ethnographic)? 3. Description of the population, sample, and selection procedures. 4. The data collection procedures - information about their development reliability, validity, pilot study. 5. Description of the data collected. D. About the data analysis 1. What are the specific data analysis procedures used? 2. Were they quantitative or qualitative, or both? E. About the findings 1. What were the main findings? 2. What does the researcher conclude from them? 3. How do the findings relate to the research context and to the underlying theories? 4. What are the implications of the findings? 5. What recommendations does the researcher make based on the findings? 6. What recommendations are drawn from the results? F. Criticism of the research Consideration of A-E above and specifically: 1. The statement of the problem. 2. The identification of the hypotheses. 3. The description and definition of the variables. 4. The appropriacy of the design of the study. 5. The appropriacy of the instruments. 6. The appropriacy of the data analysis procedures. 7. The consistency of the results with the analysis. 8. Whether the conclusion, implications, and recommendations are warranted by the results. Questioning the scientific research paradigm The experimental approach to research can be rejected in favour of a more subjective, naturalistic approach, or in favour of an eclectic approach to research. The success of modern science has had the effect of imbuing anything that is 'scientific' with the flavour of absolute truth. Thus research which is based on rational, 'scientific' experiment is seen as unquestionable, objective, right. However, 'scientific' research has so far failed to answer some of the most pressing questions in language teaching. The issue of discipline in the classroom is a case in point. The scientific model of research would try to use scientific knowledge to solve the problem of maintaining discipline. The implication here is that scientific study would soon provide a formula for dealing with classroom discipline problems. As all practising teachers know, this has not been the case. Thus scientific research seems to promise solutions to very complex professional dilemmas, but rarely manages to deliver the goods. Another weakness is that of its lack of grounding in specific classroom practice. There has traditionally been a separation between theorists who do research on the one hand, and practitioners - the teachers in the classroom - on the other. Researchers tend to be working in university departments where they have no contact with the daily realities of the language classroom, particularly as represented in primary and secondary schooling. Researchers and practitioners often have very different training, and there is frequently a sense of status attached to the job of researcher which is not to be found in the job of classroom teacher. Thus there has been a tendency in research circles to downgrade the value of the classroom teacher's expertise which is derived from experience, rather than from research. Lic. Jos Luis Garcia Guzman. Carazo. February, 2012. Jinotepe,

At the same time, research findings are in a sense imposed on teachers. Teachers are called upon to implement new ideas and theories in language teaching in the form of teaching materials, rather than asked to consider the ideas themselves and to evaluate them critically in the light of their own experience and teaching context. Collaborative versus individual research Individual research involves only the researcher him/herself, whether a professional non-practising researcher, or a practising classroom teacher. An example of an individual approach to research in the classroom might be that of using a diary in which to record one's insights into the teaching process. The advantages of such approaches, as Wallace points out, are that they tend to be more flexible, less professionally risky and more easily implemented than others. (1998:39) Collaborative approaches involve others. Within the experimental paradigm, it will involve collaboration between the researcher and the teacher whose classroom is observed, while within the naturalistic paradigm, it will involve the teacher collaborating with peers, probably in the same institution, by for example, sitting in and observing another colleague's lesson(s), or tape recording a discussion about teaching. The advantages of a collaborative approach are several: collaboration can do much to sustain motivation, save time by the allocation of different tasks as appropriate, and generate richer input from the combined talents and insights of those involved. (ibid: 41) Conclusion We have seen a basic overview of the main research paradigms, and have focused specifically on the main differences between a naturalistic approach to research and an experimental one. It is suggested a growing move in the ELT profession towards the former paradigm. We also looked in some detail at the shortcomings of the scientific paradigm as perceived today. Suggestion for further reading Allwright, D & Bailey, K. M. (1991): Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chalmers, A. (1982): What is This Thing Called Science? Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland Press. Seliger, H. W. (1989): Second Language Research Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Assignment: Write your research project plan.

Lic. Jos Luis Garcia Guzman. Carazo.

February, 2012.

Jinotepe,

You might also like