Research Paradigm Positions - Essay Example

Paradigm positions (Essay) The way in which researchers see the world, and the beliefs that they have about learning and the way in which it is positioned in the world, affect what they regard as important ‘topics’ for research and what they consider is ‘evidence’ to address a research question. Educational research is enormously varied, not only in terms of types of learners and the settings in which learning can take place, but in the way that researchers approach their investigations.  Understanding of the articles The reading of the two articles: “Communicative-based curriculum innovations between theory and practice: implications for EFL curriculum development and student cognitive and affective change” by S. Shawer and “Digital natives: where is the evidence?” by E. J. Helsper and R. Eynon yielded ample amount of information to me. The overall purpose of the articles, their theoretical framework and methodologies used were relatively conveyed in the first encounter itself. While the former article sought to eliminate the unempirical demarcation between the young and adult users of technology by offering scientific evidence in support, the latter looked forward to establishing the utility of communicative-based techniques in teaching and learning through analysis of data collected in a survey. However, a certain degree of ambiguity and obscurity persisted in the proper understanding of few terms and jargons used in the articles But a second reading enabled a better understanding of those explicit terms and jargons used by the authors. For instance, the meaning and significance of the terms like “digital native”, “digital immigrants” and “breadth of experience” used by Helsper and Eynon and acronyms like “CLT” and “EFL” used by Shawer became clearer following the second reading. The second reading thus helped in closing the gaps that were created in the first reading. Authors’ perspective on learners and learning Both the articles deal with the interaction of learners with technology and the extent to which technology plays a role in their learning process. Helsper and Eynon’s study attempts to challenge the popularly held belief that people’ ability to engage with technology is a function of generational differences. They assert that the previous researchers had not considered the influence of social and cultural factors on learning. But Helsper and Eynontake into account these influences as part of their ontological and epistemological position. Their work seeks to defy the premise of correlation between age and technology use by establishing the fact that there are many other determining factors like gender, breadth of use, education level and experience. Their study aimed to render invalid the classification of young people as digital natives and older peopleas digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001). They brought in the concept of differential access which says that there are a major chunk of people whose competence in using technology is unknown since they have the capacity to use technology but do not have an access to it. Also there are people who have the access but lack the self-belief and suffer from the assumptions of incompetency. This phenomenon, known as the learner’s self-concept in education research, defines how the learners position their present and future state in relation to the use of technology. If the way they “see themselves excludes technical or scientific competence, then the opportunities perceived as realisable will also exclude science, engineering and technology” (Roger and Duffield, 2000, p. 374). As opposed to their predecessors’ tendency of assigning broad overall characteristics to entire generations and thereby determining their influence on learning, Helsper and Eynon rather probe into the reasons that enable the young generation to choose technology and use it effectively to meet their learning needs. They focus upon the individual as an entity that is responsible for engaging with technology, rather than making sweeping statements on whole generations. Shawer’s writing is intended for the research community as well as for professional communities, such as those involved in EFL teaching. His article features a lucid abstract that clearly states that his aim is to check whether his curriculum, learning and teaching approach can be implemented to augment learning. The article provides a detailed discussion of the instruments and methodology used which enables the readers to understand how the data and the results were generated. The author diligently explains that the validity of the questionnaire used was determined through a broad literature review to ensure that the questions would best reflect the purpose of the research. The literature was used to substantiate the need for the research, to establish the research problem and to account for the specific approach adopted. The impact of communicative pedagogy on students’ learning is not objectively measured but is self-reported and teacher-reported in Shawer’s study. With respect to the curriculum, the author focuses more on the teachers than on the students. The students are considered in terms of their prior knowledge and achieved learning. The other social and cultural aspects of their learning experiences are, however, not taken into account. He establishes curriculum as something that is flexible, dynamic and emergent as opposed to something that is static and rigid. This can be attributed to the dubious relationship between what teachers intend to impart and what they actually impart to the students. The work suggested that the conventional learning methods were not as effective and communicative as the modern methods. Richardson (1997) pointed out that the “information acquired from traditional teaching, if acquired at all, is usually not well incorporated with other knowledge held by the students” (Richardson, 1997, p.3). But in this writing, the negotiation of social means and models of language is also seen as a part of learning as the author sees ‘real learning’ as an integration of academic knowledge with other forms of knowledge. The author adopts a social constructivist approach by treating the young adults as agents in the learning process and derives his own interpretations on the basis of their learning experiences. Comparison Since both the works are based on teaching and learning experiences, they share a lot of similarities. Both the articles attempt to establish the positive impact of an independent variable (technology in Helsper and Eynon’s study and communicative technique in Shawer’s study) on the effectiveness of learning and teaching. Both have elucidated their views on the learners and the learning processes. Both have used primary research (in the form of survey, questionnaire, statistical analysis) as well as secondary research (in the form of literature review) to establish their respective theses. However, the two articles differ considerably on certain significant parameters. Helsper and Eynon have considered the use of technology across generations as their key variable, whereas Shawer has used communicative technique in teaching as the premise for his study. The former has seriously taken into account the socio-cultural factors that influence the learning process. The latter has relied solely on the achieved knowledge of a student and eliminated the role of socio-cultural experiences in the learning process. Helsper and Eynon have used a quantitative approach by gathering huge amount of data and statistically analysed them. Shawer, on the other hand, has used a qualitative stance by theoretically analysing data to derive results. Paradigm Positions A research paradigm is a system of principles and practices that are based on ontological and epistemological assumptions and justifications. The term research paradigm, usually synonymous to world view, refers to “positions on the best ways to think about and study the social world” (Thomas, 2013, p. 110) The choice of paradigm determines the research problem, the research question, type of data, methodology, data analysis and operationalization of the theoretical concepts. In the context of educational research, paradigm refers to the intellectual structure and underlying assumptions of research. Three fundamental theoretical concepts form the core of the research process: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Epistemology relates to theories related to knowledge that deal with what we know about the world and how we know it. Ontology refers to theories related to existence that are concerned with how we comprehend the social world and how can it be understood better by paying attention to the learning process. Methodology refers to the way of gaining access to what we are looking for in a research. In simpler terms, ontology helps in framing our research problem by telling us what to study, epistemology gives us an idea about the required evidence by telling us how we can know about it and methodology is the path of gaining access to such evidence. Research paradigms can be broadly classified into four types: positivism, interpretivism, constructivism and critical theory. Positivist paradigm is the approach that is based on natural science and application of scientific methodology as the way of understanding and researching social and psychological phenomena. It relies on quantitative data, experimental method of observation and statistical relationship between variables. Interpretivist paradigm emphasises the social character of natural science research and relies on shared concepts which are open-ended in character. It seeks to move from the particular to the universal through an involvement of judgement in the form of feelings, perceptions, ideas and thoughts. (Oakley, 2000) The critical paradigm upholds a comprehensive worldview that locates an individual’s actions within his wider socio-historical context. This view frequently challenges formerly accepted assumptions and ideas of good practice. Constructivist paradigm suggests that a range of conflicting interpretations can be created about the same phenomenon. It states that there are multiple constructed realities rather than a single supreme reality existing behind the different interpretations. The article “Digital natives: where is the evidence?” by Helsper and Eynon adopts a positivist paradigm and methodology based on the ontological and epistemological analysis. It uses the quantitative method based on experiments and empirical data and uses a large-scale survey data set that is analysed using statistical modelling tools. The authors professed that “the data upon which this article is based are taken from the 2007 Oxford Internet Survey (OxIS), carried out by the Oxford Internet Institute (University of Oxford), which provides authoritative information on Internet use and non-use in Britain”. (Helsper and Eynon, 2010, p. 505) The survey questioned the respondents on the different types of activities they are involved in on the internet. Through statistical analysis of the data thus obtained, the researchers recognised twelve general categories of internet use. An individual’s breadth of experience was subsequently measured on a scale of 1–12. Besides, the article also cites several other studies in the same domain to support its claim that the distinction between digital population and immigrants is “not reflected in empirical data” (Helsper and Eynon, 2010, p. 515). In the article “Communicative-based curriculum innovations between theory and practice: implications for EFL curriculum development and student cognitive and affective change”, the author SaadShawer states that he has used a mixed-method approach. It combines the elements of positivism and constructivism. He introduces a quantitative element in the form of a questionnaire, but has also maintained an overall qualitative perspective in dealing with the research problem. Thus the article uses a positivist paradigm in its evidence-based method of educational enquiry. At the first glance, it seems that Shawer’s article is positivist in approach. But a deeper study enables the reader to feel the touches of a constructionist view in the same work. He refers to the work of his predecessors like Bruner, but is in no way influenced by their theories. The article covers the social reality from the perspective of both the teachers and the students, thus considering a case to case perspective, instead of dwelling on a single hard truth. Personal viewpoint By this time, I have realised that educational research is characterised by dimensions that vary immensely from person to person. This diversity is evident in terms of the types of learners, the settings in which learning takes place and the way in which researchers approach their studies. In addition, I have also understood that the choice of a research problem and evidence to address the research question depends on the researchers’ perception of the world and their beliefs about learning. The choice of paradigm reflects the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions of a researcher and helps him determine the research problem, research question, type of data, methodology, data analysis and operationalization of the theoretical concepts. In this regard, I would state that my view of learning is aligned to a dual paradigm that combines the elements of positivism and constructivism. For my studies, I rely greatly on empirical evidence and quantitative data to strengthen my argument. But I do not conform to the recognition of one supreme truth or one-best-way to doing a work. I devise my own methodology and derive my logical conclusions, which might at times differ from the conventional facts, by taking into account the sum total of the scientific, social and cultural factors that influence a given situation. Conclusion A research paradigm indicates a researcher’s point of view and his way of looking at a given research problem. It moulds and shapes his research question and method of collecting and analysing data. The study helped me to get acquainted with the different paradigms of research, by giving me a chance to explore a specimen of each. REFERENCES: Helsper, E.J.&Eynon, R. (2010): Digital natives: where is the evidence?,British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), pp. 503-520 Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing. Cambridge: Polity Press. Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1, On the Horizon, 9(5), pp. 1–6. Richardson, V. (1997) Constructivist Teacher Education: Building a World of New Understandings.Routledge Roger, A., & Duffield, J. (2000). Factors underlying persistent gendered option choices in school science and technology in Scotland.Gender and Education, 12(3), 367-383. Shawer, S. (2010) ‘Communicative-based curriculum innovations between theory and practice: implications for EFL curriculum development and student cognitive and affective change’, Curriculum Journal, 21(3), pp. 333–59. Thomas, G. (2013). How to do your research project: a guide for students in education and applied social sciences. Sage. Read More