Course: Educational Research (837)

Semester spring 2019

Level: MA/M. Ed

Assignment no 1

Question 1: Briefly explain the importance of each source of knowledge mentioned in study

guide by giving example.

Source of Knowledge

There is only one accepted source of new knowledge and that is empiricism. The others,

which include, authority, rational induction and intuition are accepted as useful sources of

hypotheses.

Intuition-knowledge based on feelings, beliefs, or "gut instinct "Authority-knowledge

based on a "credible" sourceational-Inductive Argument-knowledge based on past research as

well as combining that knowledge with new knowledge to comply with our current problem.

Empericism-knowledge based on library research, forming a hypothesis, setting up an

experiment to test the hypothesis, collecting data, and then analyzing that data to statistically

make a conclusion on the research hypothesis. The only accepted source of knowledge in

modern scientific psychological research is empericism.

The sources of new knowledge are authority, intuition, scientific empiricism, and an

educated guess. Authority, intuition, and an educated guess are all sources of hypotheses, but

scientific empiricism is the only source of new knowledge.

Different sources of knowledge are things like what you feel is right (I think that toads give

you warts), what someone you think is right says is right (mom said that toads will give you

warts), things you've seen (my brother was playing with a toad and then he got a wart), things

you've tested (I had my brother play with the toad and my neighbor played with a lizard, and

only my brother got warts). All of these are sources of hypotheses, a way to come up with ideas

to test, but only the empirical research, testing, is an acceptable scientific source of knowledge.

There are generally four sources of knowledge; intuition, authority, rational induction, and

empiricism. Intuition is knowledge that is gained through a feeling or thought that might turn out

to be true. Authority is a source of knowledge that you gain from your parents, or a book that

tells you that this is the way things are and thats that. Rational induction is a source of

knowledge by reasoning and proofs. This type of knowledge comes about by supposing one

thing and then giving a proof of it, or any other way you want to do a proof. Empiricism is

knowledge gained through careful observation, manipulation of variables through the scientific

method, repeating research designs, and taking in data to interpet. Empiricism is the accepted

role of knowledge in psychological research because psychologists use statistics and believe in

probabilistic conclusion. That people behave generally in one way in most situations and using

statistics to decide if two variables are related. The others are not accepted sources of

psychological. Authority, intuition are not accepted sources of knowledge for psychological

research because they are not grounded in any source of statistics or observable facts. Rational

induction is not an accepted source of knowledge because it involves proof and certaintiy, which

psychologists do not go for.

Descriptive knowledge is useful in discriminating, measuring or defining different

behaviors or characteristics. Predictive knowledge is useful in determining a statistical

relationship between two behaviors or characteristics and whether they are related.

Understanding is useful in determining whether changes in one behavior or characteristic

influences changes in another behavior or characteristic. Descriptive knowledge is used in

attributive hypotheses and are accepted as sources of knowledge in defining behavior or

characteristics. Predictive knowledge is used in attributive hypotheses and is useful in

determining if there is a relationship between two behaviors or characteristics. Understanding is

used in causal hypotheses and is useful in determining if there is probabalistic evidence that one

behavior or characteristic has an effect on another behavior or characteristic.

Empirical Research is a scientifically conducted study when yields results which are

cauasally interpretable. While rational induction is more logical thinking based on observation.

Observation is the process of objectivly viewing a situation and making inferences based therin.

Empirical Research is the only way to attain fact in modern scientific psychological research.

However, rational induction, observation and research are all valid ways to obtain a hypothesis.

The sources of new knowledge are rational induction, scientific empiricism, intuition and

authority. The only acceptable source of knowledge is scientific empiricism. Scientific

empiricism requires a research hypothesis be formed and tested, that the study is published in an

article to be scrutinized by other scientists. It also requires that the experiment is replicated

exactly as it was the first time to ensure the applicability of the findings to that particular set of

variables and subjects. Moreover Scientific empiricism dictates that similar studies with slight

variations on the first study be performed to confirm the generalizability of the results to similar

situations. All other sources of knowledge are acceptable for research hypotheses but are

questionable because they have not withstood the rigors of Scientific Empiricism.

The four sources of new knowledge include intuition (beliefs), authority (the influence of

someone with more experience), rational induction (relating to previous knowledge or tying two

ideas together to create a new one), and scientific empiricism (programmatic research). Scientific

empiricism is the only accepted source of new knowledge whereas intuition, authority, and

rational induction are accepted sources of hypotheses.

There are four sources of new knowledge: intuition, authority, rational-inductive, and

scientific empiricism. Intuition is based on what one thinks will happen, authority is based on

what one is told will happen, rational-inductive is based on a sort of cause and effect, that is, if

this, then that, and scientific empiricism is based on research. All four are good sources for a

research hypothesis, but scientific empiricism is the only accepted source of new scientific

knowledge.

The only source of new knowledge is scientific empiricism. There are other sources of

research hypotheses including intuition, which is something you have a feeling about, authority

which is taking the word of someone who was right in the past and knows what they are talking

about and rational inductive which says that one things leads to a second so it logically leads to a

third.

There are four different types of knowlege. The first is Intuition, this is where you use what

you feel is the right answer. The second type of knowledge is authority, an example of this

would getting information from a professior who understands the knowledge. The third ttpe of

knowledge is Rational induction, here you are gathering past knowlegde and making knowlege

from that. The next type of knowlege is empirical, this is the only accetable type of knowledge

that can be useed in modern scientific psychological research.

Question 2: Define educational research in your own words. Justify that high quality

education system cannot be developed without the support of educational research.

Research is an in depth inquiry in to a problem which need an amicable solution. Every

invention in the world happens as a result of a scientific enquiry. See the example of Isaac

Newton when the apple falls on his head, he started the question with why? He searched for truth,

reason or discover to new knowledge. He applied commonsense in his enquiry. The continuous

search resulted in solving his problem. Finally he built a theory named as Gravitation force theory

with empirically proved body of knowledge. Hence research can be termed as the search for truth

or discovery of new things or builds body of knowledge regarding a phenomenon. Research is a

systematic, scientific, objective activity, which includes the collection relevant information, and

careful analysis of data, recording and reporting of valid conclusion, that may lead to creation of

new knowledge, development of theory, principles, and generalization. The developed theory,

Knowledge, principles or generalization may help the researcher or concerned authority to predict

occurrences of certain possible events and thereby make possible to ultimate control of unwanted

events. Research also means that the process of testing the validity of assumptions and formulated

hypotheses. When we come to the educational research it is the process of scientific inquiry to

solve the problems of educational sector of a country. It includes theoretical elaboration, quality

enhancement matters, policy draft and implication, classroom dimension and so forth. It involves

a continuous enquiry in search of knowledge, advancement, problem solving methodology and an

attempt to realize the truth from an objective point of view based on factual understanding and

systematic study.

Scope Educational Research

Education is considered as a vital tool for social as well as national development. It has

significant role in evaluating the human development of a country. When we assessing the

development of a person, society, community or a Nation, the educational attributes, such as

educational qualifications, number of educated person in the society or community, number of

educational institution in the state or country (elementary, secondary, higher, professional

educational sector) with respects to its population, rate of enrolment, retention, quality of

education provided, equity and equality for educational opportunity and so forth are considered as

the prime criteria for consideration. Hence every nation in the world has been giving emphasis to

the development educational sector of their country. Many innovative programmes and projects

are preparing by the policy makers as well as the academic bodies across the world to improve

their educational quantity as well as the quality. Crores of rupees are allocating in their budget for

implementing such planned programmes and project. In India the projects like District Primary

Education Programme (DPEP) , Sarva Siksha Abhiyan ( SSA), Area Intensive Programme (AIP) ,

Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidhyalaya (KGBV), Rashtriya Madhyamik Siksha Abhiyan (RMSA),

Rashtriya Uchayistic Siksha Abhiyan (RUSA), Scheme for the Promotion of Quality Education in

Madrassas (SPQEM) are constituted and implemented to improve the standard of educational

sector of the country. Educational Researches are the main input as well as the output to bring

such change in the educational sector. Research findings identify the shortcomings, strength and

weakness of the educational sector of the country and it recommends implementing such and such

programme for the development of their educational sector. Educational research also helps to

evaluate the effectiveness as well as the impact of particular programmes and project which has

been undertaken by any governmental or non governmental agencies. Hence the breadth and

width of the educational research is unlimited. It has a scope to conduct research in any area of

education which has a chance to contribute knowledge for the development of education of a

society, community and Nation as well.

Purpose of Educational Research

The Educational research has enormous purposes. Some important purposes are presented as

following.

To identify truth regarding Enrolment, retention, dropout, quality of Education and so

forth

To build new knowledge regarding the methodology, pedagogy or other core subject

areas

Adding of existing stock of knowledge related to educational field

To solve a problem related to classroom, institution, administrative level, policy level

Invention of new teaching methods, curriculum transaction strategies, effective grouping

technique and so forth

Realizing the exact problem of educational sector

Assess the Effect of New methodology of teaching

Identify and assess the ICT enabled classroom and teaching

To understand the teachers knowledge on latest evaluation techniques

To identify the hindrances to achieve universalization of education

Characteristics of a good research

While analyzing the discussions of eminent educationalists and social scientists, we can

draw the following characteristics of a good research.

1. Research is directed towards the solution of a problem

2. Research is a continuous enquiry in search of knowledge

3. Research emphasis the development of generalization, principles, theories

4. Research is based upon observable experiences and empirical evidences

5. Research rejects revelation and dogmas as methods of establishing knowledge

6. Research employs in depth review of related literature

7. Research depends on valid and reliable data gathering procedure

8. Research demands accurate observations and descriptions

9. Research applies systematic and scientific procedure for the study

10. Research involves gathering of new data from first hand sources (primary) or existing

data (secondary sources) for a new purposes

11. Research is based on carefully designed procedure with rigorous analysis

12. Research requires expertise

13. Research is a objective, logical process and eliminate personal bias

14. Research involve the quest for answer to unsolved problems

15. Possibility for Replication

16. Research is characterized by patient and unhurried activity

17. Research is carefully recorded and reported

18. Research sometimes required courage

19. Quantitative Research involves hypotheses testing using suitable statistical techniques

20. Qualitative Research involve objective thick description on thin data

Replication

Research is considered as process of searching for new knowledge. However, there will be

some administrative or academic urgency to deliberately repeat the previous study using same

procedure with another sample, in a new setting and at different time. This process is called

replication. It is the fusion of words of repetition and duplication. Replication is used to conform

the validity of the conclusion drawn by the previous studies which are under questioned from

different academic as well as political corner. Besides, replication is also necessary to understand

the trend, progress, development among generations in particular area. For example, a researcher

can replicate the study conducted by a researcher on the problem of ICT awareness and use

among the secondary school teachers. The result may evidence that what progress has been made

in the areas of ICT among the secondary school teachers while the time has passed after the

earlier study

High quality education system cannot be developed without the support of educational

research

Increasing graduation rates and levels of educational attainment will accomplish little if

students do not learn something of lasting value. Yet federal efforts over the last several years

have focused much more on increasing the number of Americans who go to college than on

improving the education they receive once they get there.

By concentrating so heavily on graduation rates and attainment levels, policy makers are

ignoring danger signs that the amount that students learn in college may have declined over the

past few decades and could well continue to do so in the years to come. The reasons for concern

include:

College students today seem to be spending much less time on their course work than their

predecessors did 50 years ago, and evidence of their abilities suggests that they are probably

learning less than students once did and quite possibly less than their counterparts in many other

advanced industrial countries.

Employers complain that many graduates they hire are deficient in basic skills such as

writing, problem solving and critical thinking that college leaders and their faculties consistently

rank among the most important goals of an undergraduate education.

Most of the millions of additional students needed to increase educational attainment levels

will come to campus poorly prepared for college work, creating a danger that higher graduation

rates will be achievable only by lowering academic standards.

More than two-thirds of college instructors today are not on the tenure track but are lecturers

serving on year-to-year contracts. Many of them are hired without undergoing the vetting

commonly used in appointing tenure-track professors. Studies indicate that extensive use of such

instructors may contribute to higher dropout rates and to grade inflation.

States have made substantial cuts in support per student over the past 30 years for public

colleges and community colleges. Research suggests that failing to increase appropriations to

keep pace with enrollment growth tends to reduce learning and even lower graduation rates.

While some college leaders are making serious efforts to improve the quality of teaching,

many others seem content with their existing programs. Although they recognize the existence of

problems affecting higher education as a whole, such as grade inflation or a decline in the rigor of

academic standards, few seem to believe that these difficulties exist on their own campus, or they

tend to attribute most of the difficulty to the poor preparation of students before they enroll.

Some Immediate Improvements

Many colleges provide a formidable array of courses, majors and extracurricular

opportunities, but firsthand accounts indicate that many undergraduates do not feel that the

material conveyed in their readings and lectures has much relevance to their lives. Such

sentiments suggest either that the courses do not in fact contribute much to the ultimate goals that

colleges claim to value or that instructors are not taking sufficient care to explain the larger aims

of their courses and why they should matter.

Other studies suggest that many instructors do not teach their courses in ways best

calculated to achieve the ends that faculties themselves consider important. For example, one

investigator studied samples of the examinations given at elite liberal arts colleges and research

universities. Although 99 percent of professors consider critical thinking an “essential” or “very

important” goal of a college education, fewer than 20 percent of the exam questions actually

tested for this skill.

Now that most faculties have defined the learning objectives of their college and its various

departments and programs, it should be possible to review recent examinations to determine

whether individual professors, programs and departments are actually designing their courses to

achieve those goals. College administrators could also modify their student evaluation forms to

ask students whether they believe the stated goals were emphasized in the courses they took.

In addition, the average time students devote to studying varies widely among different

colleges, and many campuses could require more of their students. Those lacking evidence about

the study habits of their undergraduates could inform themselves through confidential surveys that

faculties could review and consider steps to encourage greater student effort and improve

learning.

The vast difference between how well seniors think they can perform and their actual

proficiencies (according to tests of basic skills and employer evaluations) suggests that many

colleges are failing to give students an adequate account of their progress. Grade inflation may

also contribute to excessive confidence, suggesting a need to work to restore appropriate

standards, although that alone is unlikely to solve the problem. Better feedback on student papers

and exams will be even more important in order to give undergraduates a more accurate sense of

how much progress they’ve made and what more they need to accomplish before they graduate.

More Substantial Reforms

More fundamental changes will take longer to achieve but could eventually yield even

greater gains in the quality of undergraduate education. They include:

Improving graduate education. Colleges and universities need to reconfigure graduate

programs to better prepare aspiring professors for teaching. As late as two or three generations

ago, majorities of new Ph.D.s, at least in the better graduate programs, found positions where

research was primary, either in major universities, industry or government. Today, however,

many Ph.D.s find employment in colleges that are chiefly devoted to teaching or work as adjunct

instructors and are not expected to do research.

Aspiring college instructors also need to know much more now in order to teach effectively.

A large and increasing body of useful knowledge has accumulated about learning and pedagogy,

as well as the design and effectiveness of alternative methods of instruction. Meanwhile, the

advent of new technologies has given rise to methods of teaching that require special training. As

evidence accumulates about promising ways of engaging students actively, identifying difficulties

they are having in learning the material and adjusting teaching methods accordingly, the current

gaps in the preparation most graduate students receive become more and more of a handicap.

Universities have already begun to prepare graduate students to teach by giving them

opportunities to assist professors in large lecture courses and by creating centers where they can

get help to become better instructors. More departments are starting to provide or even require a

limited amount of instruction in how to teach. Nevertheless, simply allowing grad students to

serve as largely unsupervised teaching assistants, or creating centers where they can receive a

brief orientation or a few voluntary sessions on teaching, will not adequately equip them for a

career in the classroom.

A more substantial preparation is required and will become ever more necessary as the body

of relevant knowledge continues to grow. With all the talk in graduate school circles about

preparing doctoral students for jobs outside academe, one has to wonder why departments spend

time readying Ph.D. candidates for entirely different careers before they have developed adequate

programs for the academic posts that graduate schools are supposed to serve, and that most of

their students continue to occupy.

Many departments may fail to provide such instruction because they lack faculty with

necessary knowledge, but provosts and deans could enlist competent teachers for such instruction

from elsewhere in the university, although they may hesitate to do so, given than graduate

education has always been the exclusive domain of the departments. Enterprising donors might

consider giving grants to graduate schools or departments willing to make the necessary reforms.

If even a few leading universities responded to such an invitation, others would probably follow

suit.

Creating a teaching faculty. The seeds of such a change already exist through the

proliferation of instructors who are not on the tenure track but are hired on a year-to- year basis or

a somewhat longer term to teach basic undergraduate courses. Those adjunct instructors now

constitute as much as 70 percent of all college instructors.

The multiplication of such instructors has largely been an ad hoc response to the need to cut

costs in order to cope with severe financial pressures resulting from reductions in state support

and larger student enrollments. But researchers are discovering that relying on casually hired,

part-time teachers can have adverse effects on graduation rates and the quality of instruction.

Sooner or later, the present practices seem bound to give way to more satisfactory arrangements.

One plausible outcome would be to create a carefully selected, full-time teaching faculty,

the members of which would lack tenure but receive appointments for a significant term of years

with enforceable guarantees of academic freedom and adequate notice if their contracts are not

renewed. Such instructors would receive opportunities for professional development to become

more knowledgeable and proficient as teachers, and they would teach more hours per week than

the tenured faculty. In return, they would receive adequate salaries, benefits and facilities and

would share in deliberations over educational policy, though not in matters involving research and

the appointment and promotion of tenure-track professors.

These faculty members would be better trained in teaching and learning than the current

research-oriented faculty, although tenured professors who wish to teach introductory or general

education courses would, of course, be welcome to do so. Being chiefly engaged in teaching, they

might also be more inclined to experiment with new and better methods of instruction if they were

encouraged to do so.

A reform of this sort would undoubtedly cost more than most universities currently pay their

non-tenure-track instructors (though less than having tenured faculty teach the lower-level

courses). Even so, the shabby treatment of many part-time instructors is hard to justify, and higher

costs seem inevitable once adjunct faculties become more organized and use their collective

strength to bargain for better terms.

Progress may have to come gradually as finances permit. But instead of today’s legions of

casually hired, underpaid and insecure adjunct instructors, a substantial segment of the college

faculty would possess the time, training and job security to participate in a continuing effort to

develop more effective methods of instruction to engage their students and help them derive more

lasting value from their classes.

Rethinking the undergraduate curriculum. The familiar division into fields of concentration,

electives and general education leaves too little room for students to pursue all of the objectives

that professors themselves deem important for a well-rounded college education. This tripartite

structure, with its emphasis on the major and its embrace of distribution requirements and

extensive electives, was introduced by research universities and designed more to satisfy the

interests of a tenured, research-oriented faculty than to achieve the various aims of a good

undergraduate education. The existing structure is unlikely to change so long as decisions about

the curriculum remain under the exclusive control of the tenure-track professors who benefit from

the status quo.

By now, the standard curriculum has become so firmly rooted that during the periodic

reviews conducted in most universities, the faculty rarely pause to examine the tripartite division

and its effect upon the established goals of undergraduate education. Instead, the practice of

reserving up to half of the required number of credits for the major is simply taken for granted

along with maintaining a distribution requirement and preserving an ample segment of the

curriculum for electives.

The obvious remedy is to include the non-tenure-track instructors who currently make up a

majority of the teaching faculty in curricular reviews so that all those who play a substantial part

in trying to achieve the goals of undergraduate education can participate in the process. It is

anomalous to allow the tenure-track faculty to enjoy exclusive power over the curriculum when

they provide such a limited share of the teaching. Such a reform might be difficult under current

conditions in many colleges where most undergraduate instructors serve part-time, are often

chosen haphazardly and frequently lack either the time or the interest to participate fully in a

review of its undergraduate program. If adjunct instructors achieve the status previously

described, however, their prominent role in teaching undergraduates should entitle them to a seat

at the table to discuss the educational program, including its current structure. Such a move could

at least increase the likelihood of a serious discussion of the existing curricular structure to

determine whether it truly serves the multiple aims of undergraduate education.

Colleges should also consider allowing some meaningful participation by members of the

administrative staff who are prominently involved in college life, such as deans of student affairs

and directors of admission. The current division between formal instruction and the

extracurriculum is arbitrary, since many goals of undergraduate education, such as moral

development and preparation for citizenship, are influenced significantly by the policies for

admitting students, the administration of rules for student behavior, the advising of

undergraduates, the nature of residential life and the extracurricular activities in which many

students participate. Representatives from all groups responsible for the policies and practices that

affect these goals should have something to contribute to reviews of undergraduate education.

The Need for Research

Finally, there is an urgent need for more and better research both to improve the quality of

undergraduate education and to increase the number of students who complete their studies.

Among the many questions deserving further exploration, four lines of inquiry seem especially

important.

How can remedial education be improved? At present, low rates of completion in remedial

courses are a major impediment to raising levels of educational attainment. The use of computer-

aided instruction in remedial math provides one promising example of the type of improvement

that could yield substantial benefits, and there are doubtless other possibilities.

Far too little is known about the kinds of courses or other undergraduate experiences that

contribute to such noneconomic benefits in later life as better health, greater civic participation

and lower incidence of substance abuse and other forms of self-destructive behavior. Better

understanding of those connections could help educators increase the lasting value of a college

education while providing a stronger empirical basis for the sweeping claims frequently made

about the lifelong benefits of a liberal education. Such understanding would also reduce the risk

of inadvertently eliminating valuable aspects of a college education in the rush to find quicker,

cheaper ways of preparing students to obtain good jobs of immediate value to economic growth.

Existing research suggests that better advising and other forms of student support may

substantially enhance the effect of increased financial aid in boosting the numbers of students who

complete their studies. With billions of dollars already being spent on student grants and loans, it

would clearly be helpful to know more about how to maximize the effects of such subsidies on

graduation rates.

More work is needed to develop better ways for colleges to measure student learning, not

only for critical thinking and writing but also for other purposes of undergraduate education.

The importance of this last point can scarcely be overestimated. Without reliable measures

of learning, competition for students can do little to improve the quality of instruction, since

applicants have no way of knowing which college offers them the best teaching. Provosts, deans

and departments will have difficulty identifying weaknesses in their academic programs in need

of corrective action. Academic leaders will be handicapped in trying to persuade their professors

to change the way they teach if they cannot offer convincing evidence that alternative methods

will bring improved results. Faculty members will do less to improve their teaching if they

continue to lack adequate ways to discover how much their students are learning.

All these reforms could do a lot to improve the quality of undergraduate education -- as

well as increase levels of attainment. With more research and experimentation, other useful ideas

will doubtless continue to appear.

Question 3: Discuss each type of research by purpose.

Types of research methods can be broadly divided into two quantitative and qualitative

categories.

Quantitative research “describes, infers, and resolves problems using numbers. Emphasis is

placed on the collection of numerical data, the summary of those data and the drawing of

inferences from the data”[2].

Qualitative research, on the other hand, is based on words, feelings, emotions, sounds and

other non-numerical and unquantifiable elements. It has been noted that “information is

considered qualitative in nature if it cannot be analysed by means of mathematical techniques.

This characteristic may also mean that an incident does not take place often enough to allow

reliable data to be collected”

According to the purpose of the study, types of research methods can be divided into two

categories: applied research and fundamental research. Applied research is also referred to as an

action research, and the fundamental research is sometimes called basic or pure research. The

table below summarizes the main differences between applied research and fundamental

research.[6] Similarities between applied and fundamental (basic) research relate to the adoption

of a systematic and scientific procedure to conduct the study.

Pure Research

Pure research is theoretical type not a practical one. Pure research is the knowledge of facts

and theories to give us satisfaction of knowledge and understanding. It discovers general

principles for a problem solution. Following are some of the features.

1. It keeps the foundation of initial study.

2. It discovers new facts.

3. It gives theoretical reports for solution.

Applied Research

Applied research is the implementation of theoretical study upon a problematic situation. It

applied its theories and facts to know about the nature of the problem and give a concrete shape

for the solution. This is practical work in the field. Following are the features of such type of

research.

1. It tests and verifies theories

2. It discovers new facts

3. It gives immediate answer to a question

Action Research

Action research is based on the taking of immediate action on a happening, event or

situation. The researcher is actively involved in the solution of the problems. Second World War

created many types of problems for which action research was necessary. These problems

including (flood, epidemic, earthquake, fire) etc. features are as under.

1. It is quick service oriented

2. It is taking immediate action

3. It is sensitive to time and place

Evaluation Research

This type of research is an evaluation of some programs working for the construction of

problematic areas. It is the dankness of implemented programmes about their effects and positive

solution. There are three main types of evaluation.

1. Concurrent evaluation-means continuous process

2. Phase or periodic evaluation-stage wise.

3. Terminal evaluation-Evaluation after the completion of the programme.

Inter Disciplinary Research

It is the study of structure or functions of a particular discipline or comparison of one

discipline with another. In other words it is the comparison of a developmental stage. It is also

called co-ordinate research. Features are the following.

1. It is a cooperative research

2. It helps in study the whole phenomena

It brings comparison in different disciplines

Question 4: Differentiate between descriptive and experimental research. Which one is

most suitable in distance and non-formal education and why?

The main difference between descriptive and experimental research is that the descriptive

research describes the characteristics of the study group or a certain occurrence while the

experimental research manipulates the variables to arrive at conclusions.

Descriptive research and experimental research are two types of research people use when

doing varied research studies. Both these research types have their own methods that facilitate

the researcher to gain maximum outcomes.

Descriptive Research

Descriptive research is a type of research that studies the participants that take part in the

research or a certain situation. Descriptive research does not limit to either of quantitative or

qualitative research methodologies, but instead, it uses elements of both, often within the same

study. Therefore, a descriptive researcher often uses three major ways to collect and analyse the

data. They are observations, case studies and surveys.

Descriptive studies are aimed at finding out “what is,” therefore, observational and survey

methods are frequently used to collect descriptive data (Borg & Gall, 1989). Thus, the main

focus of descriptive research is to answer the question ‘what’ with concern to the study group.

Moreover, descriptive research, primarily concerned with finding out “what is,” that might be

applied to investigate the particular study group or the situation. Therefore, descriptive research

does not give answers to the cause and effect of the particular occurrence that is studied.

Therefore, descriptive research assists to make specific conclusions regarding situations

such as marketing products according to the needs of the customers, to estimate the percentages

of units in a specified population according to a certain behaviour, etc. Some examples of

descriptive researches include population census and product marketing surveys.

Experimental Research

Experimental research is the research study where the scientist actively influences

something to observe the consequences. Experimental research uses manipulation and controlled

testing to understand causal processes. Therefore, in this type of research, the researcher

manipulates one given variable and controls the others to come to a conclusion.

This type of research typically includes a hypothesis, a variable that can be manipulated,

measured, calculated and compared. Eventually, the collected data and results will either support

or reject the hypothesis of the researcher. Therefore, one could call this research type as a true

experiment.

In this research type, the researcher manipulates the independent variables such as

treatment method and teaching methodology, and measures the impact it has on the dependent

variables such as cure and student comprehension in order to establish a cause-effect relationship

between these two variables. Therefore, this research type can answer the questions of cause,

effect and results, thus, making it possible to make hypothetical assumptions based on the

gathered data. Therefore, unlike descriptive research which answers’ what is’, experimental

research answers the question ‘what if’. Therefore, usually, this type of research uses quantitative

data collection methodology.

Evidently, this type of research is mostly conducted in a controlled environment, usually a

laboratory. Experimental research is mostly used in sciences such as sociology and psychology,

physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, etc.

Difference Between Descriptive and Experimental Research

Definition

Descriptive research is the type of research where characteristics of the study group or a

certain occurrence are described while experimental research is the research type that

manipulates variables to come to a conclusion. This is the main difference between descriptive

and experimental research.

Use

Descriptive research is useful in gathering data on a certain population or a specific

occurrence while experimental research is useful in finding out the cause-effect of a causal

relationship, correlation etc

Focus

The aim of the descriptive research is to describe the characteristics of the study group,

thus answering the question ‘what is’ while the aim of the experimental research is to manipulate

the given variables so as to support or reject the assumed hypothesis. Hence it answers the

question ‘what if’.

Type of Studies

Descriptive research typically includes sociological and psychological studies while

experimental research typically includes forensic studies, biological and other laboratory studies,

etc.

Data Collection

Descriptive research uses both qualitative and quantitative methodologies while

experimental research primarily uses quantitative methodology.

Conclusion

Descriptive and experimental research are two significant types of research. Both these

research types are helpful in analysing certain occurrences and study groups. The main

difference between descriptive and experimental research is that descriptive research describes

the characteristics of the research subject while the experimental research manipulates the

research subject or the variables to come to a conclusion. Similarly, descriptive research answers

the question ‘what is’ while experimental research answers the question ‘what if’.

Question 5: Write a detailed note on historical research.

Historical research or historiography, "attempts to systematically recapture the complex

nuances, the people,meanings,events,and even ideas of the past that have influenced and shaped

the present". (Berg & Lure, 2012, p. 305 )

Historical research relies on a wide variety of sources, both primary & secondary including

unpublished material.

Historical research involves studying, understanding and interpreting past events. The

purpose of historical research is to reach insights or conclusions about past persons or

occurrences. Historical research entails more than simply compiling and presenting factual

information; it also requires interpretation of the information.

Typically, histories focuses on particular individuals, social issues and links between the

old and the new. Some historical research is aimed at reinterpreting prior historical works by

revising existing understandings and replacing them with new, often politically charged ones.

The main emphasis in historical research is on interpretation of documents, diaries and the

like. Historical data are categorized into primary or secondary sources. Primary

sources include first hand information, such as eyewitness reposts and original

documents. Secondary sources include secondhand information, such as a description of an

event by someone other than an eyewitness, or a textbook author’s explanation of an event or

theory. Primary sources may be harder to find but are generally more accurate and preferred by

historical researchers. A major problem with much historical research is excessive reliance on

secondary sources.

Researches cannot accept historical data at face value, since many diaries memoirs, reposts

and testimonies are written to enhance the writer’s position, stature, or importance. Because of

this possibility, historical data has to be examined for its authenticity and truthfulness. Such

examination is done through criticism; by asking and researching to help determine truthfulness,

bias, omissions and consistency in data.

Historical research can be defined as the process of investigating past events systematically

to provide an account of happenings in the past (Historical Research, n.d.). It is not simply the

accumulation of dates and facts or even just a description of past happenings but is a flowing and

dynamic explanation or description of past events which include an interpretation of these events

in an effort to recapture implications, personalities and ideas that have influenced these events

(ibid). Berg (2000) stressed that it is crucial to distinguish nostalgia from historical research

since the former is the retelling of comfortable past pleasantries, events or situations that lacks

research vigour while the later attemp ~ 1 ~ Hartman, 2000).

In addition, it also encourages interdisciplinary inquiry and understanding (ibid). On top of

that, it is intellectually enriching and challenging as historical research often ask the thought-

provoking question of ‘why’ (ibid). And finally, historical research is fun because there are no

other disciplines that allow one to poke their noses into the concerns of others and then label it as

serious academic work (ibid). According to Lundi (2008), there are five stages to undertake in

historical researches, namely (i) the identification of a researchable phenomenon that involves

reading relevant literature, listening to current views about the phenomenon and reflecting on the

researcher’s interest before choosing a specific time period, person, phenomena or era related to

the focus of the study; (ii) the development of hypotheses or research questions and the

identification of a theoretical perspective that will guide the process of data collection and results

interpretation besides helping researcher focus and interpret historical occurrences as recorded;

(iii) the data exploration and collection stage where it can be the most time-consuming and

labour-intensive part as the research process is dependent on the subject of study and the

accessibility of data sources; (iv) the checking of facts, evaluation of the validity and reliability

of data, and the analysis of evidence gathered from each source where the researcher evaluate the

data and forms generalizations to accepts or rejects hypotheses or to answer research questions

and forms conclusions; and (v) the writing of the report in which findings are described along

with interpretations and provides detailed supportive evidence in defence of the conclusions

made. Data sources for historical research can be taken from either primary sources or secondary

sources (Berg, 2001; Lundy, 2008; Moore, Monaghan & Hartman, 1997).

Primary sources are first-person accounts that involve the oral or written testimony of

eyewitnesses and these may include documents, letter, observational notes, photographs,

recordings, diaries, journals, life histories, drawings, mementos and other relics (Berg, 2001;

Lundy; 2008). Salkind (1996 as cited in Berg 2001) stated that primary sources are usually

original artefacts, documents and items related to the direct outcomes of an event or an

experience. In general, primary sources are created at or very near the time of the historical event

that is being described (Lundy, 2008). In contrast, secondary sources are account descriptions of

persons who are not eyewitnesses of the event or who did not personally know the person being

studied (ibid). They are from people who are not immediately present at the time of the event and

these are referred to as second-hand or hearsay accounts of someone, some happenings or some

development (Berg, 2001). Secondary sources can be in form of biographies, scholarly articles,

popular books, reference books, textbooks, court records, lab information, encyclopaedias,

newspaper articles and even obituary notices (Berg, 2001; Lundy; 2008). ~ 2 ~ There are

generally four approaches to historical research and these all utilise primary sources as their chief

database (Monaghan & Hartman, 2000). However, Monaghan and Hartman (2000) noted that

these four approached are not exclusive as researchers use as many of the approaches as their

question, topic and time would allow. This integration is made possible due to the nature of

historical research that cuts across genres of approaches as can be seen in Barry’s (1992) and

Spiker’s (1997) dissertations when they employ all four approaches (ibid). The four approaches

proposed by Monaghan and Hartman (2000) are (i) qualitative approach (also known as history

by quotation) where the search for a story construed from a range of printed or written evidence

and the resultant history is arranged chronologically and presented as a factual tale and the

sources range from manuscripts (such as account books, school records, marginalia, letters,

diaries and memoirs) to imprints (such as textbooks, journals, children’s books and other books

of the period under consideration); (ii) quantitative approach where researchers intentionally

look for evidence that lends itself to be quantifiable and is thus presumed to have superior

validity and generalizability with the assumption that broader questions can then be addressed

more authoritatively; (iii) content analysis where the text itself is the object of scrutiny that uses

published works as its data and subjects them to careful analyses that ordinarily include both the

qualitative and quantitative aspects; and (iv) oral history which focuses on living memory where

researchers gather personal recollections of events from living individuals via audio and video

recording that gives respondents a natural and effective environment to provide a reciprocal

interchange between them and the researchers. The validity of historical research can be

established through external criticism while its reliability is determined via internal criticism

(Lundy, 2008; Berg, 2001).

External and internal criticisms are essential to ascertain the quality of the data that will

in turn affect the quality of the depth of interpretations and analyses since the rigorous

examinations of the internal and external value of the data will ensure valid and reliable

information as well as viable historical analyses (Berg, 2001). The primary concern of external

criticism is the genuineness of resource materials (ibid). It is extremely crucial for researchers to

evaluate their sources with great care, or even get verification from experts, to ensure that

sources are authentic to avoid frauds, hoaxes and forgeries as these are not uncommon and can

prove to be problematic (Lundy, 2008; Berg, 2001). On the other hand, for researchers to

determine the reliability of a source using internal criticism, the trustworthiness of the source is

questioned, such as the author’s perceptions and biases of the phenomena, and whether the

author is reporting from intimate knowledge or from other’s description of the event (Lundy,

2008). Lundy (2008) cautioned researchers to be vigilant in including both positive and negative

criticism of all data sources which includes missing accounts, lack of relevant viewpoints and the

persons involved in the event.