UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Education
⋄
Research Paradigms: Survey, Action
Research, Discourse Analysis and
Quasi-Experimental Design
Learning Unit 3 — Assignment 3, 2026
⋄
Module Code: RSE4801
Module Name: Research in Education
Assignment No.: Assignment 3
Open Date: Friday, 17 July 2026
Due Date: Friday, 14 August 2026
Referencing Style: APA
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for RSE4801
at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
Contents
1 Question 1: A Survey of Learner Perceptions of School Discipline 3
1.1 1.1 What a Research Paradigm Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 1.2 The Four Pillars of a Research Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 1.3 Positivism and Interpretivism Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 1.4 Discipline in Schools: Context and Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 1.5 Survey Research: Data Generation and Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 1.6 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7 1.7 Likert Scale: Learner Perceptions of School Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.8 1.8 Critical Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Question 2: Action Research on Classroom Questioning Techniques 9
2.1 2.1 The Role of Questioning in Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 2.2 Methodology versus Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 2.3 Action Research and the Action Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 2.4 Using Action Research to Improve Questioning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 2.5 Value of Action Research for Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Question 3: Critical Discourse Analysis of Indigenous Knowledges in School Textbooks 14
3.1 3.1 Indigenous Knowledges in South African Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 3.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 3.3 Selection of Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 3.4 Critical Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.1 3.4.1 Basic Assumptions and Key Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.2 3.4.2 Paradigms Relevant to Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Page 1 of 30
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
3.4.3 3.4.3 Postmodernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.4 3.4.4 Coloniality and Decoloniality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.5 3.4.5 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 3.5 Value of CDA for This Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Question 4: Quasi-Experimental Research and Foundational Concepts in Research Paradigms 21
4.1 4.1 Central Features of Quasi-Experimental Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.1 Constructed Example: Two-Group Nonequivalent Control Group Design . 21
4.1.2 Reflection on the Value of Quasi-Experimental Research . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2 4.2 Foundational Concepts Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.1 4.2.1 Worldview, Paradigm, and the Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.2 4.2.2 The Established Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.3 4.2.3 Postmodernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.4 4.2.4 Coloniality and Decoloniality Extended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Reference List 29
Page 2 of 30
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
Question 1: A Survey of Learner Perceptions of School Discipline
A survey of how learners experience discipline at school does not start with a questionnaire.
It starts with a set of philosophical commitments about what discipline is, whose perception
of it counts as knowledge, and how that knowledge can be captured. Those commitments
are what a research paradigm supplies.
1.1 What a Research Paradigm Is
A research paradigm is a coherent set of beliefs about the nature of reality and the nature
of knowledge that guides how a researcher frames a problem, collects information, and in-
terprets it. Guba and Lincoln (1994) define a paradigm as a basic belief system grounded in
ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions, and Lincoln and Guba (1985)
treat these assumptions, together with axiology, as the four elements that make the concept
usable in research practice. A paradigm therefore functions less like a single opinion and
more like a lens: it does not just colour what the researcher sees, it determines what counts
as visible in the first place.
In a survey of learner perceptions of discipline, the paradigm chosen shapes at least five
specific aspects of the study. First, it shapes the formulation of the research problem itself:
a positivist framing treats discipline as a measurable variable linked to outcomes such as
attendance or academic performance, while an interpretivist framing treats it as a meaning
constructed differently by different learners. Second, it shapes the choice of research de-
sign, in this case a structured survey rather than, for instance, an ethnographic study. Third,
it shapes the selection of data-collection instruments; a paradigm committed to measurable,
comparable data leads to a closed, Likert-type questionnaire rather than open, unstructured
interviews. Fourth, it shapes the sampling strategy, since a positivist-leaning survey favours
probability sampling to support generalisation, whereas an interpretivist study favours pur-
posive sampling to capture depth of meaning. Fifth, it shapes the criteria used to judge the
quality of the findings: validity and reliability in a positivist survey, versus trustworthiness,
credibility, and researcher reflexivity in an interpretivist study.
Page 3 of 30
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
1.2 The Four Pillars of a Research Paradigm
Every paradigm rests on four interrelated pillars: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and
axiology (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Ontology is the pillar concerned with the nature of reality. It asks whether reality exists in-
dependently of the observer, as a single, fixed truth, or whether it is constructed through the
minds and interactions of the people who live it (Guba, 1990). For a study of school disci-
pline, an ontological commitment to a single, measurable reality treats "discipline problems"
as objective incidents that can be counted; a relativist ontology treats discipline as a social
construction that varies with each learner’s experience of authority and fairness.
Epistemology is the pillar concerned with the relationship between the knower and the known,
and with what counts as acceptable knowledge. A dualist, objectivist epistemology assumes
the researcher can study learners’ views from a distance without influencing them; a sub-
jectivist, transactional epistemology assumes that knowledge of learners’ perceptions is co-
created through the interaction between researcher and respondent (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Methodology is the pillar concerned with how the researcher goes about producing knowl-
edge within the ontological and epistemological commitments already made. It answers the
question of process: experimental and manipulative methodology on one end of the spec-
trum, dialogic and interpretive methodology on the other (Guba, 1990).
Axiology is the pillar concerned with values and ethics in the research process, including
whose values count, how the researcher’s own position is acknowledged, and how partici-
pants are treated. Axiology ranges from a claim of value-freedom in strict positivist work to
an explicitly value-laden, participant-respecting stance in interpretivist and transformative
work (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).
1.3 Positivism and Interpretivism Compared
1.4 Discipline in Schools: Context and Experience
Discipline in South African schools has been a persistent site of tension since the constitu-
tional prohibition of corporal punishment under the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. Re-
search shows that many teachers report feeling under-equipped to manage classrooms with-
out the disciplinary tool they once relied on, while cases of disruption, disrespect for authority,
Page 4 of 30
, UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
Ontology
Epistemology
Nature of reality: sin-
Relationship between
gle and fixed, or multi-
knower and known
ple and constructed?
Paradigm
Methodology Axiology
Process used to gen- Role of values and
erate knowledge ethics in the research
Figure 1: The four pillars of a research paradigm (adapted from Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
Table 1: Positivist paradigm versus interpretivist paradigm
Aspect Positivist Paradigm Interpretivist Paradigm
Ontology Naive realism: one objective Relativism: multiple, socially
reality exists independently of the constructed realities exist
observer
Epistemology Objectivist and dualist; re- Subjectivist; knowledge is co-
searcher and respondent are created between researcher and
separate participant
Methodology Experimental, quantitative, Dialogic, qualitative, hermeneutic,
hypothesis-testing, structured unstructured or semi-structured
instruments methods
Axiology Value-free; researcher bias is Value-laden; researcher’s position
minimised or controlled is acknowledged and reflected
upon
Aim Explanation, prediction, and gen- Understanding, meaning, and
eralisation depth in a specific context
Typical instrument Closed Likert-scale questionnaire Semi-structured interviews or
for this study administered to a large, represen- focus groups with a small, purpo-
tative sample sively selected sample
and even violence have been reported in several provinces (Obadire & Sinthumule, 2021).
In my own context, the removal of corporal punishment coincided with overcrowded class-
rooms and limited training in alternative behaviour-management strategies, which left many
educators applying inconsistent, ad hoc responses to misbehaviour. Learners, in turn, often
experience the resulting disciplinary measures, from detention to exclusion from class, as
arbitrary rather than fair, which erodes trust between learners and staff. This tension between
learners’ right to dignity and educators’ need to maintain an orderly learning environment is
precisely why establishing learners’ own perceptions of discipline, rather than assuming what
those perceptions are, matters for any school seeking to redesign its code of conduct.
Page 5 of 30
College of Education
⋄
Research Paradigms: Survey, Action
Research, Discourse Analysis and
Quasi-Experimental Design
Learning Unit 3 — Assignment 3, 2026
⋄
Module Code: RSE4801
Module Name: Research in Education
Assignment No.: Assignment 3
Open Date: Friday, 17 July 2026
Due Date: Friday, 14 August 2026
Referencing Style: APA
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for RSE4801
at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
Contents
1 Question 1: A Survey of Learner Perceptions of School Discipline 3
1.1 1.1 What a Research Paradigm Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 1.2 The Four Pillars of a Research Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 1.3 Positivism and Interpretivism Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 1.4 Discipline in Schools: Context and Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 1.5 Survey Research: Data Generation and Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 1.6 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7 1.7 Likert Scale: Learner Perceptions of School Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.8 1.8 Critical Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Question 2: Action Research on Classroom Questioning Techniques 9
2.1 2.1 The Role of Questioning in Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 2.2 Methodology versus Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 2.3 Action Research and the Action Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 2.4 Using Action Research to Improve Questioning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 2.5 Value of Action Research for Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Question 3: Critical Discourse Analysis of Indigenous Knowledges in School Textbooks 14
3.1 3.1 Indigenous Knowledges in South African Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 3.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 3.3 Selection of Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 3.4 Critical Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.1 3.4.1 Basic Assumptions and Key Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.2 3.4.2 Paradigms Relevant to Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Page 1 of 30
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
3.4.3 3.4.3 Postmodernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.4 3.4.4 Coloniality and Decoloniality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.5 3.4.5 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 3.5 Value of CDA for This Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Question 4: Quasi-Experimental Research and Foundational Concepts in Research Paradigms 21
4.1 4.1 Central Features of Quasi-Experimental Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.1 Constructed Example: Two-Group Nonequivalent Control Group Design . 21
4.1.2 Reflection on the Value of Quasi-Experimental Research . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2 4.2 Foundational Concepts Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.1 4.2.1 Worldview, Paradigm, and the Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.2 4.2.2 The Established Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.3 4.2.3 Postmodernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.4 4.2.4 Coloniality and Decoloniality Extended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Reference List 29
Page 2 of 30
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
Question 1: A Survey of Learner Perceptions of School Discipline
A survey of how learners experience discipline at school does not start with a questionnaire.
It starts with a set of philosophical commitments about what discipline is, whose perception
of it counts as knowledge, and how that knowledge can be captured. Those commitments
are what a research paradigm supplies.
1.1 What a Research Paradigm Is
A research paradigm is a coherent set of beliefs about the nature of reality and the nature
of knowledge that guides how a researcher frames a problem, collects information, and in-
terprets it. Guba and Lincoln (1994) define a paradigm as a basic belief system grounded in
ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions, and Lincoln and Guba (1985)
treat these assumptions, together with axiology, as the four elements that make the concept
usable in research practice. A paradigm therefore functions less like a single opinion and
more like a lens: it does not just colour what the researcher sees, it determines what counts
as visible in the first place.
In a survey of learner perceptions of discipline, the paradigm chosen shapes at least five
specific aspects of the study. First, it shapes the formulation of the research problem itself:
a positivist framing treats discipline as a measurable variable linked to outcomes such as
attendance or academic performance, while an interpretivist framing treats it as a meaning
constructed differently by different learners. Second, it shapes the choice of research de-
sign, in this case a structured survey rather than, for instance, an ethnographic study. Third,
it shapes the selection of data-collection instruments; a paradigm committed to measurable,
comparable data leads to a closed, Likert-type questionnaire rather than open, unstructured
interviews. Fourth, it shapes the sampling strategy, since a positivist-leaning survey favours
probability sampling to support generalisation, whereas an interpretivist study favours pur-
posive sampling to capture depth of meaning. Fifth, it shapes the criteria used to judge the
quality of the findings: validity and reliability in a positivist survey, versus trustworthiness,
credibility, and researcher reflexivity in an interpretivist study.
Page 3 of 30
,UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
1.2 The Four Pillars of a Research Paradigm
Every paradigm rests on four interrelated pillars: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and
axiology (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Ontology is the pillar concerned with the nature of reality. It asks whether reality exists in-
dependently of the observer, as a single, fixed truth, or whether it is constructed through the
minds and interactions of the people who live it (Guba, 1990). For a study of school disci-
pline, an ontological commitment to a single, measurable reality treats "discipline problems"
as objective incidents that can be counted; a relativist ontology treats discipline as a social
construction that varies with each learner’s experience of authority and fairness.
Epistemology is the pillar concerned with the relationship between the knower and the known,
and with what counts as acceptable knowledge. A dualist, objectivist epistemology assumes
the researcher can study learners’ views from a distance without influencing them; a sub-
jectivist, transactional epistemology assumes that knowledge of learners’ perceptions is co-
created through the interaction between researcher and respondent (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Methodology is the pillar concerned with how the researcher goes about producing knowl-
edge within the ontological and epistemological commitments already made. It answers the
question of process: experimental and manipulative methodology on one end of the spec-
trum, dialogic and interpretive methodology on the other (Guba, 1990).
Axiology is the pillar concerned with values and ethics in the research process, including
whose values count, how the researcher’s own position is acknowledged, and how partici-
pants are treated. Axiology ranges from a claim of value-freedom in strict positivist work to
an explicitly value-laden, participant-respecting stance in interpretivist and transformative
work (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).
1.3 Positivism and Interpretivism Compared
1.4 Discipline in Schools: Context and Experience
Discipline in South African schools has been a persistent site of tension since the constitu-
tional prohibition of corporal punishment under the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. Re-
search shows that many teachers report feeling under-equipped to manage classrooms with-
out the disciplinary tool they once relied on, while cases of disruption, disrespect for authority,
Page 4 of 30
, UNISA | RSE4801 Research Paradigms — Assignment 3
Ontology
Epistemology
Nature of reality: sin-
Relationship between
gle and fixed, or multi-
knower and known
ple and constructed?
Paradigm
Methodology Axiology
Process used to gen- Role of values and
erate knowledge ethics in the research
Figure 1: The four pillars of a research paradigm (adapted from Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
Table 1: Positivist paradigm versus interpretivist paradigm
Aspect Positivist Paradigm Interpretivist Paradigm
Ontology Naive realism: one objective Relativism: multiple, socially
reality exists independently of the constructed realities exist
observer
Epistemology Objectivist and dualist; re- Subjectivist; knowledge is co-
searcher and respondent are created between researcher and
separate participant
Methodology Experimental, quantitative, Dialogic, qualitative, hermeneutic,
hypothesis-testing, structured unstructured or semi-structured
instruments methods
Axiology Value-free; researcher bias is Value-laden; researcher’s position
minimised or controlled is acknowledged and reflected
upon
Aim Explanation, prediction, and gen- Understanding, meaning, and
eralisation depth in a specific context
Typical instrument Closed Likert-scale questionnaire Semi-structured interviews or
for this study administered to a large, represen- focus groups with a small, purpo-
tative sample sively selected sample
and even violence have been reported in several provinces (Obadire & Sinthumule, 2021).
In my own context, the removal of corporal punishment coincided with overcrowded class-
rooms and limited training in alternative behaviour-management strategies, which left many
educators applying inconsistent, ad hoc responses to misbehaviour. Learners, in turn, often
experience the resulting disciplinary measures, from detention to exclusion from class, as
arbitrary rather than fair, which erodes trust between learners and staff. This tension between
learners’ right to dignity and educators’ need to maintain an orderly learning environment is
precisely why establishing learners’ own perceptions of discipline, rather than assuming what
those perceptions are, matters for any school seeking to redesign its code of conduct.
Page 5 of 30
