This terms of procedures and techniques in different

This chapter presents the justification for the methodology employed in the study to investigate the teachers’ perspectives of teaching science to primary gifted students and gifted students’ perspectives on how they are taught science. First, it explains the underlying research philosophy, justifies the choice of using a qualitative research approach, and describes the selection of qualitative content analysis as the appropriate data analysis approach for this study. Second, it provides a description of the research methods including detailed information about potential participants, methods of data collection, and the data analysis process to be employed. Third and lastly, it details the validity and reliability of the study was upheld and a summary. An overview of ontological and epistemological perspectives of the underlying research philosophy now follows.Philosophical Background: Ontological and Epistemological PerspectivesThere is considerable overlap in terms of procedures and techniques in different approaches to qualitative research. Researchers using these approaches generally adopt a critical stance towards researchers’ epistemology and search for meaning in the accounts and/or actions of participants. That is why there are distinctions and differences in the nature of qualitative approaches; in strategies, epistemology, and ontology (Bailey, 1997; Haig, 2018). They are concerned with the nature of question they are suited to answer, the kind of data collection consistent with this, and also the kinds of analysis and presentation of results that fit with this approach (Holloway & Todres, 2003; Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H., 2014).This study is based on the naturalist paradigm. According to this paradigm, there are multiple interpretations of reality and the goal of researchers working within this perspective is to understand how individuals construct their own reality within their social context(Creswell & Poth, 2017). Crotty (2017) describes no objective truth delays for individuals to discover it. There is no one single approach to integrating teaching and learning (Brown et al., 2011; Bybee, 2013; Creswell & Poth, 2017; English, 2016; Ring, Dare, Crotty, & Roehrig, 2017). From this aspect of understanding, different people may construct meaning in a variety of ways, even regarding the same phenomenon (Crotty, 1998; Ring, et al., 2017). Therefore, teachers’ teaching practices and students’ learning cannot be studied in isolation, as they closely link to their cognition and context through which they are constructed.To know the teaching practices and students’ learning this study adopts constructivist paradigm on how teachers and students are making sense of the particular phenomena. The constructivist paradigm grew out of the philosophy of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology and Wilhelm Dilthey’s and other German philosophers’ study of interpretive understanding called hermeneutics (Eichelberger, 1989). Hermeneutics is the study of interpretive understanding or meaning. Constructivist researchers use the term ‘hermeneutics’ as a way to interpret the meaning of something from a certain standpoint or situation. Through that, we can understand individuals’ interpretations and their sense-making of their own world. The basic assumptions guiding the constructivist paradigm are that knowledge is socially constructed by people active in the research process, and that researchers should attempt to understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it (Schwandt, 2000). Reality is socially constructed. Therefore, multiple mental constructions can be apprehended, some of which may be in conflict with each other, and perceptions of reality may change throughout the process of the study. For example, the concepts of teaching practices, learning preferences, or creativity are socially constructed phenomena that mean different things to different people.The term ‘approach’ is used in this article to differentiate it from the narrower term ‘methods used’. It indicates a coherent epistemological viewpoint about the nature of enquiry,the kind of knowledge that is discovered or produced and the kinds of methodological strategies that are consistent with this (Giorgi, 1970). (Holloway & Todres, 2003).Merriam (2009) states, researchers while doing qualitative study are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences. The qualitative researcher is an “interpreter” using a “naturalist approach” to construct meaning from individuals’ complex lived experiences/realities. Moreover, the qualitative researcher must consider how individual/personal experiences and sociocultural identity/reality affects the research – as qualitative research is an interactive process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Overall, qualitative research allows the researcher to use various interpretive practices and theoretical paradigms for data collection and analysis.A qualitative approach is employed for the current study because it is compatible with the theoretical foundation of Vygotsky’s Activity Theory, and concepts of the conceptual framework. Firstly, as can be seen from the theoretical framework of the study (see section 2.9), it indicates the cognition and practice are interrelated, and cognition can only be interpreted in the context of practice or doing (Jonassen & Ronrer-Murphy, 1999). Hence, the nature of science teaching and learning might have an interpretative relation to the educational contexts (science), and environments (primary classroom) and this relationship were examined. The focus of the study, therefore, is not on the outcome or product of development, but on the process of science teaching and learning practice of the teachers and students within their educational contexts. This is in line with Merriam’s (2009) claim of the primary purposes of qualitative research, which are to achieve an understanding of how people make sense out of their lives, delineate the process of meaning-making and describe how people interpret what they experience.The second reason for choosing a qualitative approach is its particular usefulness for making sense of highly complex situations (Dörnyei, 2007). Teaching or teachers practice is typically a highly complex activity, which is influenced and shaped by social, cultural, and situational factors (Pedder & Opfer, 2013). This study investigates primary teachers’ practice, challenges, and perspectives within the context of the science classroom. This matches teaching science social-constructively and aligns with the objective of qualitative approach, which is to state social phenomena as they occur naturally and without any attempts to manipulate the situation under study (Dörnyei, 2007).The third reason for choosing a qualitative approach was to the nature of the data that was collected from gifted education classroom for this study. As this study reviewled the themes from gifted students learning preferences and teaching practices within the opportunity classroom in the primary schools; so, these phenomena were more likely answered using qualitative content analysis process. Despite numerous efforts were made to develop and articulate rigorous qualitative systematic review methods for this study (e.g. phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnographic approach), a very few attempts have been made to specifically and precisely describe data analysis processes (Campbell et al., 2011; Deborah, 2013; Finfgeld-Connett, 2014; Hannes and Macaitis, 2012) for the study of gifted students and teachers perspectives of teaching and learning. Since the late 1980s, one method that has been adapted for this purpose is content analysis (Deborah, 2013; Finfgeld-Connett, 2014; Holm & Severinsson, 2012; Rissanen et al., 2011). Qualitative content analysis is a flexible data analysis method that can range from impressionistic interpretations to highly systematic analyses of text-based data (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). It is considered a qualitative method for systematically and rigorously integrating, interpreting, and synthesizing qualitative findings that have been extracted from multiple qualitative research studies (Finfgeld-Connett, 2014;).Lastly, the purpose of the current study is to explore teaching practice from the participants’ (teachers’ and students’) perspectives. This is also a key concern of qualitative research, whose fundamental principle is that human behavior is based on meanings which people attribute to and bring to situations (Dörnyei, 2007). Accordingly, a qualitative approach can better serve this purpose as they are particularly suited to studies that intend to understand participants’ perspectives of the events, situations, and actions that they are involved with and of the explanations that they provide for their lived experiences (Maxwell, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994). For purposes of this study content analysis was used. “Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use.” (Krippendorf, 2013, p. 24).To sum up, based on the theoretical framework, and the complex nature

x

Hi!
I'm Harold!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out