2. Key Characteristics Traditionally, quantitative research has been within experimental designs that replicate scientific methods used in the natural sciences (e.g., observation). It is typically defined as presenting data in numerical form that is suitable for mathematical analyses (Aliaga and Gunderson, 2002). Other definitions tend to associate quantitative research with its roots in positivist traditions that emphasize control and the manipulation of variables in order to examine cause-and-effect relationships through hypothesis testing. Goguen ,Kight, and Tiberius (2007) state that quantitative research method is based on the belief that there is one reality and in order to obtain such a reality, a researcher must keep his or distance so he will not bias the research result. In the 1960s, research designs in quantitative methods widened beyond the artificial, lab-like settings to other designs in more naturalistic settings, such as quasi-experimental designs and surveys (Hartas, 2010).
3.
4. Group Comparison: Conducting comparisons between different groups or within the same group at different points of time.
5.
6. Connections With Other Methods Growing debate on whether the differences between quantitative and qualitative research is greatly exaggerated with some arguing that methods and approaches from both can be combined for knowledge construction (Lund, 2005). “Both quantitative research and qualitative research are scientific approaches to inquiry and rely on empirical data and can provide the basis for evidence-based conceptualization and practice” (Duffy& Chanail, p.33). According to MacKenzie and Knipe (2006): Paradigm is related to research methods and data collection tools.
14. use statistical methods to analyze data and use statistical inference procedures to generalize findings from a sample to a defined population;
15.
16. Example of A Controlled Study( Mosteller, Light & Sachs, 1996) Tennessee Studies of Class Size, known as project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio). Theory: the idea that in smaller classes teachers have more time to give to individual children. Groupings: classes one-third smaller than regular-size classes, regular-size classes without a teacher aide and regular-size classes with a teacher aide. Teacher and children were randomly assigned. It lasted for four years (1985-1989). The researchers followed child participants into later grades and recorded their academic progress. Findings: smaller classes did bring substantial improvement to early learning in cognitive subjects; the effects persisted into grades 4, 5, 6, and 7.
17. Situating Quantitative Methods Claudia: Useful in testing the efficacy of different interventions in education and broadening our understanding of learning. E.g., using experimental group to see whether dialogic reading benefits children over the control group without the intervention. Allows for comparison and the examining of relationships between variables. Results can be used to inform educational policy. Sijie: In educational technology, researchers usually conduct experimental/ quasi-experimental research to test or compare the effects of different educational technologies. Or researchers can use quantitative meta-analysis to review experimental and quasi-experimental studies, E.g. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis (Nesbit, J.C. & Adesope, O.O. 2006). Jennifer: Since many children with autism might lack the ability to relate to others and therapies are used to assist children with autism to respond to the behavioral cues of others, quantitative research can be used to assessed the results of the intervention. Researchers might assess children with autism who have received intervention and who have not received any treatment to compare the effect of the treatment. Such research might assist us in understanding the effectiveness of the intervention.
20. Ethics in Experimentation Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo and colleagues in 1971). Cited as an example of unethical research in scientific studies and was ended one week earlier than planned. Common criticism: Lacks ecological validity, lacks generalizability, researcher abusing power-dual role as prison superintendant, trauma and lack of informed consent and ethics in using human subjects. Video (It’s long but you might want to watch the entire clip if you’re interested – 29 minutes long. You might want to skip parts of the middle and watch the last 7 minutes). Two of our discussion questions connect to this video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=677084988379129606#
21. Exploratory Questions Do you feel that qualitative and quantitative research methods should be combined in knowledge construction? Can you think of examples where this is important? What are some of the ethical responsibilities in quantitative and/or scientific research for the researcher? (Please refer to the Stanford Prison Experiment video or other examples). How do you ensure humane treatment of participants? (Please refer to the Stanford Prison Experiment video or other examples). Some researchers consider reliability, validity, and generalizability as central criteria in quantitative research and should not be used in the qualitative approach. Do you agree or disagree? Do you feel that quantitative research is privileged in academia? Why is this so and how can this be changed?
22. References Callahan, J.L & Reio, T.G.Jr(2006). Making subjective judgments in quantitative studies: The importance of using effect sizes and confidence intervals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17, 159-173 Duffy, M & Chenail, R. J (2008). Values in quantitative and quantitative research. Counseling and Values, 53, Hartas, D. (2010). Educational Research Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Continuum International Publishing. Johnson, B& Christensen, L(2008). Educational Research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Libarkin, J.C & Kurdziel, J. P (2002). Research methodologies in science education: the qualitative-quantitative debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50, 78-86. Lund, T (2005). The qualitative-quantitative distinction: some comments. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 115-132. Maxwell,J.A.(1990). Response to “Cambell’s retrospective and a constructivist’s perspective”. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 504-508. Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62,279-300.
23. More References Mackenzie, N & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 193-205. Nash, R (2005). Explanation and quantification in educational research: the arguments of critical and scientific realism. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 185-204. Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell. Yoshikawa, H & Weisner, T. S (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: uses and methodological choices, Dev. Psychol, 44, 334-354.
