An Investigation of Educational Studies Conducted with the Solomon Experimental Design: A Thematic Analysis Study

Fulya ZORLU, Yusuf ZORLU

Abstract


The aim of this research investigated to thematic analysis method the studies using Solomon Experimental Design (SED) at the education literature from 1949 to 2016. Within the scope of the research, 24 studies were investigated. These studies were exposed to thematically content analysis via such parameters as the aim of the study, the educational field, sampling, data analysis techniques, learning methods used in the study, Solomon experimental design type and suggestions and recommendation. It seems that there are a limited number of studies made using SDD. In the investigated studies, were used as three groups (1 experiment and 2 control groups), 4 groups (2 experiments and 2 control groups), 5 groups (2 experiments and 3 control groups) and 6 groups (4 experiments and 2 control groups). The studies were made in different levels of education using different learning methods and samples in different educational levels. In the investigation, it used mixed research method in a very small number of studies, and quantitative data collection techniques were used according to the quantitative research approach. In addition, data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and t-tests. By using SSD in experimental studies, the effect of learning methods and techniques could be better investigated.


Keywords


experimental design; research design; Solomon experimental design; thematic analysis method

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)

References


Andrews, K. E., Tressler, K. D. ve Mintzes, J. J. (2008). Assessing environmental understanding: an application of the concept mapping strategy. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 519-536.

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267 doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523

Ayres, J., Hopf, T. ve Will, A. (2000). Are reductions in CA an experimental artifact? A Solomon four-group answer. Communication Quarterly, 48(1), 19-26.

Braver, M. W. ve Braver, S. L. (1988). Statistical treatment of the Solomon four-group design: A meta-analytic approach. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 150-154.

Byrd-Bredbenner, C. ve Bauer, K. (1991). The development and evaluation of computer assisted instruction modules for an introductory, college-level nutrition course. Journal of Nutrition Education, 23(6), 275-283.

Campbell, D. T. ve Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Changeiywo, J. M., Wambugu, P. W. ve Wachanga, S. W. (2011). Investigations of students’ motivation towards learning secondary school physics through mastery learning approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1333-1350.

Chua, Y. P. ve Don, Z. M. (2013). Effects of computer-based educational achievement test on test performance and test takers’ motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1889-1895.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Çalık, M. ve Sözbilir, M. (2014). Parameters of content analysis. Education and Science, 39(174), 33-38.

Çalık, M., Ayas, A. ve Ebenezer, J.V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students’ conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29-50.

Çiltaş, A. (2011). Dizi ve seriler konusunun matematiksel modelleme yoluyla öğretiminin ilköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının öğrenme ve modelleme becerileri üzerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.

Demirsöz, E. S. (2012). Effects of creative drama on metacognitive awareness of the teacher trainees. Creative Drama Journal, 7(14), 63-79.

Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art—so far. Qualitative health research, 13(7), 893-904.

Fraenkel, J. R. ve Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gül, Ş. ve Sözbilir, M. (2015). Thematic content analysis of scale development studies published in the field of science and mathematics education. Education and Science, 40(178), 85-102.

Holdnak, B. J., Clemons, T. C. ve Bushardt, S. C. (1990). Evaluation of organization training by the Solomon four group design: A field study in self-esteem training. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5, 25-32.

Huck, S. W. ve Sandler, H. M. (1973). A note on the Solomon 4-group design: Appropriate statistical analyses. The Journal of Experimental Education, 42(2), 54-55.

Johnson, B. ve Christensen, L. (2014). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. (Çev. Ed. S. B. DEMİR) Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.

Kalafat, J. ve Elias, M. (1994). An evaluation of a school‐based suicide awareness intervention. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 24(3), 224-233.

Karasar, N. (2016). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel.

Keiner, E. ve Hofbauer, S. (2014). EERA and ıts European conferences on educational research: A patchwork of research on European educational research. European Educational Research Journal, 13(4), 504-518.

Kiboss, J. K. (2012). Effects of special e-learning program on hearing-impaired learners' achievement and perceptions of basic geometry in lower primary mathematics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 31-59.

Koçer, T. ve Turgut, Y. (2013). Investigating reading strategy use in EFL environment: Instructors and preparatory class students’ perspectives. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(1), 237-250.

Köksal, M. S. (2013). A comprehensive research design for experimental studies in science education. İlköğretim Online, 12(3), 628-634.

Kvalem, I. L., Sundet, J. M., Rivø, K. I., Eilertsen, D. E. ve Bakketeig, L. S. (1996). The effect of sex education on adolescents' use of condoms: applying the Solomon four-group design. Health Education Quarterly, 23(1), 34-47.

López-Alvarado, J. (2017). Educational research: Educational purposes, the nature of knowledge and ethical ıssues. Online Submission, International Journal of Research and Education (IJRE), 2(1), 1-5.

Moog, R. C, Platt, T., ve White, H. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Moleculer Biology Educaiton, 36(4), 262-273.

Probst, T. M. (2003). Exploring employee outcomes of organizational restructuring: A Solomon four-group study. Group & Organization Management, 28(3), 416-439.

Rowell, J. A. ve Dawson, C. J. (1981). Volume, conservation and instruction: A classroom based Solomon four group study of conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(6), 533-546.

Sawilowsky, S. S. ve Markman, B. S. (1988). Another look at the power of meta-analysis in the solomon four group design. The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), ED 316 556. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1990.71.1.177

Sawilowsky, S., Kelley, D. L., Blair, R. C. ve Markman, B. S. (2010). Meta-analysis and the Solomon four-group design. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(4), 361-376.

Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological bulletin, 46(2), 137-150.

Sönmez, V. ve Alacapınar, F. G. (2016). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı.

Sönmez, V. (2005). Bilimsel araştırmalarda yapılan yanlışlıklar. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18, 150-170.

Uludağ, A. K. (2016). A chord programming model designed for Turkish Music Polyphony subject and its effectiveness le-vel. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(2), 2563-2576.

Walsh, D. ve Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of advanced nur-sing, 50(2), 204-211.

Weinrich, S. P., Seger, R., Curtsinger, T., Pumphrey, G., NeSmith, E.G. ve Weinrich, M. C. (2007). Impact of pretest on posttest knowledge scores with a Solomon four research design. Cancer Nursing, 30, 16-28.

Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C. ve Alonso, A. (2008). The susceptibility of a mixed model measure of emotional intelligence to faking: a Solomon four-group design. Psychology Science, 50(1), 44.

Yavuz, S. ve Yağlı, Ü. (2013). The effect of brain based learning approach to academic achievement and attitude in english course. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1), 94-111.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3188

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


indexed by TR-DİZİN, DOAJ, SOBİAD

 


Creative Commons License  
 Kastamonu Eğitim'de yayınlanan tüm içerik ve makaleler "Creative Commons Alıntı 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı" ile lisanslanmıştır.