Advertisement

Quantitative Modelling of Experimental Data in Educational Research: Current Practice and Future Possibilities

  • Paul GinnsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Methodos Series book series (METH, volume 9)

Abstract

Quantitative modelling using correlational data supports the testing of complex educational theories, but causal theoretical claims can be made on the basis of cor-relational relations only under quite specific circumstances. This chapter examines the role of experimental methodologies in education, and how such methodologies might complement both quantitative and qualitative alternatives. Beginning with a review of the threats to validity of results of different experimental designs, it dis-cusses the role that experiments may play in understanding causal relations. The potential range of the methodology in addressing educational design and policy questions is considered, along with alternatives such as quasi-experiments and propensity score matching. In common with correlational studies, the generalis-ability of results across experimental studies is a concern for theorists and policy makers, leading to a consideration of meta-analysis. The chapter concludes with consideration of contemporary areas of educational policy and practice which might benefit from experimental investigation.

References

  1. 3P Learning (2009). Mathletics (on-line mathematics tutoring programme). Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://www.mathletics.com.au/
  2. AERA (2008). Definition of scientifically based research. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://aera.net/uploadedFiles/Opportunities/DefinitionofScientificallyBasedResearch.pdf
  3. American Psychological Association (APA). (2001). Publication manual of the American psychological association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. H. (2001). Empirical direction in design and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Bird, K. D. (2004). Analysis of variance via confidence intervals. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  8. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, R. A. (1935). Design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
  10. Frishkoff, G., White, G., & Perfetti, C. (2009). ‘In vivo’ testing of learning and instructional principles: The design and implementation of school-based experimentation. In L. Dinella (Ed.), Conducting science-based psychology research in schools. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, J. M. (2008). The general linear model as structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Kember, D. (2003). To control or not to control: The question of whether experimental designs are appropriate for evaluating teaching innovations in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 89–101.Google Scholar
  16. Keselman, H. J., Algina, J., Lix, L. M., Wilcox, R. R., & Deering, K. (2008). A generally robust approach for testing hypotheses and setting confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychological Methods, 13, 110–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, A. J. (2006). Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 803–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W., & Shavelson, R. (2007). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  22. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Schweizer, K. (2008). Investigating experimental effects within the framework of structural equation modeling: An example with effects on both error scores and reaction times. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shadish, W. R., & Cook, T. D. (2009). The renaissance of field experimentation in evaluating interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spybrook, J. (2008). Power, sample size, and design. In A. A. O’Connell & D. B McCoach (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Wilcox, R. R. (2003). Applying contemporary statistical techniques. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations