For Charandry Only

The instruction is to  critique two research methods, focusing on the practical and ethical importance of these methods in child development. Then choose the one method you think is more practical and ethical and defend your position with research or your professional experience.

Respond to at least two other learners. Do you agree with each learner’s critique? Why or why not? Would you have made a different choice? Why?

KENDRIC POST

I choose to discuss naturalistic observations and clinical interviews. When it comes to naturalistic observations, it refers to collecting data without interfering with the ongoing behavior. Observation relies on information available to the senses (sight, hearing, touch, etc.) It provides information about the “what” of behavior, but does not reveal it underlying motivation (the “why”) (Jackson, 2011). It is important to observe children in a natural milieu because it is so better to see how they act without the parents or other family members are around them. Children act so much differently when they are not around their parents. I can honestly say this because I was a totally different child in certain aspects when I was with childhood friends; we attempted to be grown (disrespecting adults) because our parents were not with us. It is important to watch or observe those social interactions for practical and ethical purposes when observing a child without the parents around them as well as when the parent is present, too.

The next one I choose was clinical interviews. When it comes to clinical interviews, it is conducted one to one. It is asked or starts with a common question. The teacher in the classroom starts probing in a flexible manner to see the reaction of the child to find out what he or she might give for a response. Clinical interviews are deliberately non-standardized because the interviews unfold differently for every student (Ginsburg, 1997). I must clinical interviews are really different from observing a child. In other words, we have to “enter the child’s mind” (Ginsburg, 1997) or find the child’s “voice” or “perspective” (Confrey, 1998).

I feel that naturalistic observation. I think it gives a teacher or anyone the ability to watch a child to see what a child might be doing. I also think clinical interviews does not provide a lot of extra insight to what is behind a child’s thinking or thoughts.

ALEXANDER POST

COLLAPSE

The two research methods I have chosen for this discussion are Naturalistic Observation and Self-Report Questionnaires. These two methods are different in their approach and I have personal experience in both methods. To start with Naturalistic Observation the main benefit is that you are observing in a natural way without disrupting the world. This is especially true in early child development where it is usually easy to observe, and they will behave as they would normally. They lack as much anxiety about being observed and do not fully understand that means. However, this is in an ideal case, and since this observation relies on the natural setting the researcher cannot change the environment. So, if you happen to have a small group of students that are perturbed by a stranger being in the classroom, then the main benefit is negated.

Now with a questionnaire you are relying on the ability for a child to understand the test and accurately self-report. There are possibilities of an adult going through the questions with a child, or if the child is young enough parent reports are a common way of gathering data. This method is easy to implement and can be quite effective at getting data from many participants. The drawbacks are significant in that it does not yield as much data, and any type of questions like this can be answered untruthfully. When I have used this method with adult parents I taught I did receive some great feedback, but also had those that were just mindlessly filled out.

So, I do believe that naturalistic observation is the better way of researching, especially with children. When I have been assessing children, I have had great experiences with having them act as normal in the classroom. If the researcher is comfortable enough to briefly explain to the children what is happening they will probably have no issue. Since I have a good rapport with children I always found it easy to engage with them in a way that made them feel comfortable I was observing. Since this is less intrusive than other methods I believe it is the most practical to implement, as well as has the best chance to yield data that is worthwhile.