The Difference Between Qualitative
and Quantitative Research
August 29, 1999
I have to respond to this often-repeated
assertion that there is extensive empirical research in support of
constructivist methods of instruction.
When most people read this assertion, they assume that there
are a series of studies in which groups of students are taught using different
methodologies and that on the basis of some sort of objective measure, those
taught using constructivist methods scored higher. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Advocates of constructivism
view such research methodology as a tool of a patriarchal system bent on
subjugating the disadvantaged.
Back in the eighties, when the debate between phonics and
whole language reading instruction was heating up, the Phi Delta Kapan published a series of articles alternating those
advocating whole language with those supporting phonics. This debate became known as the
"reading wars." Finally,
another author, I don't recall his name, made a modest proposal. He asserted that this debate was silly
and pointless because what was being discussed was, after all, an empirical
question. He proposed that two
separate groups of students be identified who had not yet learned to read,
which were similar in background and aptitude. One group would be taught using whole
language and the other group using a phonics approach for three years. At the conclusion of the research a
reading test would be administered to determine which group did better. That would presumably end the
debate. One side would be
victorious and the other could leave the scene with their tail between their
legs. Seemed like a reasonable
approach to me.
The response from the whole language group was immediate and
incredibly vituperative. The model
proposed was described as the worst example of logical positivism and was hegemonically rigged to guarantee the success of the
phonics approach. I think is was also called racist, anti-feminist and a proposal
similar to that which might come from a violent opponent of
environmentalism. Instead,
methodology informed by radical multiculturalism, Afroncentrism,
feminism, etc., etc. was proposed, of course with no explanation of what was
meant. In short, any comparison of
the two methods was inherently unfair and the results would never be accepted.
So what is the research that supports constructivism? It is qualitative rather than
quantitative. Quantitative research
is the sort of scientific research with which you are probably most
familiar. There are a strict set of
rules that govern the use of such research. Knowledgeable methodologists can
evaluate the quality of such research and point out weaknesses in it.
Qualitative research generally eschews the niceties of objective,
scientific research. While there are certainly good and poor qualitative research, it is
considered impolite to criticize this research. Quantitative research is always subject
to evaluation. Criticizing
qualitative research is considered impolite and can have unfortunate results
such as hurting a researcher's feelings.
So what kind of qualitative research supports
constructivism? There are two main
designs. The simplest involves
having the researcher, who is already deeply committed to constructivism, visit
classes in which these methods are being used. Sometimes these visits are informal and
sometimes highly structured, but it should come as no surprise that these
committed researchers always leave even more convinced of the value of
constructivism.
The second method is a bit more complicated but is widely
used. There is hardly an edition of
the Harvard Education Review that does not contain such a
study. I have fellow faculty
members who use it routinely. With
this method, an education professor teaches a class in some aspect of
constructivism, cooperative learning, whole language, writing process,
inquiry-based science or whatever.
The students may already be teachers or they are required to spend time
observing classes. They are
evaluated based on the journals they keep which record their observations. The professor then publishes articles
supporting the value of constructivism based on the content of the students'
journals supplemented by their supportive comments in class. Of course, any student who wrote
anything critical of constructivism in his or her journal could not expect to
receive the automatic "A" that every other student gets. Students quickly learn how to play this
game.
This is the basis for the "empirical-based model"
and extensive research supporting constructivism.
Dr George K. Cunningham
Professor
University of Louisville
Dr Cunningham is a professor in the Department of
Educational and Counseling Psychology at the University of Louisville. He teaches courses and specializes in
assessment, measurement and testing.
He has authored the following books:
Cunningham, G. K. (1986) Educational
and Psychological Measurement, New York: MacMillan
Company.
Thorndike R. M., Cunningham, G. K.,
Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. (1991) Measurement and Evaluation in
Psychology and Education (5th E.) New York:
MacMillan Company.
Cunningham, G. K. (1998) Assessment: in the
Classroom: Constructing and interpreting tests, London: Falmer Press.
╪