research methodologies can largely be classified into 3 categories: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. saw this quote while reading Teddlie and Tashakkori (2011)’s chapter on MMR (mixed methods research):
“A change in paradigmatic postures involves a personal odyssey, that is we each have a personal history with our preferred paradigm and this needs to be honored.” (Denzin, 2008, p.322, as cited in Teddie & Tashakkori, p.287)
yes, we respect others’ preference of methodology, for we each live a different personal history (: (cf. serial-numbered robots)
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 285-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
i believe there is no absolute answer to this, but it is a common argument between qualitative vs. quantitative researchers in the field of education. was reading Chapter 17 on Case Study, and saw the following sentence:
“…in the study of human affairs, there appears to exist only context-dependent knowledge, which thus presently rules out the possibility for social science to emulate natural science in developing epstemic theory, that is, theory that is explanatory and predictive.” (Bent Flyvbjerg, 2011, p.302)
source: Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
this view basically represents my (world)view of our learners, as a teacher and teacher educator. every person has an unique sociocultural-historical background. while our individual experiences may overlap, it is unique from person-to-person, either as a learner or as a person. we are not factory products that can be standardised nor serial-numbered. in short, claiming representations or meanings in numbers where learners are concerned, is probably short of the full-er story.
thanks to si hui for pinging me on variation theory, and i chanced upon this piece of gem created by professors at HKU:
it’s many hours of reading and hard work to produce this piece of excellent quick reference for teachers. extending this idea, we could perhaps create something similar for SLA/CL teachers, bringing together learning sciences and SLA works and making it accessible to our CL teachers (:
chanced upon this 2005 document titled: About Learning prepared by the UK Learning Working Group (with Hargreaves as a chair/member). the document was released under creativecommons, so free access no copyrights issue **thumbs up**
the following excerpt found on pg. 7:
so what would the Family of Learning Practices be like in language learning, or SLA to be more specific? #Food4Thought
this is refreshing news via nature.com in the morning. the American Statistical Association (ASA) warns that the P value “CANNOT determine whether a hypothesis is true or whether results are important.” (emphasis added).
a 6-principle list that addresses misconceptions and misuse of the p-value, can be found in the ASA statement:
P-values can indicate how incompatible the data are with a specified statistical model.
P-values do not measure the probability that the studied hypothesis is true, or the probability that the data were produced by random chance alone.
Scientific conclusions and business or policy decisions should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold.
Proper inference requires full reporting and transparency.
A p-value, or statistical significance, does not measure the size of an effect or the importance of a result.
By itself, a p-value does not provide a good measure of evidence regarding a model or hypothesis.
the press release statement goes here:
good to take note for those of us into educational research, and have the tendency to rely on quanti methods. and its our duty to correct the misconceptions of non-researchers on the use of p-value too.