Scientific Method and Research Process

To get Assignments through E-Mail or Whatsapp contact:- masters.academy2000@gmail.
com
We have Solved Guess Papers, 5 Years Papers & Notes for Students.
For more Information Contact 0321-5455195 (whatsapp #):- Masters Academy
Course: Research Methods in Education

Code: 8604 Level: B.Ed SPRING 2018
Assignment No: 01
Q No: 1 Discuss scientific method as a tool of acquiring knowledge. Compare it with various steps in
research process.
Scientific Method as a Tool of Acquiring Knowledge
Scientific method is "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century,
consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and
modification of hypotheses". Experiments are a procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an
important tool of the scientific method. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based
on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Though there are diverse models for the scientific method available, in general there is a continuous process
that includes observations about the natural world. People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up
with questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things
are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways. The most
conclusive testing of hypotheses comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data.
Depending on how well additional tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require
refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported, a
general theory may be developed.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to
another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions
from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on
those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the
question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by
conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to
identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the
hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the
predictions derived from a hypothesis. Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to CERN's Large
Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific
method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all
steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same
order. Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include
physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method). Robert Nola and Howard
Sankey remark that "For some, the whole idea of a theory of scientific method is yester-year's debate, the
continuation of which can be summed up as yet more of the proverbial deceased equine castigation.
400 years ago, Galileo set up an experiment to test the hypothesis that objects accelerate when they fall.
Experimentation was commonly employed by the Arabs, but their methods were looked down on by the
Europeans, who followed the Church’s dictum that conclusions could only be reached by discussions and
logic, following Aristotle.
Galileo’s reliance on empirical knowledge led Europe into the Enlightenment, and established the scientific
method, which is still regarded as the only satisfactory approach when it comes to the acquisition of
knowledge about the natural world.
1. The problem
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Testing
5. Peer review
Page 1 of 14 For More AIOU Solved Assignments Contact: MASTERS ACADEMY RWP 0308-5455195
For our Message services send your Name, Class and Roll Number on this number 0345-5455195
To Get Assignment Through E-mail or Whatsapp Message on this Number 0321-5455195
For THISES, PROJECTS, REPORTS for AIOU & Other Universities Contact Masters Academy
To get Assignments through E-Mail or Whatsapp contact:- masters.academy2000@gmail.com
6. Publication
7. Replication or falsification
8. Theory
9. Corrections and modifications
10. Laws
The role of induction and falsification
We have seen that the scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis. There are many ways in which a
scientist may arrive at their hypothesis (including serendipity), but probably the most common one is
observationalist-inductionism – that is, observing that a phenomenon has always occurred that way in the
past, and inducing that it will always happen that way in the future. Proving this hypothesis to be true will be
the aim of their experimentation during the testing stage.
But there is a problem with this way of viewing science. We cannot prove anything with 100% certainty in
the natural world, so the purpose of science is not to show that things are true, rather that things are false. If
a hypothesis stands up to testing over a long period of time, it is given the term theory. This means that we
are not so much interested in theories that are true as we are theories that are not false.
This idea provides us with a convenient definition of a scientific hypothesis: a statement that can be
(potentially) falsified. If it is not (potentially) falsifiable, then it isn’t scientific, and belongs to some other
field. In the example given above, if I say that water boils at 100?C, this is clearly scientific, as it can be
proven false (or true) in an experiment. If I say that the earth was created by God, this clearly isn’t a
scientific theory, because there is no way of testing this idea, and proving it to be false (or true).
The scientist/philosopher who advocated this idea was Karl Popper. In the 1960s he challenged what was
then the accepted view that science worked along observationalist-inductionist lines – or, reaching
conclusions about hypotheses on the basis of previous results, rather than the potential falsifiability of the
idea. According to Popper, nothing that cannot be falsified can be called a scientific hypothesis/theory.
Formulate a Question
a. Define the Question
b. Review the Literature
c. Create a Hypothesis
Research starts with a question or assumption you have on a real world phenomenon. Narrow it down to a
research question that defines what you want to figure out and review the research and literature already
done on that subject. With an understanding of your subject and a well defined question you form an
hypothesis that will be tested against an opposite assumption called the null hypothesis.
Collect Data
a. Preparation: Make Hypothesis Testable (Operationalization)
b. Preparation: Design the Study
c. Conduct the Experiment or Observation
Operationalize the hypothesis to be both testable and falsifiable. Then design a study and construct a
test or experiment to collect data. Be aware of validity when choosing variables, especially when studying
people. You might not be measuring what you think you are measuring. Qualitative studiestends to have
more open questions and hypotheses while quantitative research have an experimentalapproach focusing
more on counting and classifying observations.
Test Hypothesis
a. Organize the Data
b. Analyse the Results
c. Check if the Results Support your Hypothesis
Organize the data and analyze it to see if it supports or rejects your hypothesis. The exact type of test used
depends upon many things, including the field, the type of data and sample size, among other things. The
vast majority of scientific research is ultimately tested by statistical methods, all giving a degree of
confidence in the results.
Conclusion
a. Look for Other Possible Explanations
b. Generalize to the Real World
c. Suggestions to Further Research
When looking at your results it is important to be open for other possible explanations. Could the results you
got be generalized to the real word? Maybe other variables explain the question better then the ones you
chose for your hypothesis? Remember to consider experimental errors and problems with validity and
reliability in your conclusion. If your assumption on what you studied was right and your hypothesis was
supported by the test, you could consider if it fits in a bigger picture with other research that together could
form a theory. If the hypothesis failed you could try to tweak it or make a new hypothesis, corrected with
your newly analysed results and test again. Often the conclusion will lead you on to further hypotheses about
the phenomenon that suggest a direction for more research by yourself or other scientists.
At the time when the two great cultures of Ancient Greece and Ancient Persia were seeking dominance and
fighting wars at Thermopylae and Platea, it is easy to forget that these two cultures also had a deep mutual
respect, and traded ideas and knowledge.Unsurprisingly, and fittingly, our history of the scientific method
will start here, although we must point out that knowledge knows no boundaries. Whilst Babylonian, Indian
and Egyptian astronomers, physicians and mathematicians developed some empirical ideas, the Greeks were
the first to develop what we recognize as the scientific method.Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did
not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and
artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning,
and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything.
Q No: 2 Compare and contrast the types of research. Why and where we use these types (basic,
applied action) researches to discuss the educational phenomena?
Students learn about research methods used in their particular field of study. Whatever methods are used,
there are many resources to support research, and any number of variations to the basic methods. Choose a
method or variation that is manageable in your first years as a new faculty member to be certain to get your
research agenda underway. Often the biggest challenge is often to get started, so establish research priorities
early on, and create a plan to implement them.
Quantitative research Quantitative research is generally associated with the positivist/postpositivist
paradigm. It usually involves collecting and converting data into numerical form so that statistical
calculations can be made and conclusions drawn.
The process Researchers will have one or more hypotheses. These are the questions that they want to
address which include predictions about possible relationships between the things they want to investigate
(variables). In order to find answers to these questions, the researchers will also have various instruments
and materials (e.g. paper or computer tests, observation check lists etc.) and a clearly defined plan of action.
Data is collected by various means following a strict procedure and prepared for statistical analysis.
Nowadays, this is carried out with the aid of sophisticated statistical computer packages. The analysis
enables the researchers to determine to what extent there is a relationship between two or more variables.
This could be a simple association (e.g. people who exercise on a daily basis have lower blood pressure) or a
causal relationship (e.g. daily exercise actually leads to lower blood pressure). Statistical analysis permits
researchers to discover complex causal relationships and to determine to what extent one variable influences
another.
The results of statistical analyses are presented in journals in a standard way, the end result being a P value.
For people who are not familiar with scientific research jargon, the discussion sections at the end of articles
in peer reviewed journals usually describe the results of the study and explain the implications of the
findings in straightforward terms.
Principles Objectivity is very important in quantitative research. Consequently, researchers take great care
to avoid their own presence, behaviour or attitude affecting the results (e.g. by changing the situation being
studied or causing participants to behave differently). They also critically examine their methods and
conclusions for any possible bias.
Researchers go to great lengths to ensure that they are really measuring what they claim to be measuring.
For example, if the study is about whether background music has a positive impact on restlessness in
residents in a nursing home, the researchers must be clear about what kind of music to include, the volume
of the music, what they mean by restlessness, how to measure restlessness and what is considered a positive
impact. This must all be considered, prepared and controlled in advance.
External factors, which might affect the results, must also be controlled for. In the above example, it would
be important to make sure that the introduction of the music was not accompanied by other changes (e.g. the
person who brings the CD player chatting with the residents after the music session) as it might be the other
factor which produces the results (i.e. the social contact and not the music). Some possible contributing
factors cannot always be ruled out but should be acknowledged by the researchers.
The main emphasis of quantitative research is on deductive reasoning which tends to move from the general
to the specific. This is sometimes referred to as a top down approach. The validity of conclusions is shown
to be dependent on one or more premises (prior statements, findings or conditions) being valid. Aristotle’s
famous example of deductive reasoning was: All men are mortal àSocrates is a man à Socrates is mortal. If
the premises of an argument are inaccurate, then the argument is inaccurate. This type of reasoning is often
also associated with the fictitious character Sherlock Holmes. However, most studies also include an
element of inductive reasoning at some stage of the research (see section on qualitative research for more
details).
Members of a particular group Researchers rarely have access to all the members of a particular group
(e.g. all people with dementia, carers or healthcare professionals). However, they are usually interested in
being able to make inferences from their study about these larger groups. For this reason, it is important that
the people involved in the study are a representative sample of the wider population/group. However, the
extent to which generalizations are possible depends to a certain extent on the number of people involved in
the study, how they were selected and whether they are representative of the wider group. For example,
generalizations about psychiatrists should be based on a study involving psychiatrists and not one based on
psychology students. In most cases, random samples are preferred (so that each potential participant has an
equal chance of participating) but sometimes researchers might want to
ensure that they include a certain number of people with specific characteristics and this would not be
possible using random sampling methods. Generalizability of the results is not limited to groups of people
but also to situations. It is presumed that the results of a laboratory experiment reflect the real life situation
which the study seeks to clarify.
When looking at results, the P value is important. P stands for probability. It measures the likelihood that a
particular finding or observed difference is due to chance. The P value is between 0 and 1. The closer the
result is to 0, the less likely it is that the observed difference is due to chance. The closer the result is to 1,
the greater the likelihood that the finding is due to chance (random variation) and that there is no difference
between the groups/variables.
Qualitative research Qualitative research is the approach usually associated with the social constructivist
paradigm which emphasises the socially constructed nature of reality. It is about recording, analysing and
attempting to uncover the deeper meaning and significance of human behaviour and experience, including
contradictory beliefs, behaviours and emotions. Researchers are interested in gaining a rich and complex
understanding of people’s experience and not in obtaining information which can be generalized to other
larger groups.
The process
The approach adopted by qualitative researchers tends to be inductive which means that they develop a
theory or look for a pattern of meaning on the basis of the data that they have collected. This involves a
move from the specific to the general and is sometimes called a bottom-up approach. However, most
research projects also involve a certain degree of deductive reasoning (see section on quantitative research
for more details).
Qualitative researchers do not base their research on pre-determined hypotheses. Nevertheless, they clearly
identify a problem or topic that they want to explore and may be guided by a theoretical lens - a kind of
overarching theory which provides a framework for their investigation.
The approach to data collection and analysis is methodical but allows for greater flexibility than in
quantitative research. Data is collected in textual form on the basis of observation and interaction with the
participants e.g. through participant observation, in-depth interviews and focus groups. It is not converted
into numerical form and is not statistically analysed.
Data collection may be carried out in several stages rather than once and for all. The researchers may even
adapt the process mid-way, deciding to address additional issues or dropping questions which are not
appropriate on the basis of what they learn during the process. In some cases, the researchers will interview
or observe a set number of people. In other cases, the process of data collection and analysis may continue
until the researchers find that no new issues are emerging.
Principles Researchers will tend to use methods which give participants a certain degree of freedom and
permit spontaneity rather than forcing them to select from a set of pre-determined responses (of which none
might be appropriate or accurately describe the participant’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes or behaviour) and
to try to create the right atmosphere to enable people to express themselves. This may mean adopting a less
formal and less rigid approach than that used in quantitative research.
It is believed that people are constantly trying to attribute meaning to their experience. Therefore, it would
make no sense to limit the study to the researcher’s view or understanding of the situation and expect to
learn something new about the experience of the participants. Consequently, the methods used may be more
open-ended, less narrow and more exploratory (particularly when very little is known about a particular
subject). The researchers are free to go beyond the initial response that the participant gives and to ask why,
how, in what way etc. In this way, subsequent questions can be tailored to the responses just given.
Qualitative research often involves a smaller number of participants. This may be because the methods used
such as in-depth interviews are time and labour intensive but also because a large number of people are not
needed for the purposes of statistical analysis or to make generalizations from the results.
The smaller number of people typically involved in qualitative research studies and the greater degree of
flexibility does not make the study in any way “less scientific” than a typical quantitative study involving
more subjects and carried out in a much more rigid manner. The objectives of the two types of research and
their underlying philosophical assumptions are simply different. However, as discussed in the section on
“philosophies guiding research”, this does not mean that the two approaches cannot be used in the same
study.
Pragmatic approach to research (mixed methods)
The pragmatic approach to science involves using the method which appears best suited to the research
problem and not getting caught up in philosophical debates about which is the best approach. Pragmatic
researchers therefore grant themselves the freedom to use any of the methods, techniques and procedures
typically associated with quantitative or qualitative research. They recognise that every method has its
limitations and that the different approaches can be complementary.
They may also use different techniques at the same time or one after the other. For example, they might start
with face-to-face interviews with several people or have a focus group and then use the findings to construct
a questionnaire to measure attitudes in a large scale sample with the aim of carrying out statistical analysis.
Depending on which measures have been used, the data collected is analysed in the appropriate manner.
However, it is sometimes possible to transform qualitative data into quantitative data and vice versa
although transforming quantitative data into qualitative data is not very common.
Being able to mix different approaches has the advantages of enabling triangulation. Triangulation is a
common feature of mixed methods studies. It involves, for example:
 the use of a variety of data sources (data triangulation)
 the use of several different researchers (investigator triangulation)
 the use of multiple perspectives to interpret the results (theory triangulation)
 the use of multiple methods to study a research problem (methodological triangulation)
In some studies, qualitative and quantitative methods are used simultaneously. In others, first one approach
is used and then the next, with the second part of the study perhaps expanding on the results of the first. For
example, a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews or focus group discussions might serve to obtain
information which will then be used to contribute towards the development of an experimental measure or
attitude scale, the results of which will be analysed statistically.
Advocacy/participatory approach to research (emancipatory)
To some degree, researchers adopting an advocacy/participatory approach feel that the approaches to
research described so far do not respond to the needs or situation of people from marginalised or vulnerable
groups. As they aim to bring about positive change in the lives of the research subjects, their approach is
sometimes described as emancipatory. It is not a neutral stance. The researchers are likely to have a political
agenda and to try to give the groups they are studying a voice. As they want their research to directly or
indirectly result in some kind of reform, it is important that they involve the group being studied in the
research, preferably at all stages, so as to avoid further marginalizing them.
The researchers may adopt a less neutral position than that which is usually required in scientific research.
This might involve interacting informally or even living amongst the research participants (who are
sometimes referred to as co-researchers in recognition that the study is not simply about them but also by
them). The findings of the research might be reported in more personal terms, oftenusing the precise words
of the research participants. Whilst this type of research could by criticised for not being objective, it should
be noted that for some groups of people or for certain situations, it is necessary as otherwise the thoughts,
feelings or behaviour of the various members of the group could not be accessed or fully understood.
Vulnerable groups are rarely in a position of power within society. For this reason, researchers are
sometimes members of the group they are studying or have something in common with the members of the
group.
Collaborative research There are many ways to collaborate and thereby enrich your work as a faculty
member. Multiple perspectives offer a more complete view of an issue under study. Whether presenting or
publishing, having several iterations of a study in different settings offers a means of validating findings.
Collaboration may take many forms, including crossing disciplines, types of institutions, or engaging the
community outside the campus environment. Explore the ways that collaboration may enrich your research.
Some of the issues and challenges associated with collaborative research are explored in this section.
Practitioner research Simple definitions of practitioner research address the investigator, the setting and
the purpose. The investigator is the practitioner, in workplace settings ranging from hospitals, to schools and
communities. The general purpose is to better align the practitioner’s purpose with their actions. There are
those who argue that practitioner research stems from a larger social justice movement within qualitative
research. Even when social justice is not the sole motivating principle, an underlying commonality of
purpose is the desire to improve upon and develop deeper insights into one’s practice. Practitioner research
by its nature offers practitioners a voice in the research conversation. Some consider it a bridge of sorts
between theory and practice, although practitioners claim a rightful place in the research continuum. Some
of the issues and challenges associated with practitioner research are explored in this section.
Q No: 3 Define the concepts of history and historical research. What is the importance of internal and
external criticism in historical research? Also distinguish primary source of data from the secondary
source of data with examples.
Concept of History and Historical Research
History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study
of the past as it is described in written documents. Events occurring before written record are
considered prehistory. It is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery,
collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. Scholars who
write about history are called historians.
History can also refer to the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine and analyse a sequence
of past events, and objectively determine the patterns of cause and effect that determine them. Historians
sometimes debate the nature of history and its usefulness by discussing the study of the discipline as an end
in itself and as a way of providing "perspective" on the problems of the present.
Stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external sources (such as the tales
surrounding King Arthur), are usually classified as cultural heritageor legends, because they do not show the
"disinterested investigation" required of the discipline of history. Herodotus, a 5th-century BC Greek
historian is considered within the Western tradition to be the "father of history", and, along with his
contemporary Thucydides, helped form the foundations for the modern study of human history. Their works
continue to be read today, and the gap between the culture-focused Herodotus and the military-focused
Thucydides remains a point of contention or approach in modern historical writing. In Asia, a
state chronicle, the Spring and Autumn Annals was known to be compiled from as early as 722 BC although
only 2nd-century BC texts survived.
Ancient influences have helped spawn variant interpretations of the nature of history which have evolved
over the centuries and continue to change today. The modern study of history is wide-ranging, and includes
the study of specific regions and the study of certain topical or thematical elements of historical
investigation. Often history is taught as part of primary and secondary education, and the academic study of
history is a major discipline in university studies.
For students, the study of history may seem as simple as opening up a textbook and beginning to read.
Needless to say, far more is involved. Historians explain the events and developments of the past using
specialized terms and concepts, which students need to master. When they move beyond textbooks, students
will encounter information sources ranging from historical records and archives to scholarly books and
articles. Recognizing, evaluating, and using such sources appropriately are essential skills. Social studies
teachers need to help students master these terms and concepts and develop these skills as they read, conduct
research, and learn. Competency 1 requires an understanding of historical concepts, terms, sources,
perspectives, and research skills.
You will be expected to recognize and demonstrate knowledge of basic historical terms and concepts.
Questions will require you to explain how given terms and concepts are used in historical research and
study. For example, you might be asked to identify a society that a historian would most likely describe as
a nation-state. Alternatively, you might be asked to identify a context in which a historian would use the
concept of periodization. Feudalism, collectivization, counterrevolution, militarism, mercantilism,
capitalism, republicanism, liberalism, balance of power, globalization, modernization, and other terms and
concepts may be addressed.
Historical theory" is a concept that is used in different ways. Often researchers will have a "theory" about
historical events and connections – an orderly preconceived impression of the phenomenon to be studied.
Used in this way, "theory" means the same thing as "hypothesis". In the context of history as an academic
field, the word "theory" is more often used to refer to the overarching perspectives we construct while
carrying out research. But even in this context we may use the term at different conceptual levels. A
fundamental theoretical question concerns the actual nature of historical knowledge: is the past a given
quantity that historians should describe as realistically as possible, or is the writing of history a matter of
constructing a past that only exists in the form of language and representational images?
More concretely, a theory can be a view of history, an opinion about the fundamental nature of those aspects
of the past that we wish to present. For example, a historical materialist will be interested in labour,
production and the economy, while a structuralist will try to describe common basic structures in language
and thinking. Such theoretical perspectives will be decisive with regard to a historian's choice of sources,
research topics and view of historical knowledge, but they will seldom be mutually exclusive. In practice,
history is a field where pragmatic attitudes to theory prevail.
The word "method" can sometimes refer to the techniques used to find out knowledge within the bounds of a
particular theory. In that case there will generally be a distinction between quantitative methods, which
establish statistical knowledge on the basis of data that can be counted or measured, and qualitative methods,
which involve a more in-depth interpretation of source materials. But method – or methodology – can also
mean the overarching means used to ensure that an answer is obtained to the initial question. Comparison is
one such methodology. The investigation of sources can also be seen in this way, namely as a set of methods
that will be common to all historians. This aspect of historians' work is what most obviously gives them a
common identity.
importance of internal and external criticism in historical research
External and Internal Criticisms -two mental processes which students have to follow. After the searches
had been carried out the next step was to build up a picture of the situation in each region for each of the
three years using the “6 - I” model as a framework. This was done by combining the results of the searches
ordered by category, sub-category and year for each of the two regions and the national situation. This data
was used as a basis to describe developments in that region during 1985 to 2005. As with the first round of
data collection further refinement took place during the writing up process, duplications and overlaps were
identified and articles were reassigned to different categories as appropriate. The data collection process is
summarised in Table 5. Stage Method Analysis First Round Interviews with significant Data coded using
NVivo with figures working in each region. 6-I model used as overall conceptual framework. Second Round
Regional newspapers scanned Data coded using Access for relevant articles for years database with 6-I
model used as 1985, 1995 and 2005. overall conceptual framework. National & regional reports Data used
to supplement and produced by Government, confirm data from newspaper economic development bodies,
articles. NGO’s and Statistics New Zealand collected for period from 1985 to 2005. Historical source
material consists of primary and secondary sources. Historians select the events and people that they
consider important. By doing so they don’t so much recreate the past as rediscover it, and to some extent
colour it with their own set of valu e judgements. The historical researcher’s most important role is to
choose reliable sources, in order to create reliable narratives about the past (Howell et al. 2001). There needs
to be a systematic approach to gathering data, as collecting only the most compelling evidence can result in
material that is unrepresentative (Wenger et al. 2000). Utilising the authoritative source only is not a wise
approach. Evidence should be collected from a wide range of sources, each of which will have their own
strengths and weaknesses (Tosh 2000). Any source material collected should be subjected to both external
and internal criticism. The authenticity of the evidence is determined by external criticism, whereas
credibility is established by internal criticism (Shafer 1980). The use of external criticism involves
establishing whether a document can be traced back to the purported originator, establishing whether it is
consistent with known facts, and studying the form of the document (Tosh 2000). Internal criticism consists
of trying to establish the author’s meaning and making a judgement as to the inten tions and prejudices of
the writer (Tosh 2000).
External Criticism is that part of the historical method which deter- mines the authenticity of the source. The
document is somewhat like a prisoner at the bar. Its genuineness must be tested, where possible, by
paleographical and diplomatic criticism. It must be localized in time and place. It must be
ascertained, whether in its present state it exists exactly as its author left it. In order to test its genuineness,
the student must ask himself if it is what it appears to be or if it is a forgery. One is too apt to imagine that
historical forgeries passed out of style with the Middle Ages. The document must be viewed from every
possible angle. Its agreement or disagreement with facts known from other genuine sources of the same
place and period, or on the same subject, will often be a deciding factor in its authenticity. The writer's
ignorance of facts which he should have known and which should have been mentioned in the document,
or the record of events which he clearly could not have known at the time
of writing, are other signs of genuinity or of its absence. A document proven probably genuine by these tests
can often be heightened in value by an analysis which may restore it to its original state, or which may
accentuate the historicity of the facts it contains. The False Decretals, or the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, are
a good example of the value of External Criticism. Of the one hundred documents contained in the
collection, which was written about 852, about five are authentic. It is by analyzing the Decretals and by
localizing them in place and time, that the student is enabled to see the constant use of material which the
Popes to whom they are attributed could never have known. Letters from the Popes of the first three
centuries, for instance, contain parts of documents dating from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. The
importance of a strict test for historical material is easily recognizable when one reflects that these False
Decretals, although a hugh forgery, passed for genuine all through the Middle Ages; 3 and when especially
one touches the delicate question of how far these forgeries contributed to papal authority in that period.
Internal Criticism is that part of the historical method which deter- mines the historicity of the facts
contained in the document. It is not of abso- lute necessity that the document be proven genuine; even
forgeries or documents with truncated truths may contain available material. But before any conclu-
sion is admissible, the facts contained in the document must be tested. In order to determine the value of
these facts, the character of the sources, the knowledge of the author, and the influences prevalent at the time
of writing must be carefully investigated. We must first be certain that we know exactly
what the author said and that we understand what he wrote as he understood it. It would be misleading, for
example, to see in the words lex, homo, or scutagium of the Magna Ckarta (1215) the same meaning as is
found in classical Latin dictionaries. Moreover, the facts given by the author or writer must be firmly
established as having taken place exactly as reported. The student or research-worker must be permeated
with an earnest desire to reach the truth and must be, as far as it lies within his power, indifferent to the
results of his inquiry or criticism. What is of the utmost importance in dealing with any source, whether it be
a volume already in print or a document hitherto used or
unused by historians, is that the student jealously guard himself against the danger of seeing if it agrees with
preconceived conclusions of his own. "Tout ce qui brouille la vue doit 6tre impitoyablement ecarte," says
Fonck. 4 In their excellent Introduction to the Study of History (p. 69), Langlois and Seignobos warn the
student that criticism is antagonistic to the normal bent of the mind. "The spontaneous tendency of man is to
yield assent to affirmations, and to reproduce them, without even clearly distinguishing them from the
results of his own observation. In everyday life do we not accept indiscriminately, without any kind of
verification, hearsay reports, anonymous and unguaranteed state-
ments, 'documents' of indifferent or inferior authority? It takes a special reason to induce us to take the
trouble to examine into the origin and value of a document on the history of yesterday; otherwise, if there is
no outrageous im- probability in it, and as long as it is not contradicted, we swallow it whole, we
pin our faith to it, we hawk it about, and, if need be, embellish it in the process. Every candid man must
admit that it requires a violent effort to shake off ignavia criiica, that common form of intellectual sloth, that
this effort must be continually repeated, and is often accompanied by real pain. The natural instinct of a man
in the water is to do precisely that which will infallibly cause him to be drowned; learning to swim means
acquiring the habit of suppressing spontaneous movements and performing others instead. Similarly,
criticism is not a natural habit; it must be inculcated, and only becomes organic by dint of
continued practice."
Q No: 4 Distinguish experimental research from non-experimental research studies. How an
experimental research is conducted? And why we use experimental studies to address the social
issues?
Suppose teachers wished to determine which of two methods of reading instruction was most effective—one
that involved 20 minutes of direct instruction in phonics each day throughout the academic year in grade 1
or one that involved the current practice of having the teacher read a book to the class for 20 minutes each
day throughout the year in grade 1. Similarly, suppose they wished to determine whether children learn
better in a small class (i.e., with 15 students) or a large class (i.e., with 30 students). Finally, suppose they
wished to determine whether requiring students to take a short quiz during each meeting of a college lecture
class would result in better performance on the final exam than not giving quizzes.
Each of these situations can be examined best by using experimental research methodology in which
investigators compare the mean performance of two or more groups on an appropriate test. In experimental
research, it is customary to distinguish between the independent variable and the dependent measure. The
independent variable is the feature that is different between the groups—for example, whether 20 minutes of
time each day is used for phonics instruction or reading aloud to students, whether the class size is small or
large, or whether a short quiz is given during each class meeting. The dependent measure is the score that is
used to compare the performance of the groups— for example, the score on a reading test administered at
the end of the year, the change in performance on academic tests from the beginning of the year to the end of
the year, or the score on a
final exam in the class. When researchers compare two or more groups on one or more measures, they use
experimental research methodology.
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH DEFINED
Experimental research is based on a methodology that meets three criteria: (a) random assignment— the
subjects (or other entities) are randomly assigned to treatment groups, (b) experimental control— all features
of the treatments are identical except for the independent variable (i.e., the feature being tested), and (c)
appropriate measures—the dependent measures are appropriate for testing the research hypothesis. For
example, in the class size example, random assignment involves finding a group of students and randomly
choosing some to be in small classes (i.e, consisting of 15 students) and some to be in large classes (i.e.,
consisting of 30 students). The researcher cannot use preexisting
small or large classes because doing so would violate the criterion of random assignment. The problem with
violating random assignment is that the groups may systemically differ; for example, students in the smaller
classes may be at more wealthy schools that also have more resources, better teachers, and better-prepared
students. This violation of the random assignment criterion, sometimes called self-selection, is a serious
methodological flaw in experimental research.
In the class size example, the criterion of experimental control is reflected in having the classes equivalent
on all relevant features except class size. That is, large and small classes should have teachers who are
equivalent in teaching skill, students who are equivalent in academic ability, and classrooms that are
physically equivalent; they should also have equivalence in support services, length of school day,
percentages based on gender, English language proficiency, ethnicity, and so on. If the groups differ on an
important variable other than class size, determining whether differences in test performance can be
attributed to class size will be difficult. This violation of the experimental control criterion, called
confounding, is a serious methodological flaw in experimental research.
Dependent measure
Finally, in the class size example, the dependent measure should test the research hypothesis that class size
affects academic learning, so an appropriate measure would be to give an achievement test covering the
curriculum at the start and end of the year. The appropriate measures criterion would be violated if the
dependent measure were a survey asking students how well they enjoyed school this year or an ungraded
portfolio of their artwork over the year. When a test does not measure what is intended, the test lacks
validity; invalid tests represent a serious methodological flaw in experimental research.
BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
Experimental research is generally recognized as the most appropriate method for drawing causal
conclusions about instructional interventions, for example, which instructional method is most effective for
which type of student under which conditions. In a careful analysis of educational research methods,
Richard Shavelson and Lisa Towne concluded that “from a scientific perspective, randomized trials (we also
use the term experiment to refer to causal studies that feature random assignment) are the ideal for
establishing whether one or more factors caused change in an outcome because of their strong ability to
enable fair comparisons”. Similarly, Richard Mayer notes: “experimental methods— which involve random
assignment to treatments and control of extraneous variables—have been the gold standard for educational
psychology since the field evolved in the early 1900s”. Mayer states, “when properly implemented, they
allow for drawing causal conclusions, such as the conclusion that a particular instructional method causes
better learning outcomes”.
Overall, if one wants to determine whether a particular instructional intervention causes an improvement in
student learning, then one should use experimental research methodology.
Although experiments are widely recognized as the method of choice for determining the effects of an
instructional intervention, they are subject to limitations involving method and theory. First, concerning
method, the requirements for random assignment, experiment control, and appropriate measures can impose
artificiality on the situation. Perfectly controlled conditions are generally not possible in authentic
educational environments such as schools. Thus, there may be a tradeoff between experimental rigor and
practical authenticity, in which highly controlled experiments may be too far removed from real classroom
contexts. Experimental researchers shouldbe sensitivetothis limitation, by incorporating mitigating features
in their experiments that maintain ecological validity.
Second, concerning theory, experimental research may be able to tell that one method of instruction is better
than conventional practice, but may not be able to specify why; it may not be able to pinpoint the
mechanisms that create the improvement. In these cases, it is useful to derive clear predictions from
competing theories so experimental research can be used to test the specific predictions of competing
theories. In addition, more focused research methods—such as naturalistic observation or in-depth
interviews—may provide richer data that allows for the development of a detailed explanation for why an
intervention might have a new effect. Experimental researchers should be sensitive to this limitation, by
using complementary methods in addition to experiments that provide new kinds of evidence.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
Three common research designs used in experimental research are between subjects, within subjects, and
factorial designs. In between-subjects designs, subjects are assigned to one of two (or more) groups with
each group constituting a specific treatment. For example, in a between-subjects design, students may be
assigned to spend two school years in a small class or a large class. In withinsubjects designs, the same
subject receives two (or more) treatments. For example, students may be assigned to a small class for one
year and a large class for the next year, or vice versa. Within-subjects designs are problematic when
experience with one treatment may spill over and affect the subject's experience in the following treatment,
as would likely be the case with the class size example. In factorial designs, groups are based on two (or
more) factors, such as one factor being large or small class size and another factor being whether the subject
is a boy or girl, which yields four cells (corresponding to four groups). In a factorial design it is possible to
test for main effects, such as whether class size affects learning, and interactions, such as whether class size
has equivalent effects for boys and girls.
RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Experimental research helps test and possibly provide evidence on which to base a causal relationship
between factors. In the late 1940s, Ronald A. Fisher (1890–1962) of England began testing hypotheses on
crops by dividing them into groups that were similar in composition and treatment to isolate certain effects
on the crops. Soon he and others began refining the same principles for use in human research. To ensure
that groups are similar when testing variables, researchers began using randomization. By randomly placing
subjects into groups that say, receive a treatment or receive a placebo, researchers
help ensure that participants with the same features do not cluster into one group. The larger the study
groups, the more likely randomization will produce groups approximately equal on relevant characteristics.
Nonrandomized trials and smaller participant groups produce greater chance for bias in group formation. In
education research, these experiments also involve randomly assigning participants to an experimental group
and at least one control group.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001 and the Educational Sciences Reform Act
(ERSA) of 2002 both established clear policies from the federal government concerning a preference for
“scientifically based research.” A federal emphasis on the use of randomized trials in educational research is
reflected in the fact that 70% of the studies funded by the Institute of Education Sciences in 2001 were to
employ randomized designs.
The federal government and other sources say that the field of education lags behind other fields in use of
randomized trials to determine effectiveness of methods.
Critics of experimental research say that the time involved in designing, conducting, and publishing the
trials makes them less effective than qualitative research. Frederick Erickson and Kris Gutierrez of the
University of California, Los Angeles argued that comparing educational research to the medical failed to
consider social facts, as well as possible side effects.
Evidence-based research aims to bring scientific authority to all specialties of behavioral and clinical
medicine. However, the effectiveness of clinical trials can be marred by bias from financial interests and
other biases, as evidenced in recent medical trials. In a 2002 Hastings Center Report, physicians Jason Klein
and Albert Fleischman of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine argued that financial incentives to
physicians should be limited. In 2007 many drug companies and physicians were under scrutiny for financial
incentives and full disclosure of clinical trial results.
Q No: 5 Define descriptive research what are its major forms? Strengthen your answer with the
example of Case Studies, Casual Comparative and Correlation studies.
Sometimes an individual wants to know something about a group of people. Maybe the individual is a
would-be senator and wants to know who they're representing or a surveyor who is looking to see if there is
a need for a mental health program.
Descriptive research is a study designed to depict the participants in an accurate way. More simply put,
descriptive research is all about describing people who take part in the study. There are three ways a
researcher can go about doing a descriptive research project, and they are:
 Observational, defined as a method of viewing and recording the participants
 Case study, defined as an in-depth study of an individual or group of individuals
 Survey, defined as a brief interview or discussion with an individual about a specific topic
If I say, 'chimpanzees,' what do you think? Okay, after you think of bananas. Okay, after you remember that
their babies are adorable. Yes! Jane Goodall - the researcher who spent years observing chimpanzees in the
wild.
Observational studies are all about watching people, and they come in two flavors. Naturalistic, also known
as field observation, is a study where a researcher observes the subject in its natural environment. This is
basically what Jane Goodall did; she observed the chimpanzees in their natural environment and drew
conclusions from this. This makes the observations more true to what happens in the chaotic, natural world.
But, it also means you have less control over what happens.
The other flavor is laboratory observation, where a researcher observes the subject in a laboratory setting.
This gives the researcher a little more control over what happens so they don't have to fly out to some tiny
little island in the middle of a war zone to observe something. However, it does ruin some of the naturalness
that one might get from field observation. An example of a laboratory observation in psychology would be
done to understand something about children at a certain age, such as the process of how a child learns to
speak and mimic sounds.
Descriptive research does not fit neatly into the definition of either quantitative or qualitative research
methodologies, but instead it can utilize elements of both, often within the same study. The term descriptive
research refers to the type of research question, design, and data analysis that will be applied to a given
topic. Descriptive statistics tell what is, while inferential statistics try to determine cause and effect.
The type of question asked by the researcher will ultimately determine the type of approach necessary to
complete an accurate assessment of the topic at hand. Descriptive studies, primarily concerned with finding
out "what is," might be applied to investigate the following questions: Do teachers hold favorable attitudes
toward using computers in schools? What kinds of activities that involve technology occur in sixth-grade
classrooms and how frequently do they occur? What have been the reactions of school administrators to
technological innovations in teaching the social sciences? How have high school computing courses
changed over the last 10 years? How do the new multimediated textbooks compare to the print-based
textbooks? How are decisions being made about using Channel One in
schools, and for those schools that choose to use it, how is Channel One being implemented? What is the
best way to provide access to computer equipment in schools? How should instructional designers improve
software design to make the software more appealing to students? To what degree are special-education
teachers well versed concerning assistive technology? Is there a relationship between experience with
multimedia computers and problem-solving skills? How successful is a certain satellitedelivered Spanish
course in terms of motivational value and academic achievement? Do teachers actually implement
technology in the way they perceive? How many people use the AECT gopher
server, and what do they use if for?
Collections of quantitative information
Descriptive research can be either quantitative or qualitative. It can involve collections of quantitative
information that can be tabulated along a continuum in numerical form, such as scores on a test or the
number of times a person chooses to use a-certain feature of a multimedia program, or it can describe
categories of information such as gender or patterns of interaction when using technology in a group
situation. Descriptive research involves gathering data that describe events and then organizes, tabulates,
depicts, and describes the data collection (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). It often uses visual aids such as graphs
and charts to aid the reader in understanding the data distribution. Because the human mind cannot extract
the full import of a large mass of raw data, descriptive statistics are very
important in reducing the data to manageable form. When in-depth, narrative descriptions of small numbers
of cases are involved, the research uses description as a tool to organize data into patterns that emerge
during analysis. Those patterns aid the mind in comprehending a qualitative study and its implications.
Most quantitative research falls into two areas: studies that describe events and studies aimed at discovering
inferences or causal relationships. Descriptive studies are aimed at finding out "what is," so observational
and survey methods are frequently used to collect descriptive data (Borg & Gall, 1989). Studies of this type
might describe the current state of multimedia usage in schools or patterns of activity resulting from group
work at the computer. An example of this is Cochenour, Hakes, and Neal's (1994) study of trends in
compressed video applications with education and the private sector.
Descriptive studies report summary data such as measures of central tendency including the mean, median,
mode, deviance from the mean, variation, percentage, and correlation between variables. Survey research
commonly includes that type of measurement, but often goes beyond the descriptive statistics in order to
draw inferences. See, for example, Signer's (1991) survey of computer-assisted instruction and at-risk
students, or Nolan, McKinnon, and Soler's (1992) research on achieving equitable access to school
computers. Thick, rich descriptions of phenomena can also emerge from qualitative studies, case studies,
observational studies, interviews, and portfolio assessments.
Robinson's (1994) case study of a televised news program in classrooms and Lee's (1994) case study about
identifying values concerning school restructuring are excellent examples of case studies. Descriptive
research is unique in the number of variables employed. Like other types of research, descriptive research
can include multiple variables for analysis, yet unlike other methods, it requires only one variable (Borg &
Gall, 1989). For example, a descriptive study might employ methods of analyzing correlations between
multiple variables by using tests such as Pearson's Product Moment correlation, regression, or multiple
regression analysis. Good examples of this are the Knupfer and Hayes (1994) study about the effects of the
Channel One broadcast on knowledge of current events, Manaev's (1991) study about mass media
effectiveness, McKenna's (1993) study of the relationship
between attributes of a radio program and it's appeal to listeners, Orey and Nelson's (1994)
examination of learner interactions with hypermedia environments, and Shapiro's (1991) study of memory
and decision processes.
Descriptive statistics utilize data collection and analysis techniques that yield reports concerning the
measures of central tendency, variation, and correlation. The combination of its characteristic summary and
correlational statistics, along with its focus on specific types of research questions, methods, and outcomes is
what distinguishes descriptive research from other research types.
Main purposes of research
Three main purposes of research are to describe, explain, and validate findings. Description emerges
following creative exploration, and serves to organize the findings in order to fit them with explanations, and
then test or validate those explanations (Krathwohl, 1993). Many research studies call for the description of
natural or man-made phenomena such as their form, structure, activity, change over time, relation to other
phenomena, and so on. The description often illuminates knowledge that we might not otherwise notice or
even encounter. Several important scientific discoveries as well as anthropological information about events
outside of our common experiences have resulted from making such descriptions. For example, astronomers
use their telescopes to develop descriptions of different parts of the universe, anthropologists describe life
events of socially atypical situations or cultures uniquely different from our own, and educational
researchers describe
activities within classrooms concerning the implementation of technology. This process sometimes results in
the discovery of stars and stellar events, new knowledge about value systems or practices of other cultures,
or even the reality of classroom life as new technologies are implemented within schools.
Educational researchers might use observational, survey, and interview techniques to collect data about
group dynamics during computer-based activities. These data could then be used to recommend specific
strategies for implementing computers or improving teaching strategies. Two excellent studies concerning
the role of collaborative groups were conducted by Webb (1982), and Rysavy and Sales (1991). Noreen
Webb's landmark study used descriptive research techniques to investigate collaborative groups as they
worked within classrooms. Rysavy and Sales also apply a descriptive approach to study the role of group
collaboration for working at computers. The Rysavy and Sales approach did not observe students in
classrooms, but reported certain common findings that emerged through a literature search.
Descriptive studies have an important role in educational research. They have greatly increased our
knowledge about what happens in schools. Some of the important books in education have reported studies
of this type: Life in Classrooms, by Philip Jackson; The Good High School, by Sara Lawrence Lightfoot;
Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920, by Larry Cuban; A Place Called
School, by John Goodlad; Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of Learning, by D. M. Moore and Dwyer;
Computers in Education: Social, Political, and Historical Perspectives, by Muffoletto and Knupfer; and
Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education, by M. G. Moore.
The Nature of Descriptive Research
The descriptive function of research is heavily dependent on instrumentation for measurement and
observation (Borg & Gall, 1989). Researchers may work for many years to perfect such instrumentation so
that the resulting measurement will be accurate, reliable, and generalizable. Instruments such as the electron
microscope, standardized tests for various purposes, the United States census, Michael Simonson's
questionnaires about computer usage, and scores of thoroughly validated questionnaires are examples of
some instruments that yield valuable descriptive data. Once the instruments are developed, they can be used
to describe phenomena of interest to the researchers.
The intent of some descriptive research is to produce statistical information about aspects of education that
interests policy makers and educators. The National Center for Education Statistics specializes in this kind
of research. Many of its findings are published in an annual volume called Digest of Educational Statistics.
The center also administers the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which collects
descriptive information about how well the nation's youth are doing in various subject areas. A typical
NAEP publication is The Reading Report Card, which provides descriptive information about the reading
achievement of junior high and high school students during the past 2 decades.
Evaluation of Education Achievement
On a larger scale, the International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA) has done
major descriptive studies comparing the academic achievement levels of students in many different nations,
including the United States (Borg & Gall, 1989). Within the United States, huge amounts of information are
being gathered continuously by the Office of Technology Assessment, which influences policy concerning
technology in education. As a way of offering guidance about the potential of technologies for distance
education, that office has published a book called Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, which
offers descriptions of distance education and its potential. There has been an ongoing debate among
researchers about the value of quantitative versus qualitative research, and certain remarks have targeted
descriptive research as being less pure
than traditional experimental, quantitative designs. Rumors abound that young researchers must conduct
quantitative research in order to get published in Educational Technology Research and Development and
other prestigious journals in the field. One camp argues the benefits of a scientific approach to educational
research, thus preferring the experimental, quantitative approach, while the other camp posits the need to
recognize the unique human side of educational research questions and thus prefers to use qualitative
research methodology. Because descriptive research spans both quantitative and qualitative methodologies,
it brings the ability to describe events in greater or less depth as needed, to focus on various elements of
different research techniques, and to engage quantitative statistics to organize information in meaningful
ways. The citations within this chapter provide ample evidence that descriptive research can indeed be
published in prestigious journals.
Natural or man-made educational phenomena
Descriptive studies can yield rich data that lead to important recommendations. For example, Galloway
(1992) bases recommendations for teaching with computer analogies on descriptive data, and Wehrs (1992)
draws reasonable conclusions about using expert systems to support academic advising. On the other hand,
descriptive research can be misused by those who do not understand its purpose and limitations. For
example, one cannot try to draw conclusions that show cause and effect, because that is beyond the bounds
of the statistics employed.
Borg and Gall (1989) classify the outcomes of educational research into the four categories of description,
prediction, improvement, and explanation. They say that descriptive research describes natural or man-made
educational phenomena that is of interest to policy makers and educators. Predictions of educational
phenomenon seek to determine whether certain students are at risk and if teachers should use different
techniques to instruct them. Research about improvement asks whether a certain technique does something
to help students learn better and whether certain interventions can improve student learning by applying
causal-comparative, correlational, and experimental methods. The final category of explanation posits that
research is able to explain a set of phenomena that leads to our ability to describe, predict, and control the
phenomena with a high level of certainty and
accuracy. This usually takes the form of theories. The methods of collecting data for descriptive research can
be employed singly or in various combinations, depending on the research questions at hand. Descriptive
research often calls upon quasi-experimental research design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Some of the
common data collection methods applied to questions within the realm of descriptive research include
surveys, interviews, observations, and portfolios.

Scientific Method and Research Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientific Method and Research Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

To get Assignments through E-Mail or Whatsapp contact:- masters.academy2000@gmail.

Course: Research Methods in Education

You might also like