Quite a bit to take in this week but I found Gordon's table to be a good aid. When comparing two paradigms that I would associate with my area, I feel the following theories could apply:
Constructivist Hermeneutic Interpretivist Qualitative
This paradigm appears to be parallel with the constructivist theory that learning is constructed from previous knowledge or experience and that it is through the research of ideas that knowledge is obtained. This paradigm would lend itself I feel to the research and investigation elements required for many of the educational areas in which we operate.
Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm
This paradigm seems to have the advantage over some of the others in that it mixes some techniques associated with other paradigms and appears to encompass most methods to achieve an outcome. I can particularly relate to the ‘pragmatic’ aspect which reflects the fact that nothing is ever perfect in education but can be improved through design and recognition of possible flaws. Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm almost appears to be a parody of the other paradigms in that it does not rely on one particular belief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
well put hilary. "I can particularly relate to the ‘pragmatic’ aspect which reflects the fact that nothing is ever perfect in education but can be improved through design and recognition of possible flaws."
through the use of mixed methods under the Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm , there is ample opportunity to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative approaches. And as you say this paradigm is a mix of several.
In the real world it is also important to have versatile options and to investigate from several angles. would you agree with this?
Hi Bronwyn
Absolutely! Methodology within education is constantly evolving and moving and as such, it would seem that evaluation techniques need to be versatile enough to accommodate this. I have likened evaluation to "a constantly moving target" in another post. To investigate from only one angle would give a very narrow and possibly meaningless result. Could this observation infer perhaps that one paradigm is not enough? Or am I getting confused with method now?
Hilary in answer to your question: "one paradigm is not enough? Or am I getting confused with method now?"
generally there are several models which could be used under a paradigm eg patton's qualitative, Stake's Responsive Evaluation model could fit under the Constructivist-Heremeneutic-Interpretivist-Qualitative Paradigm.
Just as the paradigm determines the model you use, so does the model influence the methods you use.
For example, if using a qualitative model you will choose sampling methods which give you qualitative date, e.g. interviews, open-ended surveys, reviews etc.
If using a mixed-methods model under the Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm, you could choose both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data.
Does this make it clearer?
Love you comment that "nothing is ever perfect in education but can be improved through design and recognition of possible flaws". Kind of sits well with me as a designer of courses and resources - have always tended to see these as living things - that shouldn't be left static but constantly changing to adapt to changes in environment, student, teacher and institutional need:] Rika
Post a Comment