Compare and contrast two articles

Compare and Contrast Name: Institutional affiliation: Course: Date: Introduction Two distinct approaches have emerged in the recent past to help address the challenges experienced in the special needs education sector namely traditional research and action research. While traditional research is majorly founded on theoretical input, action research puts more effort into actionable input. This essay compares and contrasts two articles: “Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development: Action Research for Inclusion and Special Educational Needs and Disability” by Codina & Robinson and “Special Education Funding and Teacher Turnover” by Stock & Carriere (2021). In their article, Codina & Robinson (2021) explore the efficacy of Action Research for inclusion, whereas Stock & Carriere (2021) explore whether census funding impacts teacher specialty, teacher turnover, average class size, and special education enrollment. Through the comparison and contrast attention is given to key dimensions of the research process in both articles, data collection and analysis, similarities and differences between action research and traditional research, strengths, and limitations of the study Discussion of Key Dimensions of the Research Process One common similarity between the two articles is the common field of study, special education, but despite the common field, both articles adopt different research methodologies. Stock & Carriere (2021 adopts a quantitative research methodology alongside an extensive systematic review of the literature to provide a detailed analysis and assessment of the existing census funding model in special needs education. Codina & Robinson (2024) on the other hand have adopted an action research methodology where the involvement of the stakeholders in the formulation of solutions for special needs learning environments is crucial. With reference to the literature review, Stock & Carriere (2021) provides a detailed review of the literature to establish effective interventions for children with learning disabilities. Similarly, Codina & Robinson (2024) employ both scholarly findings and practitioners’ first-hand experiences to seek to understand the existence of inclusion. This kind of approach helped Codina & Robinson (2024) collect more varied viewpoints and information that may not be available in scholarly sources. Data Collection and Analysis The approaches to data collection and analysis also differ between the two articles. Stock & Carriere (2021) use quantitative methods such as...