Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Research Article

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026): International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research

A Review of Modern Educational Methodologies

DOI
https://doi.org/10.65231/ijmr.v2i2.146
Submitted
March 9, 2026
Published
2026-03-09

Abstract

Methodological concepts are fundamental issues in educational research, concerning the scientific status and research quality of the discipline. This article, from a meta-educational perspective, systematically explores the connotations, historical shifts, and core characteristics of modern educational methodology. The study argues that modern educational methodology comprises three levels: philosophical foundation, logical strategy, and technical tools. Historically, it has undergone significant shifts, from imitating natural sciences to returning to the lived world, from pursuing grand narratives to focusing on micro-contexts, and from emphasizing disciplinary independence to moving towards interdisciplinary integration. It exhibits core characteristics such as pluralistic inclusiveness, reflective critical thinking, and practical generative nature. Faced with technological change and the demands of localization, educational methodology needs to construct a new paradigm that responds to the challenges of our time, guided by complex thinking.

References

  1. Chen, X. (2000). Zhi de yanjiu fangfa yu shehui kexue yanjiu [Qualitative research methods and social science research]. Educational Science Publishing House.
  2. Descartes, R. (2017). Tan tan fangfa [Discourse on method] (T. Wang, Trans.). Commercial Press. (Original work published 1637)
  3. Jin, S. (1997). Lijie yu jiaoyu: Zouxiang zhexue jieshixue de jiaoyu zhexue daolun [Understanding and education: An introduction to educational philosophy from the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics]. Educational Science Publishing House.
  4. Kant, I. (2022). Chuncui lixing pipan [Critique of pure reason] (L. Han, Trans.). Commercial Press. (Original work published 1781)
  5. Liu, F., & Liu, Y. (2026). Artificial intelligence and educational transformation: The reconstruction of ontology [Rengong zhineng yu jiaoyu biange: Benti lun de chonggou]. Chinese Journal of Education, (2), 1–8.
  6. Pei, D. (1995). Jiaoyu yanjiu fangfa daolun [Introduction to educational research methods]. Anhui Education Press.
  7. Sun, B. (2024). The current landscape and development trends of educational research paradigms in China [Woguo jiaoyu yanjiu fanshi de xianshi tujing yu fazhan qushi]. Science and Technology of Chinese Universities, (7), 7–13.
  8. Tian, X. (2010). Mixed research methods and their application in educational research [Hunhe yanjiu fangfa ji qi zai jiaoyu yanjiu zhong de yingyong]. Educational Research, (5), 45–50.
  9. Wang, C., Yan, M., Dong, H., & Marsh, H. W. (2025). The triple “addition” of innovation in educational research methods: Problems+methods, theory+data, technology+collaboration—An interview with Professor Herb Marsh, winner of the first “Global Educational Research Methods Innovation Award” [Jiaoyu yanjiu fangfa chuangxin de sanchong “jiafa”: Wenti+fangfa, lilun+shuju, jishu+xiezuo—Zhuanfang shoujie “Quanqiu jiaoyu yanjiu fangfa chuangxin jiang” huodezhe Herb Marsh jiaoshou]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 43(10), 1–9.
  10. Wang, P., & Wu, Z. (2025). “Taking China as method”: Achievements, dilemmas, and prospects of the development of qualitative research paradigms in Chinese education [“Yi Zhongguo wei fangfa”: Woguo jiaoyu zhi xing yanjiu fanshi fazhan de chengjiu, kunjing yu zhanwang]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Education, (5), 34–47.
  11. Wu, D. (2025). Thought: The “method” beyond research methods—Reflections on the autonomous knowledge system and research methods of pedagogy [Sixiang: Chaoyue yanjiu fangfa de “fangfa”—Guanyu jiaoyu xue zizhu zhishi tixi ji yanjiu fangfa de sikao]. Chongqing Higher Education Research, (6), 1–12.
  12. Ye, L. (1999). Jiaoyu yanjiu fangfa lun chutan [A preliminary exploration of educational research methodology]. Shanghai Education Press.
  13. Zhang, Y., Liu, H., & Shi, Z. (2021). The systemic paradigm aiming at the improvement of educational practice: Crisis and reconstruction of mainstream educational research paradigms [Zhi xiang jiaoyu shijian gaijin de xitong fanshi—Zhuliu jiaoyu yanjiu fanshi de weiji yu chonggou]. Research on Education Tsinghua University, (4), 1–12.
  14. Benner, D. (1987). Allgemeine Pädagogik: Eine systematisch-problemgeschichtliche Einführung in die Grundstruktur pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns. Juventa.
  15. Biesta, G. (2020). Educational research: An unorthodox introduction. Bloomsbury.
  16. Biesta, G. (2021). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.
  17. Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Les Éditions de Minuit.
  18. Brezinka, W. (1971). Von der Pädagogik zur Erziehungswissenschaft: Eine Einführung in die Metatheorie der Erziehung. Beltz.
  19. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Rand McNally.
  20. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2023). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
  21. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
  22. Dilthey, W. (1883). Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften. Duncker & Humblot.
  23. Durkheim, É. (1922). Éducation et sociologie. Alcan.
  24. Hamid, S. (2025). A critical review of educational research methodologies: Approaches, applications, and implications. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 9(2), 138–150.
  25. Herbart, J. F. (1806). Allgemeine Pädagogik aus dem Zweck der Erziehung abgeleitet. Johann Friedrich Röwer.
  26. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  27. Maxwell, J. A. (2021). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(5), 532–544.
  28. Norris, T. (2024). “But what should I do in my methodology chapter?” Promoting philosophy as legitimate educational research. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 31(3), 202–217.
  29. Pasikowski, S. (2025). Meta-analysis for supporting empirical theories in educational sciences. Wychowanie, 20, 5–18.
  30. Popkewitz, T. S. (2020). The paradox of social science research: Social sciences as a style of reasoning. European Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 267–285.
  31. Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Zed Books.
  32. Spranger, E. (1920). Lebensformen: Geisteswissenschaftliche Psychologie und Ethik der Persönlichkeit. Niemeyer.
  33. Thomas, G. (2022). How to do your research project: A guide for students (4th ed.). Sage.
  34. Thorndike, E. L. (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. Teachers College, Columbia University.
  35. Zhao, Y., Kingston, N., & Ginsberg, R. (2025). The death and rebirth of research in education in the age of AI: Problems and promises. Educational Researcher, 54(2), 89–102.