Selection, Generalization, and Theories of Cause in Case-Oriented Physics Education Research

TL;DR

This paper examines the distinct practices and rigor of case-oriented physics education research, contrasting it with recurrence-oriented methods to clarify their unique contributions and limitations.

Contribution

It provides an analysis of how case-oriented PER develops and generalizes theories, highlighting differences in rigor and methodology compared to recurrence-oriented PER.

Findings

Case-oriented PER links theory to specific cases for theory refinement.

Both paradigms are rigorous but differ in their approach and validation.

Researchers should understand these differences to better engage with both methods.

Abstract

Case-oriented physics education research - which seeks to refine and develop theory by linking that theory to cases - incorporates distinct practices for selecting data for analysis, generalizing results, and making causal claims. Unanswered questions about these practices may constrain researchers more familiar with the recurrence-oriented research paradigm - which seeks to inform instructional predictions by discerning reproducible, representative patterns and relationships - from participating in or critically engaging with case-oriented research. We use results from interviews with physics education researchers, a synthesis of the literature on research methodologies, and published examples of case-oriented and recurrence-oriented research to answer "hard-hitting questions" that researchers may pose. In doing so, we aim to substantiate our position that both case-oriented and recurrence- oriented PER are rigorous but that the rigor is of a different nature in each paradigm.