During a typical
lesson, the participants – teachers and students – typically observe everything
that happens in the classroom and unconsciously collect in their memory all this diverse
and unorganized information. This type of mechanical observation although occurs
naturally to all people on a daily and constant basis however it is informal
and unsystematic in character. By contrast, structured observation even though
is mostly based on this innate and spontaneous human ability to observe has
little to do with this.
Structured or
systematic observation is a highly organized and prearranged activity that aids
the observers to focus on a set of categories, arranged in advance, and to identify
instances of these categories in everything that is observed. In any case, is
an alternative method of data collection (like field notes, audio/video
recordings, questionnaires, interviews etc) by which a trained observer can simultaneously
record, allocate and codify the classroom behavior, into a certain “checklist”.
The construction
of this “checklist” is not a simple and unproblematic procedure. Firstly, the
researcher has to relate the categories effectively to one or more research
topics, and then he has to illustrate with them the rather abstract and
unpredictable human behavior but in a summarized and literal way. Moreover, the
categories and the coding procedure must be as accurate and simple as possible
since the observers must be able to fill the forms confidently without doubts,
hesitations, contestable judgments, assumptions etc. In fact, a hasty planning
of the observation schedule generally makes the method ineffective, produces
delays, confuses the observers, makes them to miss the pace of the coding.
Structured
observation is always carried out in real time. During the procedure one or
more observers act like “living coders” and try to classify certain types of
activity into the right category simultaneously with the observation. Sometimes
observers do this continuously and without a certain time rate and sometimes
they keep a strict time rate using various sampling methods. The period between
the sampling points is a question that the researcher must decide in advance
and the more frequently an observer samples, the more complete the picture he
obtains. So, in other words, the final depiction of the procedure seems like a
series of several behavioral snapshots.
Observation, as a
method of collecting data has variant applications, derived, for example, from the
extend to which the observers participate or not in the events they observe or
from the extend to which the people are aware that they are being observed. So
apart from the distinction between structured and unstructured observation we
meet further differentiations like the participant and non-participant
observation or the overt/open and covert/closed observation.
Usually the data
collected from structured observation are mostly quantitative in character,
although not exclusively and therefore they can be analyzed statistically providing
further information about frequencies, percentages and other numerical
evidences.
At the following paragraphs,
I’ll assess the method of structure observation under the prism of two
methodological philosophies – positivism and interpretivism- since they offer a
sharp contrast between their theories.
Positivism can be
characterized as a way of thinking and researching that considers the model of natural
sciences as the dominant one, and seeks to apply the scientific methods- like the
empirical research, the direct observation, the laboratory experiments- to all
the other fields of science (human sciences, social, medical, psychological, etc).
Thus the advocates of positivism clearly reject any type of knowledge that
can’t be directly supported or proved by a common scientific method.
Since positivism
attempts to provide explanations of the phenomena based exclusively on
observable and measurable evidences, it constantly challenges all kind of speculative
theories and ideas like religious claims, metaphysical statements,
superstitions, traditional and local beliefs, prejudices, dogmas etc. Unfortunately
positivism can even reject something that although is obvious and coherent at
common sense however it can’t be supported by any scientific argumentation or
sense experience.
The advocates of
positivism tend to use mostly quantitative methods of enquiry collecting
numerical data susceptible to statistical analysis, because on the one hand
they seek for the careful and objective measurement of the phenomena and on the
other for the detection of fixed and universal causal relationships among several
variables. And they not only aspire for the validation of causal relationships,
even in the area of the social phenomena, but they also work towards the
establishment of a small number of sound theories, through a constant process
of verification, falsification, refinement and replacement of the defective
ones.
And since positivism claims that it can reveal any concealed laws or
mechanisms under the phenomena, then not only it can provide the researchers
with” information and understanding about how things are and work but it can
also demonstrate actions and effective practices, which they guarantee that an
action x will lead certainly to a result y. So, the advocates of positivism
allege that they can finally ascertain which pedagogical techniques are
effective and which are not.
Positivism,
struggles for objectivity and for the establishment of value free procedures,
trying to eliminate all kind of biases and influences- like moral values,
social characteristic, political preferences, personal judgments- that can
arise from the inevitable human involvement and interference. It is also
concerned with the generalisability of the findings, meaning with the
application of the results to other cases and situations beyond those examined
in a certain study and with the successful replication of the same results in
multiple places and by several researchers too.
Now, according to the
opponents of this methodology, the majority or the positivistic ideas have been
rejected justifiably by the educational theory as the results from the
scientific investigation were poor and all the relevant efforts have failed.
They further argue that, unlike the natural world, it is impossible, to measure
the human behavior and extract statistical data from the social life and world.
They also doubt seriously whether it can be produced any conclusive knowledge
about any causal pattern in the social world or whether it can be measured aspects
of learning, like the depth of learning or the transferability with any degree
of validity and reliability.
But although
positivism has been accused and criticized that is governed by a merely “technical”
orientation aimed at efficiency, rationality and objectivity there are other
researcher too that recognize several possibilities of the theory and they
claim that it is still open to revision, extension and improvement.
From the part of
positivism, structure observation seems rather advantageous since it meets two
of the most fundamental requirements of the methodology. On the one hand it can
provide the researchers with measurable and countable data like percentages,
frequencies, rates, etc that are susceptible to statistical analyses and
numerical comparisons and on the other hand it is based on empirical and direct
observation of the phenomena.
Moreover, it is a practical,
real-time method that can be highly standardized, through the careful construction
of an observation schedule. Thus it can be used by many observers facilitating
and increasing the gathering of the data from a larger sample and enduring the
generalization and replication of the findings to a wider population and to
multiple cases. And since the basic rule of the procedure is to observe and
record only what it can be seen and heard by the observer’s senses then it can
be argued that the method is objective, without any biases and personal
speculations.
Of course the
above advantages, in order to be met they require the conditions of the
procedure to be ideal. Hence, it could be argued that the observers can’t be
fully reliable in their coding or that they don’t have the same ability to code
at the same pace or if they were to code the same lesson under equivalent
conditions the coding shouldn’t be completely identical for all the observers.
So, under the prism of positivism the method of structure observation doesn’t
seem fully advantageous and objective. Indeed biases are possible to interfere
in the process from both the part of the observer and the persons being
observed. For example, an observer with a positive attitude towards the
persons being observed he will probably record the positive behaviours and
ignore the negative ones. From the perspective of the persons being observed,
biases occur when they become aware of the presence of the researchers and then
try to alter their behaviour and spontaneity in order to impress them.
There are also
additional issues that might affect the objectivity of the process. For
example, it is difficult for the observer to maintain his attention at the same
high level during the coding procedure or to remain covert for a
long period of time. In the case of the non-participant observation it is also tricky for the
researchers to remain to a completely detached role and not to have, even a
small impact to the people observed.
Another aspect of
structure observation that positivism might characterize as defective is the construction
of the schedule and how clear and comprehensible will be the coding of the
relevant instances into each category. Indeed, on the one hand, the categories
must be low-inference so that the researchers will be able to fill them without
hesitating a lot or using contestable judgment. On the other hand the
simplicity of the categorization may not be able to cover the complexity and
abstract character of the teaching-learning procedure. In any case, subjective
judgment is involved in order the researchers to allocate what is observed, no
matter how simple the observation schedule is.
Generally,
positivism appreciates structure observation since it helps the researchers to
focus on specific aspects of the educational phenomena or to survey particular
incidents and activities of the social world. However, as it also happens
in the natural world, any incident that might occur rarely and individually
can’t be recorded or fit in any of the pre-specified categories. So, because of
the lack of the appropriate category the observers will not be able to record
any unique social phenomenon that happens only once, no matter how important
and interesting this phenomenon is.
As it was
mentioned before, positivism uses mainly experimental and scientific methods in
order to control several variables and to check the effect of each variable to
the total phenomenon. For example, it can be extracted from a typical
experiment that the adjustment of the variable x will lead definitely to the
result y. But, structured observation since it is a simple method of collecting
data doesn’t allow any control of the variables or interference in the
environment and the people involved. So, from the part of positivism, the role
of structured observation in any experimental study is limited to the role of data
collector.
Concluding, I
would say that, from the point of view of positivism, structure observation is
a precious and advantageous method that can collect data in a rather objective
and neutral way. But, as in other methods too, several biases can occur that
might challenge seriously the objectivity of the method. Nevertheless, if the
weaknesses and flaws are acknowledged, then extra precautions and “treatments”
can be applied, like the careful training of the observers, several tricks
against recording errors, continuous checking of the data accuracy, constant
monitoring of the comparability among observers, etc. Thus, several ameliorative
techniques can convert the method into a precious and irreplaceable tool of
study for all the advocates of positivism.
Comments
Post a Comment