The ontology of this study is the belief that hypotheses can be clearly reached and that an educational project can be proven effective and be a model for best practices in pedagogy. All the research seeks to prove the research questions and hypotheses, pointing to an objectivist epistemology, that the findings are without a doubt true. A noted challenge is joined with simple and viable solutions and although discussed in the article, issues do not seem to affect the positive outcomes of the program. The authors write, “Although problems can exist with the use of simulations, the benefits, especially in the case of INMP, far outweigh the drawbacks.” (Raby, 2012). This research indicates an underlying belief that through quantitative and qualitative research, clear conclusions can be realized.

With a positivism paradigm, there is little expression of the authors’ feelings toward the project except the underlying assumption that international awareness is necessary for all students. They state that this global-mindedness should be spread across all disciplines and be permeated throughout the curriculum.

(b)How is the INMP an innovative approach to teaching and learning at the community college?

(c)What are the noted links between the INMP and faculty development? 

2004: Faculty members who had been part of the project aided in the development of learning objectives for future practice in the program, but in the article all that is stated is, “basic elements of evaluation, traditional and nontraditional, were developed.” (Raby, 2011). 

2005-2011: The only information given is that these informal evaluations were directed toward student success.

Interpretivism was superficially included during the second series of research in 1999. The methodology was manipulative, sought to verify the hypothesis, and used primarily quantitative methods.Prior to this research from 1995-1998, evaluation was focused on student outcomes and quantitative data, but when Raby and her colleagues took over, they looked at faculty-perceived success and pedagogical growth. This included Raby and Kaufman holding the informal group discussions themselves, which is not typical in a positivist paradigm. However, this was not exactly an open dialogue because of the prescriptive set of questions that could be replicated, thus returning to a positivist approach. Feelings and opinions were included in questions during qualitative observation but this is because they were deemed measureable by the researchers.

Another possible aspect of Interpretivism was the desire to apply this knowledge across disciplines to contribute to pedagogy in general, however authors worded this in way that was trying to prove INMP’s worthiness as revolutionary in pedagogy, which goes back to positivism and the underlying ontology and epistemology.