WEEK2 DIS

Guided Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful interactive discourse in this discussion. 

After reading your colleague’s null and research hypotheses, do you feel that these accurately respond to the scenario? Please provide a rationale for your agreement or disagreement. Evaluate your colleague’s proposed research design and explain whether or not you agree with the research design chosen providing a brief rationale for your opinion citing the resources as necessary. What potential threats to internal validity do you see that your colleague has not identified? Consider the ethical implications your colleague has described and identify any other potential threats to external validity your colleague has not mentioned. Recommend potential solutions to the areas of both internal and external validity in the research design proposed by your colleague.

Response 1

In this scenario, three teachers conduct an experiment to see whether improving students' motivation boosts their active engagement in conversations. Each teacher divides the 45 student participants into two groups. The first is the no-intervention group, generally known as the control group, and the second is the intervention receiver. Using a random number generator, we split the anonymous data from the dependent variable into thirds, with one receiving the intervention and the other two not. An instructional intervention or a digital badge is the independent variable. The three instructors may analyze the varied group performances and pick the top performing group to reach a reasonable conclusion (Holt, 2012).

When a question is posed in the area of psychology, the objective is to discover if an outcome is a consequence of the independent variable, the ineffectiveness of the treatment, or random chance. For instance, the argument that coaching improves student performance does not automatically indicate that the improvement would be precise. All degrees of progress have a distinct potential associated with them, and specifying the possibility of all anticipated outcomes that support the hypothesis may be time-consuming and effort-intensive. To begin, it is critical to comprehend the logic and significance of a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a notion or collection of assumptions that may be evaluated and reveals the study's purpose. For the purpose of this intervention, my working hypothesis is that there will be no discernible difference between the students who do not get any intervention and those who do participate in an experimental intervention (O’Donohue, 2020). Random sampling will be used in an appropriate experiment design to identify who will or will not participate in the research (Anderson, Burnham & Thompson, 2000).

The internal as well as external dangers that might impact the experimental intervention's effects are vital to consider. The first, splitting groups, do not provide sufficient material on maturation, such as health concerns or age. The types of effects that have been received are similarly poorly characterized. Another internal hazard is that a participant may decide to leave the experimental research because of conflicts with other participants or instructors. Finally, faults in the instruments being utilized might pose an external hazard since they can skew the findings (Greco, 2013).

In experimental research, ethical difficulties are likely to develop, particularly when working with human participants. The most essential ethical problem when it comes to human participants is informed consent. A consent that is informed seeks to incorporate the rights of participants by minimizing assaults on the patient's integrity and safeguarding the patient's freedom and sincerity. The instructors must provide informed and unrestricted permission, which includes an introduction, the study's aim, a description of the research participants, and the procedures to be followed. When working with people of different cultures, religions, or ages who need translation or a simplified language, there may be ethical problems.

Lastly, the null hypothesis and the research hypothesis don't really rule each other out. The null hypothesis says that there isn't a big difference between participants in an experiment who get a treatment and those who don't. The main motivation of the research hypothesis is on the predictor variables (interventions) to see if improving students more motivated leads to more active conversations.

 

 

 

References

Holt, R. (2012). Ethical research practice. Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges, 90-108.

O’Donohue, W. (2020). Criticisms of the Ethical principles for psychologists and code of conduct. Ethics & Behavior, 30(4), 275-293.

Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., & Thompson, W. L. (2000). Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. The journal of wildlife management, 912-923.

Greco, P. M. (2013). Informed consent or informed refusal?. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 143(5), 598.

 

Response 2

The scenario that was present was an experiment in which three instructors tested the hypothesis that improving students' motivation increases their active participation in discussions. Forty-five student participants are divided into two groups per instructor. The total of students who participated was 270 total. Each instructor had 90 students in their study. “Research methods are therefore viewed as important tools used by researchers to collect data." (Scholtz et al. 2020) When developing a null and a research hypothesis based on the scenario. With the null hypothesis, there will be no change in the student’s motivation or procrastination level regardless of an incentive. Research Hypothesis, there will be an increase in the student's motivation and a decrease in the student’s procrastination because an incentive is given—different experimental research designs. “Experimental analysis methods can directly test hypotheses about when or why a student engages in challenging behavior." (Lloyd et al., 2021). Students are assigned randomly to a control group with no intervention or an experimental group. Intervention is offered in the form of digital badges or changes in instructions for the guided response. They had decided to use the week four discussion post. It was discovered how many students responded with more than two lines of text.  There is no experiment intervention, also referred to as the intervention's control group and the receiver. Anonymous data-dependent variable is pooled into three sections receiving the intervention and the control group receiving no experimental intervention. The independent variable could be either an instructional intervention or a digital badge. To conclude, the three instructors can compare the different group performances and choose the best performing.

Ethically the instructors need to get the students to sign a consent for the study. Also, ensure their rights are protected and that no students are harmed. They also need to be aware of the cultural differences among the group participants. “Contemplate a distinction between procedural and virtue ethics in community-based research, explore colonizing research practices, and endeavor to reconcile an instance where the values of community psychology appeared in the contest." (Dzidic & Bishop 2017)

Reference:

Dzidic, P., & Bishop, B. (2017). How Do Our Values Inform Ethical Research? A Narrative of Recognizing Colonizing Practices. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(3–4), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12197 (Links to an external site.)

Lloyd, B. P., Torelli, J. N., & Pollack, M. S. (2021). Practitioner Perspectives on Hypothesis Testing Strategies in the Context of Functional Behavior Assessment. Journal of Behavioral Education, 30(3), 417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09384-4 (Links to an external site.)

Scholtz, S. E., de Klerk, W., & de Beer, L. T. (2020). The Use of Research Methods in Psychological Research: A Systematised Review. Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.00001 (Links to an external site.)

Skidmore, S. (2008). Experimental design and some threats to experimental validity: A primer (Links to an external site.). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, February 6, 2008). Retrieved from the ERIC database in the Ashford University Library.