METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE 1

Methodological Critique of

Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First-Grade Classroom Make a Different for

Children at Risk of School Failure? by Hamre & Pianta (2005)

&

Developing Teacher Epistemological Sophistication About Multicultural Curriculum: A Case

Study by Sleeter (2009)

Timothy Au

UBC Student Number: 87690129

University of British Columbia / Toronto District School Board

METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE 2

Descriptive Analysis and Critique

Quantitative Research Example

The study by Hamre and Pianta (2005) looked at how the quality of the teacher in a classroom

(i.e., level of instructional and emotional support given to students) could help students who are

at-risk (i.e., determined by the mothers educational attainment and the students own

behavioural profile) narrow the education gap between students who are not at-risk. This was a

quantitative study that contained elements of both causal-comparative research and experimental

research. It is partly causal-comparative research because the condition of the children in the

study could not be controlled (e.g., demographic risk, such as maternal education, and functional

risk, such as sustained attention, externalizing behaviours, social skills, and academic

competence). These factors were pre-determined in the children when the study began. The study

is also partly experimental research because the researchers were trying to determine cause-and-

effect. There were independent variables (i.e., placing students in classrooms with different

levels of instructional and emotional support) that were manipulated. The methods selected by

the researchers were appropriate and the best method to study the research problem. They

wanted to emulate situations that would happen in real-life. Students are born into family

situations (e.g., maternal education), not selected and placed in them. Furthermore, many

functional risks (e.g., sustained attention, externalizing behaviours, etc.) are the result of both

genetic and environmental factors (Taylor, Allan, Mikolajewski, & Hart, 2013). To effectively

test whether the quality of the teacher in the classroom can bridge the gap between students who

are at-risk and students who are not at-risk, students from different groups were fairly evenly

placed in all the different treatment conditions (i.e., students displaying high functional risk were

fairly evenly placed in classrooms with low, moderate, and high instructional support). Utilizing
METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE 3

aspects from both causal-comparative research and experimental research had been effective for

addressing the stated research problem.

Qualitative Case Study Example

The qualitative study by Sleeter (2009) examines how a teachers thinking and attitudes

about multicultural curriculum changed and developed throughout a graduate-level Multicultural

Curriculum Design course. The three notions of epistemology (e.g., certainty, source, and

structure) were carefully examined using a case study of a second-year novice teacher. Data

collected from the study included student papers, a reflective journal, classroom observations,

and an interview. This data was then analyzed and determined whether the teachers thinking

about multicultural curriculum was novice, developing, and accomplished. Because analyzing a

persons thinking is quite complex, and the fact that each persons thinking is unique, only a

qualitative case study would be able to capture this complexity and uniqueness. Therefore, the

researchers selected an appropriate and effective method.

Major Differences between Quantitative Example and Qualitative Example

The description of the research problem for the Quantitative Example by Hamre and Pianta

(2005) was narrow and focused. The researchers wanted to know whether placing at-risk

students in classrooms with high or moderate instructional and/or emotional support would

increase their achievement and bridge the gap between them and the students who are not at-risk.

The researchers specifically wanted to know if a given strategy would work or not. The answer

would be quite clear. On the contrary, the description of the research problem for the Qualitative

Example by Sleeter (2009) was open-ended. The researchers just wanted to document and
METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE 4

analyze how a teachers attitudes and beliefs about multicultural curriculum would change as she

learned more about it in a graduate-level Multicultural Curriculum Design course.

Many participants, with an original sample of 1 364 children, were selected by the

researchers from cities all across the United States for the Quantitative Example by Hamre and

Pianta (2005). The participants in this study were assigned by the researchers into the different

conditions (e.g., classroom with high instructional support, moderate instructional support, etc.).

For the Qualitative Example by Sleeter (2009), only one participant was selected by the

researcher. This participant was voluntarily enrolled in the course that the researcher taught. The

participant in this study was not assigned to any conditions. The participant simply used her own

classroom for the study.

Data collected from the Quantitative Example by Hamre and Pianta (2005) consisted of

numerical values (tests scores, rating scales, etc.). The procedures were very well defined and

involved collecting data before an intervention took place (e.g., rating students on functional risk

when they were in kindergarten, etc.) and collecting data after an intervention took place (e.g.,

being assigned to a classroom with high instructional support in Grade One, etc.). Data collected

from the Qualitative Example by Sleeter (2009) consisted of student papers, a reflective journal,

classroom observations, and an interview. No numerical data was collected. The procedure for

that study was more open-ended and was not nearly as regimented as the Quantitative Example.

The participant in the Qualitative Example had a choice in part of the procedure (i.e., the

participant decided to create a unit on the Indigenous people) whereas the entire procedure of the

Quantitative Example, including which classrooms (i.e., classrooms with high emotional support

versus low emotional support), was determined by the researchers.

METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE 5

The conclusion in the Quantitative Example by Hamre and Pianta (2005) involved

interpreting the numerical data and comparing it to data from other literature. Findings from

other quantitative studies were used to either support or further explain the findings of the study.

It also spent some time discussing about the limitations of the research because of the sample

that was used (i.e., the majority of the students in the study were not highly at-risk, so it would

be difficult to generalize). In addition, the conclusion talked about how the study needed to be

replicated with other high-risk groups in order to be more conclusive. A lot of time was spent

self-critiquing the methodology, sample, and data collection. The conclusion from the

Qualitative Example by Sleeter (2009) only referenced one other study, which also consisted of

case studies. The conclusion was much briefer, and did not try to generalize to other areas.

However, there was not any self-critique of the methodology, sample, or data collection method.

Methodology for My Future Research

Both of these studies have informed me that the type of research that I would design and

conduct (i.e., quantitative versus qualitative research) depends on the goal of my educational

research project. For example, if I want to determine if there is a relationship between two things

(e.g., number of years teaching and the likelihood of using technology in the classroom), or

determine causality (e.g., if allowing students to use laptop computers to type essay-based tests

instead of handwriting them would increase student achievement), then I would use quantitative

research. Quantitative research would allow me to collect and analyze numerical data to explain,

predict, and control a phenomenon of interest in education, with control being the keyword. On

the contrary, if I wanted to gain an insight into a particular phenomenon of interest in education,

and not control that phenomenon nor look for a cause-and-effect, then I would conduct

qualitative research (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012).

METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE 6

Coming from a science background and having spent countless hours in a laboratory

conducting experiments to determine cause-and-effect, my personal bias is leaning towards

quantitative research. As a new educational researcher, I like the more regimented and prescribed

design of quantitative research. Furthermore as a mathematics minor, my personal comfort level

is with numerical data. Finally, whenever I think about conducting research, my mindset is

thinking whether one thing would cause another thing to happen. From a practical point-of-view,

I would like to try different things in my classroom to see if one intervention would result in

improvements in student achievement. Quantitative research would be better suited for this.
METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE 7

REFERENCES

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade
classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure. Child Development,
76(5), 949-967.

Sleeter, C. (2009). Developing teacher epistemological sophistication about multicultural

curriculum: A case study. Action in Teacher Education, 31(1), 3-13.

Taylor, J., Allan, N., Mikolajewski, A. J., & Hart, S. A. (2013). Common genetic and nonshared
environmental factors contribute to the association between socioemotional dispositions
and the externalizing factor in children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 54(1),
67-76.