EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT (ECD)

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND STRATEGIES

 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to explore how Grade R learners may be supported to become school ready through a perceptual-motor intervention. In chapter 2, I reviewed existing literature pertaining to early childhood development and the current situation of early care and education in the South African context, referring to the various domains of child development, I explored the concept of school readiness, formal schooling in South Africa, and what the current Grade R curriculum entails. I contemplated the importance of perceptual-motor development for school readiness, more specifically in a resource-constrained context. I concluded the chapter by explaining the conceptual framework of the study, in terms of the various theories I relied on.
In this chapter, I discuss the empirical part of my study. I describe and justify my selected paradigms, as well as the research design I implemented. I then explain the research process in terms of the methodological choices I made, explaining my selection of participants, and the data collection, documentation and analysis strategies I employed. I also elaborate on the measures I took to ensure rigour and the ethical considerations I adhered to.

PARADIGMATIC PERSPECTIVES

Research is about understanding the world. Researchers’ understanding is however also informed by how they view the world (Jansen, 2010). According to Sefotho (2014), world views form the basis of paradigms which will in turn culminate in insight into phenomena. Broadly speaking, TerreBlanche and Durrheim (2006) regard paradigms as all-inclusive systems of interrelated practice and thinking, that define the nature of any researcher’s enquiry along three dimensions; namely, ontology, epistemology and methodology. According to these authors (TerreBlanche & Durrheim, 2006), ontology specifies the nature of reality that is studied and what can be known about it, while epistemology entails the nature between the researcher and what can be known. Finally, methodology indicates how the researcher go about practically studying whatever she or he believes can be known.

Epistemological paradigm: Pragmatism

Biesta and Burbules (2003) state that, in educational research, the aim is to generate knowledge that is relevant to educators that can inform their actions and activities, and support and guide their decision-making. This idea, that educational research should be relevant for educational practice, is far from new. Since the end of the eighteenth century, when education became the object of systematic scientific inquiry, educationists have stressed the practical orientation and significance of educational research. As a result, pragmatism was introduced and derived from the work of Peirce, James, Mead and Dewey (Creswell, 2013). Within this paradigm, emphasis is placed on actions, situations and consequences rather than antecedent conditions (Creswell, 2013). With this statement in mind, a pragmatic notion is implied, where the researcher focuses on the research problem rather than on the method.
In line with the nature and topic of this research study, the information I researched, the context and the participants, I selected pragmatism as the epistemological paradigm. Pragmatism as a world view arises out of actions, situations and consequences (Creswell, 2009). According to this paradigm, the researcher will subsequently collect data on “what works” in order to address the research question (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p.24) and find solutions to problems (Creswell, 2009). As the focus of pragmatism falls on the consequences of research, it is viewed as pluralistic and orientated towards practicality (Biesta & Burbules, 2003; Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
Pragmatism allowed me to use different methodological strategies in attempting to understand and explain the phenomenon under study. As this paradigm entails a process of adapting logical thinking to practical constraints of real-life situations (Arnett Maynard, 2013), it seemed suitable for my study which followed a mixed-methods approach.
To this end, Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) explain that in pragmatist studies, a researcher can draw on both quantitative and qualitative assumptions and utilise various methods to address different aspects of a study or different layers of a phenomenon (Feilzer, 2010). Creswell (2009) elaborates and proposes that pragmatism will allow a researcher freedom of choice, choosing methods and techniques that can best meet the needs and purpose of a study. As indicated, my choice of pragmatism thus aligned with the mixed-methods approach which I followed in determining whether or not a perceptual-motor enrichment intervention can improve the levels of school readiness of Grade R learners.
The mixed-methods approach I followed was thus supported by multiple worldviews, as implied by pragmatism. According to Creswell (2015, p.10) the notion of “what works” applies well to selecting the methods of “what works best” when relying on this paradigm. This could however cause challenges as one may feel forced to mix methods. To this end, Creswell (2013, p.78) reccomends that a pragmatist researcher utilises pragmatism as an “umbrella paradigm” in order to suitably merge quantitative and qualitative methods to obtain a deeper understanding of how best to answer the research questions of a study (Creswell, 2013).
Closely related, Bazeley (2004) emphasises that the mixed-methods researcher necessitates a good working knowledge of the multiple methods being used, their assumptions, analysis procedures and tools, and the ability to understand and interpret results derived from different methods. In addition, the level of understanding of the audience can present another challenge. As such, the mixed-methods reseacher needs to transfer the details of methods which are unfamiliar to readers of the study (Bazeley, 2004). Throughout. I remained cautious of these potential challenges and aimed to address them, as suggested by Bazeley (2004).

Mixed-methods approach

According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), mixed-methods research suggests certain philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, mixed-methods research involves the blending of the quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in the phases of the research process. It thus centres on collecting, analysing and mixing quantitative and qualitative data in a single study such as my study) or a series of studies. The main idea is that the combination of the quantitative and qualitative approaches will provide a better comprehension of the research problem than when utilising only one of the approaches.
Therefore, in a mixed-methods study both numerical and text data are collected and analysed to address different aspects of a general research problem, in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the topic under investigation (Ivankova, Creswell, Plano Clark, 2010). Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) are of the opinion that mixed-methods research suggests strengths that can offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research. Instead of being restricted to one type of data collection strategy, various tools can be included for data collection and documentation. Figure 3.1 provides a conceptual view of the mixed-methods research approach, highlighting the integration or mixing aspect.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.4 AIM AND OBJCETIVES OF THE STUDY
1.5 CONCEPT CLARIFICATION
1.6 OVERVIEW OF PARADIGMATIC PERSPECTIVES
1.7 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCESS
1.8 QUALITY CRITERIA
1.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.10 OUTLINE OF THE CHAPTERS
1.11 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 
2.1 INTRODUCTION .
2.2 EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT (ECD)
2.3 SCHOOL READINESS
2.4 FORMAL SCHOOLING IN SOUTH AFRICA
2.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
2.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND STRATEGIES 
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 PARADIGMATIC PERSPECTIVES
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGICAL STRATEGIES
3.4 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR INTERVENTION PROGRAMME
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE
3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF THE STUDY
4.1 INTRODUCTION .
4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF QUAN DATA AND SAMPLE SIZE
4.3 PRE-INTERVENTION QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
4.4 POST-INTERVENTION QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
4.5 PRE-POST INTERVENTION QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
4.6 QUALITATIVE RESULTS OF THE STUDY
4.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PRE-INTERVENTION PHASE FINDINGS
5.3 POST-INTERVENTION PHASE FINDINGS
5.4 COMPARISON OF PRE- AND POST-INTERVENTION RESULTS
5.5 FINDINGS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION
5.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
6.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PRECEDING CHAPTERS
6.2 REFLECTION ON THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
6.4 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY
6.5 LIMITATIONS, CHALLENGES AND STRENGTHS OF THE STUDY
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.7 CONCLUSION
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT