CAUSAL-COMPARATIVE RESEARCH LIYANA BT AHMAD AFIP

OVERVIEW  Description  Characteristics  Procedure  Sample  Data Analysis  Example of topics  Example of research utilizing the methodology 2

DESCRIPTION  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) 3

CHARACTERISTICS  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 4

CHARACTERISTICS 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 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 SIMILARITIES: Both require at least one categorical variable (group membership) and compare the performance t determine relationship 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 5

PROCEDURE  Problem formulation  Identify and define particular phenomena of interest and then to consider possible causes for, or consequences of these phenomena  Sample  Define carefully the characteristic to be studied and select group that differ in this characteristic  Instrumentation  No limitation  Design  Involve selecting groups that differ on particular variable of interest, compare and remember no manipulation! 6

DATA ANALYSIS  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 7

EXAMPLE OF TOPICS  The effect of gender on a visual alertness measure for 6 th 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 8

EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH  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 9

EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH (cont.)  Hypotheses: 1. Bilingual and monolingual students differ significantly in reading comprehension scores 2. There will be significant interaction between linguality and proficiency in reading comprehension scores 3. Male and female students differ significantly in their reading comprehension scores 4. There will be significant interaction between linguality and gender in reading comprehension scores 10

EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH (cont.)  Sample: male and female 1 st 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 11

EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH (cont.)  Results 1. Bilingual students had significantly higher score than monolingual students 2. There was a significant interaction effect between linguality and proficiency, where students with high proficiency and bilingualism had highest scores 3. The third and forth hypotheses were rejected as there were no significant differences between gender as well as for interaction between linguality and gender. 12