Transcript CAUSAL-COMPARATIVE RESEARCH

1
CAUSAL-COMPARATIVE
RESEARCH
LIYANA BT AHMAD AFIP
2010439958
OVERVIEW
2







Description
Characteristics
Procedure
Sample
Data Analysis
Example of topics
Example of research utilizing the methodology
DESCRIPTION
3



It is a quantitative research
To determine the cause or consequences of the
differences that already exist between or among
group of individuals- ‘ex post facto’
One variable is considered as the causal
(independent variable) and one variable is
considered the effect (dependent variable)
CHARACTERISTICS
4

There are three types of causal-comparative
research:
 Exploration
of effects
 Exploration of causes
 Exploration of the consequences


It is an alternative to experimental research
Disadvantage: lack of control over threats to
internal validity
 Lack
of randomization
 Inability to manipulate independent variable
CHARACTERISTICS
5
CAUSAL –COMPARATIVE VS
CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH
CAUSAL COMPARATIVE VS
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
SIMILARITIES:
Both explore relationship among
variables, and after the relationship is
identified, it will then studied by using
experimental research
SIMILARITIES:
Both require at least one categorical
variable (group membership) and
compare the performance t determine
relationship
DIFFERENCES:
Causal- compare two or more groups of
subjects; correlation- require each
variable for each subject
Causal- involve at least one group
membership; correlation- two and more
variables
Causal- compare average /crossbreak
table; correlation-scatterplot
DIFFERENCES:
Causal- no manipulation takes place;
experimental-independent variable is
manipulated
Causal- weaker evidence for causation
than experimental studies
Causal- locate already formed group;
experimental- can create treatment
groups
PROCEDURE
6

Problem formulation


Sample


Define carefully the characteristic to be studied and select
group that differ in this characteristic
Instrumentation


Identify and define particular phenomena of interest and
then to consider possible causes for, or consequences of
these phenomena
No limitation
Design

Involve selecting groups that differ on particular variable of
interest, compare and remember no manipulation!
DATA ANALYSIS
7




Construct frequency polygons
Calculate means and standard deviations
T-test to show differences between means
The result do not prove cause and effect, but only
identifying the relationship
EXAMPLE OF TOPICS
8



The effect of gender on a visual alertness measure
for 6th grade public school pupils
Classroom behavior of good and poor readers
A comparative study of the pre-service teachers’
self-efficacy based on field experience
EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH
9




Author: Talebi, S.H., & Maghsuodi, M.(2008)
Title: Monolingual and Bilingual English Learners in
one Classroom: ‘Who is at a Disadvantage?’
Source: Asian EFL Journal, Volume 10. Issue 3,
Article 10.
Purpose: To investigate how monolingual and
bilingual ESL learners perform on reading
comprehension tests in mixed mono/bilinguality
classrooms
EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH (cont.)
10

Hypotheses:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bilingual and monolingual students differ significantly
in reading comprehension scores
There will be significant interaction between
linguality and proficiency in reading comprehension
scores
Male and female students differ significantly in their
reading comprehension scores
There will be significant interaction between
linguality and gender in reading comprehension
scores
EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH (cont.)
11



Sample: male and female 1st year pre-university
students (157 students, group A- 47 M, 30 F, Mono;
group B, 53 M, 27 F, Bili)
Instrumentations: Language Proficiency test
(NELSON, series 400 B), Test of reading
comprehension in English, Self evaluation proficiency
scale and background questionnaire
Procedure: 3 Phases, refer to handouts
EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH (cont.)
12

Results
1.
2.
3.
Bilingual students had significantly higher score than
monolingual students
There was a significant interaction effect between
linguality and proficiency, where students with high
proficiency and bilingualism had highest scores
The third and forth hypotheses were rejected as
there were no significant differences between
gender as well as for interaction between linguality
and gender.