Redes Neuronales Artificiales

Pragmatists propose that the truth is ‘what works’ (Audi, 2002; Cherryholmes, 1992; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). They look not at the origins of the idea but instead of its ‘destination’. What counts is not where you have been with an idea but rather where it takes you (Maxcy, 2003). Pragmatic research is driven by “anticipated consequences” (Cherryholmes, 1992). A pragmatic approach, defined by Robson (2002), is:

‘Use whatever philosophical or methodological approach works best for a particular research problem at issue. This leads to mixed-method studies where both quantitative and qualitative approaches are adopted.’ (p.43)

Increasingly researchers have been adapting multiple methods to achieve broader and often better results (Fontana & Frey, 2003). The major strength of mixed methods designs is that they allow research to develop as comprehensively and completely as possible. Using more than one method within a research programme enables the

researcher to obtain a more complete assessment of human behaviour and experience (Morse, 2003; p.189); and enables the researcher to answer simultaneously ‘confirmatory’ and ‘exploratory’ questions, and therefore verify and generate theory in the same study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003b; p.15).

Quantitative and qualitative approaches can facilitate each other: quantitative research may help with the choice of subjects for a qualitative study, and help to generalize findings of qualitative investigation to a wider population (Coyle & Williams, 2006). While qualitative data can enhance the quality of quantitative data in four ways (Barbour 1999, cited in Coyle & Williams, 2006; p.320):

1. Identifying relevant variables and themes for investigation; 2. Giving explanations for ‘deviant’ cases or anomalous findings; 3. Generating hypotheses and research questions; and

4. Providing insights into the process of knowledge production.

Axinn and Pearce (2006) suggest two themes which are revealed from mixed method data collection strategies. One is that “mixing multiple methods affords opportunities to use the strengths of some methods to counterbalance the weaknesses of other methods”. The other theme is that “mixing multiple methods is a valuable strategy for producing a comprehensive empirical record about a topic”. In particular, they indicate that varying data collection approaches can

1. Provide information from one approach that was not identified in an alternative approach; 2. Reduce on-sampling error by providing redundant information from multiple sources; and 3. Ensure that a potential bias coming from a particular approach is not replicated in

This research was not only examining pedagogy, but also exploring pupils’ experience of and perspectives on it. An experimental approach can investigate the method, but it is not enough to explore pupils’ feelings in depth, combining multiple methods is essential in answering research questions. There is a similar study by Milgram (1974; cited in J. A. Maxwell & Loomis, 2003), which combines experimental manipulations and intervention, quantitative measurement and analysis with qualitative data collection and analysis to answer both qualitative and quantitative research questions. The result is that the potential validity threats to this study are prevented by integration of qualitative and quantitative elements (J. A. Maxwell & Loomis, 2003).

Distinctions between research designs are particularly important for telling us what types of questions a specific research project may be able to answer and what threats to validity a project may face. Because different data collection methods have different strengths and weaknesses, combinations of methods may be advantageous for achieving a variety of goals.

Mixed research brings different levels of triangulation: theoretical triangulation, methodological triangulation and investigator triangulation (Robson, 2002). Triangulation provides the security of giving a fuller picture of phenomena (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Triangulation not only extends understanding but also adds breadth and depth to research analysis. Combining multiple methods will reduce the bias of each method and increase validity and reliability.

This research is designed to test the use of Circle Time in developing pupils’ personal and interpersonal skills. Based on the intervention of Circle Time, it also attempts to

investigate teacher-pupil relationships in a Chinese secondary school, suggests that Circle Time may contribute to introducing a democratic teacher-pupil relationship in the current Chinese educational reform. The preliminary study took place in an English school to generate English students’ perspectives on using Circle Time for personal and interpersonal development. On the basis of the findings and insights gained from this preliminary study, an experiment was conducted in a Chinese school to test the hypothesis that Circle Time can develop Chinese secondary students’ personal and interpersonal skills, raise their self-esteem and develop a positive teacher-pupil relationship. At the same time, the experiment was also made as an intervention to investigate Chinese affective educational issues. The preliminary findings of English students’ perceptions were also taken to compare with Chinese students’ opinions, and by triangulation to understand Chinese students’ experience and perspectives. In order to investigate participants’ attitudes and perspectives from their experience and understanding of Circle Time, combining multiple research strategies and methods was essential. In-depth interviews and participant observation in particular can gain data for exploring from the participants’ point of view. Coyle & Williams (2006) conclude that qualitative approaches are able to facilitate quantitative methods in many more diverse ways than quantitative techniques are able to contribute to qualitative methods. The examples of how data were triangulated in this study will be introduced in§4.4.

In the next section, I will introduce the procedures through which the research was conducted.