See
or
Qualitative research terms and conceptual organization in literature can be inconsistent and misleading, failing to do the following:
…[A]dequately define research terminology and
sometimes use terminology in a way that is not compatible in its intent,
omitting important concepts and leaving the reader with only part of the
picture. Texts are sometimes structured
in a way that does not provide a clear path to information terms and major
concepts. (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, Discussion
section).
Discrepancies
exist between researchers regarding the meaning, importance and sequence of establishing
the paradigm, also known as the theoretical
framework for research (Mertens, 2005). For
instance, the paradigm may be situated as the starting point by which to derive
research methodology and methods (Erikson, 1986; Mackenzie & Knipe,
2006); or be a methodology of its own (Neuman, 2000 ). It could also be a perspective to be explored
during research (Berg, 2001); or the methodology employed could influence the paradigm
subsequently chosen (Walter, 2006). Some
assert that the concept of paradigm and methodology are synonymous (Anderson,
1987; Somekh & Lewin, 2005).
Likewise, a case study in the reviewed literature is
defined as a research approach and a methodology (Baxter & Jack, 2008;
Berg, 2001). Other experts state that “case
study research appears to be based on its own separate method, related to but not wholly part of the qualitative or
quasi-experimental domains” (Yin, 2012, p. 19). Also, listed as methods are qualitative
research (Hatch, 2002; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006) and data collection
instruments (Jones, 1995). In light of
the variety of definitions of what constitutes a research paradigm (theoretical
framework) versus methods and methodology to conduct the research, it is
necessary for me to clearly outline the foundation of my research in the
ensuing discussion.
I assented to Creswell’s definition
of research as “a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to
increase our understanding of a topic or issue” (2008, p. 3). I based my research upon an interpretivist paradigm
that posits that the world is defined by construal, both by parties within and
beyond the social sphere (Angen, 2000; Creswell, 2003; Erickson, 1986; Mackenzie
& Knipe, 2006). I do so because that
paradigm fits my epistemological and ontological view of how the world is
experienced and elements and processes are defined. “There can be no understanding without
interpretation” (Angen, 2000, p. 385). This
was the framework that set “down the intent, motivation and expectations for
the research” (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, Research Paradigm section) and it was
the foundation for all my decisions regarding the approach, type of research I
conducted, and choice of data collection
instruments (Mac Naughton, Rolfe & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). Indeed, this worldview was an appropriate
frame for study of the physical classroom and the influence on the learning
experience, because it recognizes the social and cultural aspects of the
classroom environment, with teaching being only one factor of many, and the
importance of the perspectives of both teacher and students (Erickson, 1986).
Pursuant to my interpretivist paradigm, I selected
the case study approach. This approach “explores
a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems
(cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving
multiple sources of information…and reports a case description and case themes”
(Creswell, 2013, p. 97). The case study approach is appropriate for my
research because it is aligned to an interpretivist framework of valuing the
varied perspectives of participants, and, because there is little research
concerning remedial responses, case study findings serve to provide a “rich and
holistic account of a phenomenon. It
offers insights and illuminates meanings” (Merriam, 1998, p. 41).
In addition, the case study approach was an
appropriate strategy for this research problem because I asked a “how”
(descriptive) question, I could not prohibit participants from performing
corrective actions to study the phenomena so it is best examined in the natural
setting, the context (classroom) was important to the phenomena, and the
relationship between the context and phenomena was unclear (Yin, 2003).
In Chapter Two, I discussed different case
study models and deemed no single strategy to be adequate. For this case study, I used an
interdisciplinary approach. The study
was essentially an education case study (within the social science model), which
gave emphasis to epistemology, pedagogical practice and educational process,
but incorporated attention to the architectural features and context of the
space, including its historic origins (as in the architectural case study), and
also paid great attention to human behaviors in response to the built
environment.
The case was a single undergraduate class period at
a large university in the metropolitan Boston area in which a constructivist
course was taught in a classroom principally designed for non-constructivist
instruction. The case was descriptive because it defined phenomena
in situ (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin,
2003). I chose a unique case of profound
disparity between pedagogy and physical environment to highlight issues regarding
remedial responses to the physical classroom (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Merriam,
1998). The benefit of selecting an exceptional
case to explore phenomena of which there is little research was threefold:
First, since such data are rare, they can help
elucidate the upper and lower boundaries of experience. Second, such data can facilitate….prediction
by documenting infrequent, non-obvious, or counter intuitive occurrences that
may be missed by standard statistical (or empirical) approaches. And finally, atypical cases….are essential
for understanding the range or variety of human experience (Abramson, 1992, p.
190).
Within this case study, I situated sub-units of data
compiled from surveys of local students and teachers, a document analysis, and a
teacher interview to support my interpretation of the findings. I compared data within each method, and then
looked for a cohesive understanding between the surveys, document analysis and
interview, and then compared those findings to the entire case to provide a single-case study with multiple data units
embedded therein (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Swanborn, 2010; Yin, 2003). This allowed me a better understanding of the
phenomenon, both in its distinct parts and holistically.
While a case study can be part of quantitative, qualitative,
or mixed methods research (Yin, 2012; Stake, 1994), I chose a qualitative
methodology because it is “research that produces descriptive data - people’s
own written or spoken word and observable behavior….[and] the researcher looks
at settings and people holistically” (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975, pp. 7–8). This
is in congruence with my theoretical framework for research. Working within this methodology, my
philosophical assumptions of “the nature of reality (ontology), how the
researcher knows what she or he knows (epistemology), [and] the role of values
in the research (axiology)” (Creswell, 2003, p. 16) were as follows.
Knowledge obtained from this research was through my
relationship with the participants and my immersion into phenomena in situ.
My ontological view is interpretivism; therefore, I defined reality as truth
constructed from the construed meanings from many and various participants. For that reason, my research included
comments and stories of participants and their stated conclusions as well as my
interpretations. Of course, each
participant and the researcher contributed evidence of their value systems
within their input. I analyzed all data
from students and teachers for value, attitude, and belief content. My interpretations and analysis of
participant’s conjecture provided the reasons for arriving at conclusions.
Ericson (1986) valued participant perspectives in
interpretive research, because he said it is largely overlooked in other
studies for three reasons:
One is that the people who hold and share the
meaning perspectives that are of interest , are those who are themselves
overlooked, as relatively powerless members of society….A second reason that
these meaning-perspectives are not represented is that they are often held
outside conscious awareness by those who hold them, and thus are not explicitly
articulated. A third reason is that it
is precisely the meaning perspectives of actors in social life that are viewed
theoretically in more usual approaches to educational research as either
peripheral to the center of research interest, or as essentially irrelevant. (pp. 124–125).
These reasons reinforce my decision to conduct
interpretivist qualitative research. In Chapter
Four, I analyze conditions of power and control concerning remedial responses
to the classroom design between students and teachers, and between teachers and
university administration, to uncover that the least powerful have an important
perspective. However, true to the
sentiment of Erickson, Chapters Three and Four also show a majority of those
performing corrective actions label them as inconsequential to their teaching
or learning experience, thus making the scarce input more valued. Lastly, as I mentioned in Chapter One, there
is little research on the effects of remedial responses and only minor
exploration in research on other topics.
Erickson (1986) lists
the two main inquiries of qualitative classroom research as, “What is happening
here, specifically? What do these
happenings mean to the people engaged in them?” (p. 124). Likewise, I interrogated the phenomenon of
performing remedial actions by asking four basic questions:
§ Question
1: “What is existing?” This was followed
with a request for a thorough
description of the existing classroom situation in order to set the
context;
§ Question
2: “What actions were done or attempted?” This question solicited the experiential account of corrective actions attempted
or executed to better understand the influences that impact these experiences;
§ Question
3: “What comprises your learning (or teaching) experience for this course?” This was followed with a request for a list of components and locations (for example,
preparing lesson plans in my office) to better understand how class-time is
situated within the course experience, and;
§ Question
4: “How is the learning (or teaching) experience in the course influenced by
the corrective actions that you took (or continue to take)?” This question was asked to better understand
the impact of these acts.
The areas of
exploration noted above have evolved throughout the research. Beginning with my casual observation and
questioning, and substantiated by the initial review of the first surveys and
formal classroom observation, I advanced the notion that perceptions of
classroom adequacy were contextually different among students and professors. Indeed, the initial numbers of students who
described an inadequate physical classroom environment, yet labeled it as inconsequential
to their learning experience, compared to teachers who described a similar
context, but reported that it was an important issue, prompted the addition of Question
3 above. I found it necessary to understand
how participants’
perceive their teaching and learning experiences, and how their
corrective actions have affected these experiences. I asked these four basic questions throughout
my data collection and specifically asked one or more of these questions in
each data collection method (see Figure 9 in Chapter 5) as one of the
techniques to support research credibility, which I will explain later in this chapter.
To support my research
inquiries, I selected data gathering techniques that were appropriate for an
interpretivist case study approach using qualitative research methodology
(Brikci, 2007). According to Mackenzie and Knipe
(2006), research that is predominantly qualitative employs methods such as
“Interviews, Observations, Document
reviews, [and] Visual data analysis” (Table
2: Paradigms, methods and tools) but can also adopt methods used mainly
in quantitative research. Consequently,
I chose all of these aforementioned qualitative research methods, plus that of survey,
often used in quantitative work to collect numerical data (Creswell, 2003), but,
for my purposes, I solicited descriptive data through that tool.
Byrne (2004) said that “qualitative
interviewing is particularly useful as a research method for accessing
individual’s attitudes and values – things that cannot necessarily be observed
or accommodated in a formal questionnaire…[and] when done well is able to
achieve a level of depth and complexity that is not available to other,
particularly survey-based approaches” (p. 182). For these reasons, I chose
the interview method as a way to delve further into participants experience
performing remedial actions, beyond the class observation and surveys. I utilized an unstructured interview style, in
which there were no pre-determined questions and researcher’s inquiries were
largely in response to participant comments; to deeper understand participant’s
experiences without the constraint of the researcher’s pre-conceived frameworks
or limitations (Punch, 1998).
Creswell
(2012) stated that observation is the most frequent
method used in qualitative research and defined it as “the process of gathering
open-ended, firsthand information by observing people and places at a research
site” (p.213). Thus, it was an obvious
choice to explore the phenomenon of performing corrective actions, to surveil
existing conditions, and the results of those actions in context. I assumed the role of a nonparticipant
observer, simply viewing the proceedings without comment (Creswell, 2012).
I used the document
review method to examine course literature distributed by the teacher to
students. Bowen (2009) describes
document analysis as “a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating
documents-both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internet-transmitted)
material….in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical
knowledge” (p.27). I used this method because insight developed
from this technique is often used to support case studies (Bowen, 2009) and key
documents may constitute “social facts, which are produced, shared, and used in
socially organized ways” (Arkinson & Coffey, 1997, p.47).
I incorporated the visual
data analysis method for my research to study video recordings of the observed
class period. The use of audio-visual
recording for analysis, documentation, conferencing, and social interactions is
widespread in today’s society (Knoblauch, Baer, Laurier, Petschke &
Schnettler, 2008). In particular,
“video is an important resource for many contemporary social researchers across
a range of fields” (Jewitt, 2012, p. 21). A major reason is that video recording
provides a lasting rendition of events that is often clearer and more
comprehensive (Knoblauch, Schnettler & Raab, 2012), and the media allows multiple
interpretation and analyses, when compared to personal accounts of observed phenomena.
My
technique was video-based fieldwork,
which involved “the collection of naturally occurring data using video cameras and
is perhaps the most established use of video for data collection within the
social sciences” (Jewitt, p. 4).
Finally, I chose a qualitative
survey method because it is well suited to my interpretivist view of supporting
participant perspectives. This technique
differs from a quantitative research survey which aims to gather “information from
(a sample of) entities for the purpose of constructing quantitative descriptors
of the attributes of the larger population of which the entities are members” (Groves,
et al., 2004, p. 4). My intent is to explore
the full range of the participants’ diverse perspectives (Fink, 2003)
concerning the influence of doing corrective actions on the educational
experience. Thus, “the qualitative type
of survey does not aim at establishing frequencies, means or other parameters
but at determining the diversity of some topic of interest” (Jansen,
2010, para. 2). In order to solicit for
a variety of perspectives, most of the questions in the questionnaire used in
this study were open-ended, in that they asked participants for descriptions of
phenomena and explanations of their feelings and behaviors (Roberts, et al.,
2014).
Within these five research methods, I
utilized specific data collection tools that I developed to obtain the
demographic data of my research participants, including typical values,
attitudes, beliefs, and trends.
