This week I read four articles for class plus an extra I liked. All were about qualitative research in education. The first, by Ross, Morrison, and Lowther (2010), built on the second, by Hoepfl (1997), which built on the third by Cobb, Confrey, Lehrer, and Schauble (2003), which in turn built on the fourth by Randolf (2007). I also read an article by Plengkham, Rattanaska, and Sukserm (2025) that had to do with the same material. I’ll discuss these further.
First, in the Ross et. al article (2010), called, “Educational Technology Research Past and Present: Balancing Rigor and Relevance to Impact School Learning,” the authors view the paper from four lenses: (a) effective technology in classrooms, (b) historical trends in research, (c) alternative research with rigor and relevance in its design, and (d) future research. The authors say education technology should be studies further for effectiveness: how well teachers and students achieve research’s goals in three domains. Those domains are (1) Technology as Tutor which involves computer-assisted instruction (CAI), is engaging, and leads to higher test scores and positively reacting students, (2) Technology as Teaching Aid which cites programs like Reading Reels, multimedia lessons, and interactive “clickers,” (3) Technology as a Learning Tool where learning happens WITH computers, is intensive (though not effective as based on state tests), and covers the socioeconomic gap. The authors do an in-depth literature review and conclude relevance (meaningfulness and utility) and rigor (quality and credibility) exist. They recommend the use of more technology in the field that is both rigorous and relevant. Their discussion and literature review were done very well and tackled all of the information I would want to see. I learned a great deal about rigor and relevance in reading this paper and know of its importance to education.
Next, in the Hoepfl (1997) article, entitled “Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers,” the author starts by defining qualitative methodology in education as non-statistical means. While quantitative methodology is filled with statistics, the two sit on a continuum. Qualitative reasoning more fully describes a problem, the author says, and gains a new perspective on old material. The role of the researcher is theoretically sensitive. Research design and data collection are focused, logical, planned, and trustworthy while using sampling, interviewing, and observation. Data analysis revolves around themes, axial coding of stages, and generates new theory as a conclusion.
Next, in the Cobb et. al (2003) article, entitled “Design Experiments in Educational Research,” the authors state that design experiments develop theories which result in a learning ecology and which are adaptable, emphasize function, and crosscut over five postulates: (1) class of theories supported by learning process; (2) methodology is highly interventionist; (3) design theories are prospective and reflective; (4) keeps an iterative (recursive) design; and (5) the theory does the work. Testable conjectures are revised, there is ongoing analysis of students and environment, and involvement of leaders of a team. Overall there must be clear views of learning pathways, ongoing relationships with practitioners, a deep understanding of the ecology of learning, and debriefing sessions at the regular. Retroactive analysis is specific.
I also read a similar article by Plengkham et. al (2025) called “6Ps Guidelines for Constructing an English Questionnaire for a Survey in Social Science Research.” In short, their guidelines, the 6Ps, state everything needed for a proper survey. Those Ps are: (1) Preform a comprehensive literature review. (2) Prioritize clarity and simplicity in a questionnaire design. (3) Provide cultural sensitivity. (4) Pose a balance between question types. (5) Pilot tests to ensure validity and reliability. (6) Protect participants through ethical considerations. I thought this last article was strongest on its summary and most direct. It could have included an actual questionnaire but did not; that was a weakness.
References
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
Drost, E. (2011). Validity and Reliability: ERPV38-1.-Drost-E.-2011.-Validity-and-Reliability-in-Social-Science-Research.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9, 47–63.
Plengkham, B., Rattanasak, S., Suserm, P. (2025). 6Ps Guidelines for Constructing an English Questionnaire for a Survey in Social Science Research. Journal of Education and Learning 14(1): 1-9.
Randolph, Justus J. (2007). Multidisciplinary Methods in Educational Technology Research and Development, HAMK Press, HTML / PDF. (chapters 1 & 2).
Ross, S., Morrison, G., Lowther, D. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17-25.