PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1308 - 9501

Original article | International Journal of Educational Researchers 2020, Vol. 11(2) 20-29

A Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions for Teacher Education

Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng

pp. 20 - 29   |  Manu. Number: ijers.2020.003

Published online: June 29, 2020  |   Number of Views: 13  |  Number of Download: 67


Abstract

Research is important to teacher education since teachers are supposed to be active practitioners who are reflective in their practice and able to use research ideas to find a solution to educational problems. Understanding the major research traditions is crucial in teacher education. It is important for teacher education students, especially those at the graduate level to understand issues of research. The purpose of this paper is an attempt to support students in teacher education programs to understand issues about research traditions and how they can be applied. The study examines the two major research traditions, which apply to teacher education and teaching and learning in general. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research constitute major important paradigms in educational research, in terms of design and implementation. Research is either quantitative, qualitative, or a mixture of the two approaches. Either approach has its philosophical basis and corresponding designs and methods of implementation. Knowing the theoretical/philosophical basis of each approach as well as when and how to use them will enable graduate students in teacher education programs to understand and apply them appropriately to issues in teaching and learning.

Keywords: Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Paradigm, Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Methods.


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Adjei-Boateng, E. (2020). A Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions for Teacher Education . International Journal of Educational Researchers , 11(2), 20-29.

Harvard
Adjei-Boateng, E. (2020). A Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions for Teacher Education . International Journal of Educational Researchers , 11(2), pp. 20-29.

Chicago 16th edition
Adjei-Boateng, Emmanuel (2020). "A Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions for Teacher Education ". International Journal of Educational Researchers 11 (2):20-29.

References
  1. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. [Google Scholar]
  2. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson Education, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  3. Crotty, M. (2012). The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  4. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 163-194. [Google Scholar]
  5. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  6. Meurer, W. J., Frederiksen, S. M., Majersik, J. J., Zhang, L., Sandretto, A., & Scott, P. A. (2007). Qualitative data collection and analysis methods: the instinct trial. Academic Emergency Medicine, 14(11), 1064-1071. [Google Scholar]
  7. Murtonen, M. (2015). University students’ understanding of the concepts empirical, theoretical, qualitative and quantitative research. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(7), 684-698. [Google Scholar]
  8. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L.H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43–53. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tewksbury, R. (2009). Qualitative versus quantitative methods: Understanding why qualitative methods are superior for criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 38-58. [Google Scholar]
  12. Tuli, F. (2011). The basis of distinction between qualitative and quantitative research in social science: reflection on ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 6(1), 97-108. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., & McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., Spadden, E. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry. New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 312-325. [Google Scholar]