AMENAZA SÍSMICA PRELIMINAR 1 Introducción

There is a range of research methodologies. Each research methodology has both relative strengths and weaknesses to fit specific research purposes and problems. According to Tuli (2010), ‘the selection of research methodology depends on the paradigm that guides the research activity, more specifically, beliefs about the nature of reality and humanity (ontology), the theory of knowledge that informs the research (epistemology) and how that knowledge may be gained (methodology)’ (p.99). Therefore, a proper consideration of paradigms (examining epistemology, ontology and methodology) was undertaken before the research activities were conducted (Tuli, 2011). There are different ways to categorise paradigms. In the current study, that of Guba and Lincoln (1994) was preferred.

According to Guba and Lincoln (1994), there are four paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism. Positivism holds naïve realism as an ontological perspective and dualist and objectivism as epistemological perspectives (Guba & Lincoln, 1994)). Positivists assume that there is only single reality as being ‘out there’ in the world, knowable and discovered by quantitative scientific methodologies

82

(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2013; Healy & Perry, 2000). Positivist researchers attempt to separate themselves from the context they study and treat participants as non-reflective objects. Therefore, it is hard to adopt positivism to study social and cultural phenomena in which people always have their own experience and perspectives, as in the case of the current study.

In contrast with positivism, which is mainly related to quantitative research, the other three paradigms have close connections with qualitative research (Healy & Perry, 2000). Postpositivism modified positivism by supplementing it with qualitative techniques and the idea that ‘reality must be subjected to the wildest possible critical examination to facilitate apprehending reality as closely as possible’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.110). However, postpositivists still believe in objective reality, although they accept that reality is never true and perfect (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Such perspectives are also not appropriate to the current research because this research investigates STs’ perceptions, which rely on the inner world of individuals. Moreover, both positivism and postpositivism aim to predict and control phenomena, which is not the interest of the current study. The third paradigm is critical theory, which emphasises social realities incorporating historically-situated structures (Healy & Perry, 2000). Hence, researchers with a critical theory orientation often conduct long-term ethnographic and historical studies (Healy & Perry, 2000) to criticise and transform the social, political, cultural, economic, ethic and gender structures that constrain and exploit humankind (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The present study seeks to understand STs’ perceptions of authentic assessment and factors influencing their perceptions without the intention to change their perceptions or the context. Thus, critical theory does not fit the purpose of the current study.

The last paradigm is constructivism, which is used interchangeably with interpretivism (Merriam, 1998), holding the belief that there are multiple, apprehendable, observable and equally valid realities (Schwandt, 1994), constructed in the mind of the individual, rather than it being an externally singular entity (Ponterotto, 2005). With the intent of investigating STs’ perceptions of authentic assessment, rather than exploring the actual practice of authentic assessment, the current study needs to unpack the thoughts of the STs. Hence, the philosophical perspectives of interpretivism were seen to fit the purposes and problems of the

83

current study. Interpretivists also believe that people’s knowledge, perspectives, and experience are constructed, developed and transferred through their interaction with other people and the world around them (Ponterotto, 2005). STS’ perceptions of authentic assessment are only constructed through their participation in authentic assessment tasks. Based on this viewpoint, an intervention with three authentic assessment tasks were designed to ensure that STs had interacted with authentic assessment and were able to construct their perceptions of it. Moreover, for interpretivism in research, through the interaction between the researcher and the participants, hidden meanings can be uncovered (Ponterotto, 2005). In other words, the researcher and the participants co-construct the research findings through their interactions (Ponterotto, 2005). This led me to use interviews to find out STs’ perceptions of authentic assessment. Through this dialogue, the STs’ perceptions, which they may not be fully aware of (Schwandt, 1994), could be brought to consciousness. Furthermore, interpretivism assumes that people’s interpretation of a reality is constructed differently due to their background, experience, personality traits and preferences (Healy & Perry, 2000). Therefore, each person’s perception of a phenomenon like authentic assessment will be different. The adoption of interpretivism was believed to helpful in the exploration of the diversity of STs’ perceptions, as well as the factors influencing that diversity. Interpretivists also emphasise the importance of placing a phenomenon in a particular context to interpret the phenomenon (Healy & Perry, 2000). This drove the current study to focus on typical features and characteristics of Vietnam HE and teacher education when interpreting STs’ perceptions of authentic assessment.

Adopting interpretivism as the ontological and epistemological underpinning philosophy, the current study also adopted qualitative research methods, as presented in the Introduction. It should be emphasised that qualitative research is characterised by its aims, which relate to understanding society by learning about people’s lives, experience, thought and perceptions (Ritchie et al., 2013). Therefore, qualitative research is a good tool to explain authentic assessment and STs’ views of it. Typical data collected for qualitative research is text, rather than numbers (as would typically be found in quantitative research) (Ritchie et al., 2013). Qualitative research aims to answer questions about ‘what’, ‘why,’ and ‘how’ of a phenomenon rather than ‘how

84

many’ or ‘how much’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). The research questions of the current study are also ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions as stated in the Introduction. The focus of qualitative data is also detailed descriptions (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). The text-based data in qualitative research seems to have the most potential to reflect comprehensively STs’ perceptions of authentic assessment. Furthermore, qualitative research is also advantageous in providing understanding of individuals as unique and complex (Ponterotto, 2005). STs’ perceptions are complex and diverse, and hence, qualitative research methods are appropriate.

In short, in line with the research problems and research questions, interpretivism and a qualitative research approach were chosen to direct data collection and analysis.