MANEJO ESPECÍFICO DEL EXPERIMENTO

To answer the question ”What is research?”, Leedy (1993:11) describes research as a critical examination or experimentation to discover new facts, interpret the facts correctly and use the outcome to revise “accepted conclusions, theories, or laws in the light of newly discovered facts or the practical application of such conclusion, theories, or laws”. This journey of discovery to new theories and its application to laws and policies are grounded in a certain framework of thinking, namely a “paradigm”. Educational research paradigms serve as an outline for research projects in order to produce information consistent with a study’s goals (Fien, 2002:145, Cooper, 1997:559). A particular paradigm thus involves a specific point of view and a way of interpreting data (See table 3.1). For this reason the proper paradigm fit for each research is very important and will entail “using methods that depend on and further the goals of the research paradigm” (Cooper, 1997:559). When the

researcher has identified the proper research paradigm for his study, he also has to take into consideration the philosophical, moral and political values bound to the practical implications of the particular paradigm (Paul & Marfo, 2001:525).

I agree with Cooper (1997:556) who “strongly supports the use of multiple paradigms of research in composition” because, although paradigms differ, they also share some

assumptions with regard to ontology and epistemology. This stance endorses an overlapping methodology by using qualitative and quantitative methods in various ways, for example in both observational and experimental processes (Cooper, 1997:557). The use of more than one method of research, as with triangulation, provides the means to cross-check data to establish its validity (Bush, 2002:68). However, there still exists an ongoing qualitative- quantitative research debate that could provide a different perspective on whether my research uses methods ”correctly” or ”incorrect”.

Floden (2009:488-490) concludes that for every researcher who has a different paradigm, ”truth” will vary because of the composition of each paradigm’s ontology, epistemology and resulting research methodology. Based on the discussion thus far, it became evident that the structures of my data would produce a multi-dimensional study, created by means of

observation during the intervention lessons, assessments and interviews. My research thus required insights from more than one paradigm (see 3.3.5). For this reason, I incorporated a mixture of paradigms into my study to fit my research. The rationale for my choice of

paradigms will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Fien (2002:147) identifies three research paradigms and their tasks, namely Empirical- analytical positivism and Empirical-analytical postpositivism (to describe, control and predict), Interpretivism or Constructivism (to empathise and understand) and Critical (to change). The following table was adapted from Table 1 in Fien’s (2002:148) presentation of the ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of three research paradigms. The highlighted areas are applicable to my study. A short discussion which supports and explains each of these paradigms in the research will follow after the table.

Table 3.1: Applicable ontology, epistemology, methodology and research methods RESEARCH PARADIGM ONTOLOGY (What is the nature of reality?) EPISTOMOLOGY

(What is the nature of knowledge?) METHODOLOGY (How is knowledge developed?) COMMON RESEARCH METHODS Empirical- analytical postpositivism Reality is ‘out there’ and independent of us, but we can never fully understand it. Generalisations can be made free of context.

Objectivity is the ideal goal but values and other factors can produce some bias if not regulated or controlled for.

Knowledge grows from the gradual accumulation of findings and theories and testing the significance of relationships

Sample survey Quasi-

experimental pre-and post test designs

Critical Reality is ‘out

there’; it is material and independent of us, but we can never fully understand it.

Knowledge is not objective but subjective. Values and power play a pivotal role in the construction of knowledge. Knowledge and issues of equity and power are closely intertwined.

Research seeks to understand the practices and effects of power and inequality, and to empower people to transform environmental and social conditions. Participatory action research. Critical ethnography. Collaborative enquiry. Critical semiotics. Interpretivism/ Constructivism Reality is conditional upon human experiences and interpretation. Reality is not independent but socially constructed and can have varied meanings. Knowledge is not objective but subjective. Knowledge is constructed through the interaction of the researcher and the objects of enquiry. Identification of the varied constructions or interpretations of reality that exists and an attempt to recognise patterns in them or bring them into some consensus. Ethnographic case study. Focus group. Historical research.

3.2.1 Postpositivism paradigm

The use of the quasi-experimental design is the focal reason for the inclusion of the postpositivism paradigm in my study. This design will be further discussed in 3.3.1.

3.2.2 Critical paradigm

The critical paradigm permits interaction between the researcher and the eight identified learners, where the method of research allows for investigation and enlarging the

and post-tests (Cooper, 1997:558). In the one-to-one individualised lessons the personal stance of the researcher in relation to the subject is important for observation of the learner. The empowerment of learners to become more independent was a reflection of the critical paradigm. The independence gave learners a voice in the classroom with the realisation that they have knowledge to share. On the other hand my research can assist teachers to

become less authoritarian and more interactive to balance power relations in the classroom.

3.2.3 Interpretive paradigm

Connole (1993) describes the role of the interpretive paradigm:

The task of the researcher becomes that of understanding what is going on, the

definition of the situations, at least in the first instance. To do this requires not

detachment but active involvement in the process of negotiated meaning, using the researcher’s social competencies. Action takes place within a context and is often ambiguous. The interpretive perspective places primary emphasis on this process of understanding (p.20).

The observations made and interviews conducted in my research were all of a social nature, in which interaction took place between the subject and me. From these interactions I gained an improved understanding of the individuality of the subject within his context. The

interpretive paradigm thus assisted me to comprehend, define and discuss what I observed throughout my research.