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

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4, 1623 - 1636, 15.07.2019

Fulya Zorlu Yusuf Zorlu

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

Cited By: 1

Öz

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, SED type and suggestions and recommendation.
It seems that there are a limited number of studies
made using SED. 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 SED in experimental studies,
the effect of learning methods and techniques could be better investigated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

experimental design, research design, Solomon experimental design, thematic analysis method

Eğitim Alanında Solomon Deneysel Deseni ile Gerçekleştirilen Çalışmaların İncelenmesi: Bir Tematik Analiz Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, 1949-2016 yılları arasında eğitim
alanyazınında Solomon Deneysel Deseni (SDD) kullanan makaleleri tematik içerik
analizi yöntemi ile incelemektir. Araştırma kapsamında 24 makale incelenmiştir.
Makaleler; araştırmanın amacı,
uygulama yapılan eğitim alanı, örneklem bilgileri, veri analiz yöntemleri,
araştırmalarda kullanılan öğrenme yöntemleri, Solomon deneysel deseni türü ve
öneriler parametreleri dikkate
alınarak incelenmiştir. SDD kullanılanarak yapılan makalelerin sınırlı sayıda
olduğu görülmektedir. İncelenen makalelerde SDD’nin; üç gruplu (1 deney ve 2
kontrol grubu), dört gruplu (2 deney ve 2 kontrol grubu), beş gruplu (2 deney
ve 3 kontrol grubu) ve altı gruplu (4 deney ve 2 kontrol grubu) olarak
kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Makaleler, eğitimde birçok farklı alanda ve
birçok öğrenme yöntemi kullanılarak farklı eğitim seviyelerinde örneklemlerle
yapılmıştır. İncelemede, çok az sayıda makalede karma araştırma yönteminin
kullanıldığı ve nicel araştırma yaklaşımına göre nicel veri toplama
tekniklerinin kullanıldığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca makalelerde tek yönlü varyans
analizi ve t-testleri ile veriler analiz edilmiştir. Deneysel çalışmalarda SDD
kullanılarak, öğrenme yöntem ve tekniklerinin etkisi daha iyi araştırılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

araştırma deseni, deneysel desen, Solomon deneysel deseni, tematik analiz yöntemi

Kaynakça

• 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’ motiva-tion. 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, Erzu-rum. 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. Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A. ve Leech, N. L. (2011). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis, (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. 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 Expe-rimental Education, 42(2), 54-55. Johnson, B. ve Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. (Çev. Ed. S. B. Demir) Ankara: Eğiten Kitap. Kalafat, J. ve Elias, M. (1994). An evaluation of a school-based suicide awareness intervention. Suicide and Life-Threatening Beha-vior, 24(3), 224-233. Karasar, N. (2016). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel. Keiner, E. ve Hofbauer, S. (2014). EERA and its 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. Bioche-mistry and Moleculer Biology Educaiton, 36(4), 262-273. Probst, T. M. (2003). Exploring employee outcomes of organizational restructuring: A Solomon four-group study. Group & Organiza-tion 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 conf-lict. 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 level. 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.