Describing the Paradigms Which Exist Now - Coursework Example

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................... 2 Paradigmas..................................................................................... 2.1 Positivism............................................................................................... 2.2 Constructivism....................................................................................... 2.3 Pragmatism............................................................................................ 2.4 Summative Table of Paradigmas.................................................... 3 Action Research............................................................... 3.1 Definition 3.2 Purpose: When is Action Research Applied.................................. 3.3 The Action Research Spiral (Dialectic)........................................... 3.4 Types of Action research..................................................................... 3.4.1 Traditional Action Research.................................................. 3.4.2 Contextual Action Research (Action Learning)............... 3.4.3 Radical Action Research......................................................... 3.4.4 Educational Action Research............................................... 4 Examples of Action Research Studies 4.1 Research Study 1..................................................................... 4.2 Research Study 2...................................................................... 5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………….. 1. Introduction Epistemology, ontology, paradigm, positivism, constructivism, pragmatism and numerous combinations or meanings of, are just a few terms commonly used in the field of academic research. Taking the many research concepts into consideration, this paper is aimed at achieving two things: firstly, at the primary level its main objective is to demonstrate and foster the development and refinement of a body of knowledge describing the paradigms which exist within the many fields of research and secondly, at the practice level or applicatory level, to present an analysis of the methodology which was originally coined by Kurt Lewis (1890-1947), in about 1934, as Action Research. Consequently two Action research studies have been employed to help determine what factors affect the use, application and any comparable differences in the real world of research. This research assignment is also designed to serve as a catalyst for increasing my own ontological, constructivist epistemological dispositional body of knowledge. 2. Paradigmas Academics (Researchers) or people interested in the field of research have several taxonomic methodological choices to construct valid research findings (Stanhouse, 1981) for their research. Strictly speaking, the world of research is divided into three main epistemological categories. Therefore, depending on the individual researchers ontological standing or nature of research to be undertaken, researchers with a inclination towards objectivist epistemology tend to favour quantitative research methods whereas researchers with a constructivist epistemological disposition favour qualitative research methods (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2006, ; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Berg, 2007; Crotty, 1998). For many years it was widely accepted by research purists that the positivist and constructivist epistemological positions are mutually exclusive and researchers should resist harmonising of concepts and avoid combining the two paradigms in forming their research framework. Thus the birth of pragmatism, another research paradigm based on pragmatic ideology, which is concerned with practical consequences of intervention and promotes mixed method research methodology. The following sections expand on these three paradigms, demonstrating the basic epistemological framework associated with each of the methodology. 2.1 Positivism Crotty( 1998) explains that word “positive” is not to be used in contrast with “negative,” or with right Vs wrong. Positivism refers to “something posited i.e, something that is given.” Simply, It implies that we can reach reality through direct experience and not by speculation. Generally, it regards the scientific method to discover truth. Auguste Comte, the father of sociology, wanted to develop a comprehensive social science that applies scientific principles to study the aspects of human society.Thus positivist researcher will always apply a deductive statement to be tested through the scientific process and not by sheer logic or rational. 2.2 Constructivism In contrast to Positivism, Constructivist claim that the meanings are not discovered but constructed. The world and the objects in the world may be meaningless, but they come into the contact with mind they become our partners in the construction of meaning. Constructivism contrasts Subjectivism in that sense mind construct meaning out of objects. Whereas in Subjectivism mind creates meaning may be out of nothing. Thus, Constructivist researchers will preferably utilize inductive reasoning and ultimately use quantitative research methods( Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2006 ) 2.3 Pragmatism Pragmatism philosophers establish that reality is what works. Truth of anything can be accepted not through any metaphysics but from its effectiveness and functionality. According to James() pragmatism looks matters with the view of their practical consequences. Pragmatism comes from same Greek word that means action and English word practical comes from the same word. Thus it is natural that such a philosophy will beget a tradition in research that presents practical solutions to the problems at hand—Action Research. That’s why Rorty(1999) argues that the function of research is not to unveil truth but to suggest some ways to live better and work together better. And Action Research offers the practical solutions. Due to its very aim it does not turn towards any single method. It uses both the qualitative and the quantitative traditions. 2.3 Summative Table of Paradigmas 3. Action Research 3.1 Definition Kemmis & McTaggart (1988, p. 5) present the following definition of action research which highlights its participatory, collaborative and self-reflective nature. They define it as a process aiming at improvement in the rationality and justice of social action: Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out Action research involves practitioners in a cycles process that involves planning a change, implementing the change, observing the outcomes of the change, and reflecting on the outcomes of the change (Kemmis and McTaggart 2005).Thus, action research is a reflection process that in a particular situation. The process is carried out by the practitioner(s) involve in the situation. And the major purpose of the process is to change the existing situation for improvement. 3.2 Purpose: When is Action Research Applied . As above discussed the major purpose of action research is improvement in a situation ( Noffke, 1997; Kemmis and McTaggart 2005; Carr and Kemmis, 1983). Thus the primary focus of action research in education is to understand and solve problems. The process is usually undertaken by teachers or some times by the school leaders. Noffke (1997) have mentioned three broad aims of action research for teachers: personal growth, professional understanding, and political empowerment. Certainly, these goals are the logical outcome off the major purpose discussed earlier. First aim focuses upon developing new insights into practitioners’ own professional knowledge and practice. Second aim focuses the development of the practitioner and generating new knowledge in the field (in this case education). Third aim focuses upon the awareness of economic, social, and racial inequities and instigates social action to overcome these inequities. 3.3 The Action Research Spiral (Dialectic) As a research methodology, action research may be practiced in a variety of ways ( McNiff 2002; Noffke 1997;). Action Research process could follow Lewinian concept of a self-reflective spiral of cycles of planning, acting, observing, reflecting – then replanning, further action, further observation and further reflection (Carr and Kemmis, 1986: 184). Dialectical tension has a central role in this self-reflective spiral. Reflection and action held with systematic reasoning. This systematic reasoning sometimes brings unexpected outcomes. Pe Thus, it need further planning action and reflection. The process goes on in a shape of a spiral—each step improving upon the previous situation. further reflection further observation further action replanning reflecting observing acting planning , 3.4 Types of Action research Action Research has been evolved into various forms (Carr and Kemmis, 1963) . Some scholars use different terms for the same process. For example, for Hopkins (1985), action research and classroom research by teachers are synonymous; All these forms adopt a systematic cyclic approach by problem identification, data collection , action implementation, evaluation, and reflection. The understanding gained from the initial cycle becomes the base of the planning of the second cycle and the research process is repeated. 3.4.1 Traditional Action Research Above described model of action research is based upon Traditional Action Research Model. This has its roots in Lewin’s work within organizations(Carr and Kemmis, 1963). Traditional action research provides a base for change initiatives and is considered as both a model and a process. Traditional action research provides a base for change initiatives and is considered as both a model and a process. However, this traditional approach tends to maintain the status quo of the organizational power structures. 3.4.2 Contextual Action Research (Action Learning) Contextual Action Research or Action Learning, is an approach derived from Trist’s work on relations between organizations. Because it requires redefining the structural relations among actors in a social environment I, this approach called contextual. It also involve all stakeholders in the process.  The concept of organizational ecology and the use of search conferences come out of contextual action research. In education it is applied in school setting primarily to solve contextual managerial problems. 3.4.3 Radical Action Research or Participatory Action Research Those who want to bring social justice and change stresses the fundamental role of democratic collaboration and participation (McNiff 1988:22). It states that Research should be more than just finding the facts. Research must initiate an action component to cause positive change in the existing situation 3.4.4 Educational Action Research Action research, in educational context , incorporates an action as the part of the research process to result in improved practices. For instance in classroom it should lead to the development all involved in the research. Educational Action Research adheres the same philosophy of research as described by Kemmis & McTaggart (1988, p. 5).Major consumer of Action Research is teacher who study his or her own practices while seeking to address specific situations (Corey, 1953). 4. Examples of Action Research Studies 4.1 Research Study 1: Al-Quran et al (2001) conducted ‘The development and implementation of a sixth grade geology unit through collaborative action research. 4.1.1 the purpose: Al-Quran et al (2001) stated their objective is to improve teaching and learning process. Their purpose, as they described matches the very purposes of the Action Research I discussed in 3.2. 4.1.2 the process While selecting the process of the action research, Al-Quran et al (2001) selected ‘plan-action-reflection’ cycle proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart(1988). This is the spiral process that suits the very purpose of the study. However, they not only reflected at the end of each cycle but included reflection at each step. In my opinion, this although a laborious process, it increases the chances of improvement at each step and lemmatizes the chances of fallback. Further, they adopted a liberal approach and started their process without a solution in mind—open minded. They did not define any specific teaching method for their examination. This style would have been helpful in reaching a better solution rather than a biased and preferred solution. The researchers also gathered data at beginning and validated employing sophisticated process. 4.1.3 the participation of the stakeholders The research was conducted in a collaborative format. They developed teams of three to two teacher-researchers. The team included in-service and pre-service teachers. This seems to me an effective approach as the aim was to improve the whole teaching learning process. However, the study did not include the students at any stage. This indicates that all the stakeholders were not involved. 4.1.4 the Action The phase one of the study which started with the examination of the current situation ended with the collaborative effort in defining the lesson development models. This phase also ended with the teachers changed understanding of the teaching learning process. They started a variety of means to involve the students into teaching learning process. They also decided to implementation of students’ group work techniques. Phase two started with the examination of the forthcoming implementation problems. Thus, the spiral of ‘plan-action-observation-reflection’ followed by ‘revised plan–action–observation–reflection’ was implemented. Overall, the study implies the philosophy and process of Action Research to good effect. However, had they involved students in the process, it would have been more effective. 4.2 Research Study 2 The researcher initiated the whole school improvement process and decided to apply it as a self-renewal process. He involves school teachers in reflective practice in order to bring the change. He discusses in detail the improvement of teaching method in low ability classes. 4.2.1 The Purpose Shoshana(1985) defines five objectives each assigned to a team. All objectives are to improve certain process related to teaching and learning. This is in accordance with the overall philosophy of the action research as discussed above in 3.2. 4.2.2 The Process They started the process with the collection of information about learning difficulties of the pupils. In this regard different teachers played different roles. Some collected base line data. Some read articles and books about learning difficulties. Some other did a few creative experiments to teach low ability students. This step helped in examining the current situation. 4.2.3 The Participation The researcher, Shoshana, involved whole team of the school in the process of change. All major stakeholders were involved. However, there was a tendency of dominated role of the researcher as a consultant. This is not in accordance with the norms and philosophy of the action research as discussed in 3.4.2 and 3.4.2. 4.2.4 The Action The teachers learned that they will have to change their attitudes towards those students. Thus, at the end of first year, the school management was pursued to take a decision—only those teachers will teach low ability classes who are willing to do so. They also implemented some other decisions based upon their learning. They also developed a teachers’ team for the low ability students. The team was to meet weekly to discuss the problems and the progress about the low ability students. In third year the school team was to independently plan the affairs and the consultant role reached an end. Overall this is a good example of Action Research. However, the dominant role of the consultant does not match the Action Research philosophy. 5. The Conclusion Both the studies I selected show a visible variation from the original Action Research model proposed by Lewis (discussed in 3.4.1 ). In first study, instead of examining the situation once in a circle, Al-Quran et al (2001) ensured the reflection and analysis at each step. This strategy actually helps them in further development. Similarly, in second study, Shoshana(1985) tried to involve whole school into the process. However, his role was dominant during first two years. This variation, in my opinion, reflects the practical and pragmatic approach of the researchers which is the very essence of Action Research. References: Atweh, B., Kemmis, S., & Weeks, P. (1998). Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education. London; NY: Routledge. Al-Quran, Maha , Haikal, Abu A. , Razeq, Abdel M. , Shalabi, M. , Fathi, N. , Ghoush, Abu S. and Majdalawi, T.(2001) The development and implementation of a sixth grade geology unit through collabrative action research, Educational Action Research, 9: 3, 395 — 411 Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Deakin, Vic: Deakin University Press. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Grundy, S., & Kemmis, S. (1988). Educational action research in Australia: The state of the art (an overview). In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The action research reader (pp. 321–335). Deakin, Vic: Deakin University Press. Handbook of action research (pp. 94–105). London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher’s guide to classroom research (2nd ed.). Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press. James, W. (2009) Pragmatism. Wildside Press LLC. Kemmis, S. (1988). Action research in retrospect and prospect. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (eds.), The action research reader (pp. 27–39). Deakin, Vic: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. (2006). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Keiny, Shoshana(1985) Action research in the school: a case study, Cambridge Journal of Education, 15: 3, 148 — 154 Noffke, S.E. 1997. Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In Review of research in education, ed. M. Apple, vol. 22, 305–43. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin Books. Schön, Donald A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, New York: Basic Books. Bibliography Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Boudourides, M. A. (1998). Constructivism and Education: A shoppers guide, International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics (Vol. 2006). Samos, Greece, July 3-6, 1998. Brown , A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical : education, knowledge and action research (revised ed.): Deakin University. Collective, D.-B. R. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research : meaning and perspective in the research process. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitiative Research (second ed., pp. 1 -28). California: Sage Publications. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousanf Oaks, CA: Sage. Lankshear, C. (2004). A handbook for teacher research (1st edn.). Sydney : Open University Press. Readings: Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Deakin, Vic:Deakin University Press. pp. 167–178. The second reading provided here examines the influence of Habermas on action research and questions the critical in critical action research. Webb, G. (1994). Becoming critical of action research for development (pp. 137–161). London: Falmer Press. Research projects: Reid, J. (1983). Negotiating the curriculum. In S. Kemmis et al. (Eds.), The action research reader. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press. Whitemore, E., & McKee, C. (2006). Six street youth who could … In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 297–303). London: SAGE Publications. Read More