Group: ______________ Title of the Activity: Critique Me if You You Can Objectives: Evaluate the two given samples or research using the given evaluation tool. Differentiate qualitative from quantitative research. • •
Materials: Copies of the following: Research samples o Evaluation tool o Guide questions for analysis o •
Procedure: Read and evaluate the two given research samples using the evaluation tool Discuss and answer the guide questions for analysis in your group. • •
Guide uestions for Analysis: Based on the result of your evaluation of the two research samples, answer the following questions: . !hat are are your important o"servations o"servations a"out a"out the two research research samples#
$. !hich of the two two aims to test the hypothe hypothesis sis and loo% for cause and and effect# effect# !hat a"out a"out to e&plore#
'. !hich of the the two is is su"(ecti su"(ective# ve# )s )s o"(ecti o"(ective# ve# !hy !hy
*. !hat is the the data collection collection technique technique used in sample sample # )n )n sample $# $#
+. !hich is is analyed analyed statist statistica ically# lly# !hich !hich is not# not#
-. )n terms terms of outcome, outcome, which which has has the measura"le measura"le results# results#
. Based on your your evaluation, evaluation, which do do you thin% is a qualitative qualitative research# research# !hich is a quantitative quantitative research# !hy#
!"A#$AT%O& TOO# Directions: Evaluate the given sample of research "ased on the given criteria. Chec% the appropriate "o& that corresponds to your evaluation a"out the characteristics of the sample research. 'a(ple )esearch &o: ____________ Criteria . /im0 1urpose
$. 5"(ectivity and 6u"(ectivity '. Data collection
*. Data /nalysis
+. 5utcome
E&ploration of participants2 e&periences and life world 6u"(ectivity is e&pected. )n7depth interviews participant o"servation 0 fieldwor% or focus group discussion, 3hematic, constant comparative analysis, Content analysis or Ethnographic analysis 6tory, theory or ethnography ,
!valuation 3o test hypotheses, loo% at cause 4 effect, 4 ma%e predictions. 5"(ectivity is critical. 8uestionnaire, 6tandardied interviews or 3ightly structured o"servation 6tatistical analysis
9easura"le results
(the scientific description of the customs of individual peoples and cultures.)
'a(ple )esearch &o: ____________ Criteria . /im0 1urpose
$. 5"(ectivity and 6u"(ectivity '. Data collection
*. Data /nalysis
+. 5utcome
E&ploration of participants2 e&periences and life world 6u"(ectivity is e&pected. )n7depth interviews participant o"servation 0 fieldwor% or focus group discussion, 3hematic, constant comparative analysis, Content analysis or Ethnographic analysis 6tory, theory or ethnography ,
(the scientific description of the customs of individual peoples and cultures.)
!valuation 3o test hypotheses, loo% at cause 4 effect, 4 ma%e predictions. 5"(ectivity is critical. 8uestionnaire, 6tandardied interviews or 3ightly structured o"servation 6tatistical analysis
9easura"le results
SAMPLE RESARCH 1
“Ensuring Safety and Resiliency: Disaster Risk Reduction in School and Community Through Localized Science Literacy
ABSTRACT
This study focused on exploring the local knowledge of the community regarding the practices on disaster preparedness before, during, and after disasters, assessing the needs to be addressed to improve disaster preparedness in a coastal community and designing a community-based learning material to enhance disaster preparedness in a local community. Using the ethnographic tools such as key informant interviews, observations, and focus group discussions, the researcher explored and utilized community local knowledge and science concepts as bases and context in the development of a community-based learning material. indings of the study revealed that! the coastal community posses a wealth of knowledge regarding "## on typhoons$ there are certain needs of the community to be addressed such as the need for relevant "## learning materials that can be used in school and community, and the need to enhance skills in coping after disasters. The study also generated a model on how to create a community-based learning material utilizing local knowledge and science concepts focusing on the following ma%or activities, namely! &a' drawing funds of knowledge from the community, &b' developing a community-based learning material, &c' identifying culturally relevant science concepts in disaster risk reduction and &d' teaching culturally relevant disaster risk reduction concepts in school and community. ocus group discussion with selected teachers was done to elicit knowledge and evaluation of the designed learning material. (t was concluded that )' the coastal community possesses a wealth of knowledge regarding the disaster-risk reduction and impact mitigation, *' culture and practices on disaster preparedness and impact mitigation can be infused with science concepts to teach disaster risk reduction in schools, and +' community-based learning materials can help foster deeper understanding and connection between the school science and the communitys practices on disaster risk reduction.
Taken from: Donna Borda Amarillo, Capiz State University Pontevedra, Capiz, 2016. “ Ensuring Safety and Resiliency: Disaster Ris Reduction in Sc!ool and Community "!roug! Locali#ed Science Literacy
Resear! "dviser: Dr$ Harold %$ Buen&enida #$odified %ersion&
SAMLE RESEARC! "
edagogical and E#istemological Beliefs and $nstructional ractices of Science Teachers
"'strat This study determined the pedagogical and epistemological beliefs and the instructional practices of cience teachers. #elationships among these three variables were also determined. This study was conducted among the entire / population of secondary private and public school cience teachers in the "ivision of #oxas 0ity during the school year *1)/-*1). The Teaching and 2earning 0onceptions 3uestionnaire &T203' &0han et. al, *114', 5pistemological 6elief (nventory &56(' &chraw et. al, *11*' and a researcher-made 7uestionnaire for instructional practices were utilized to determine the pedagogical beliefs, epistemological beliefs and instructional practices of cience teachers correspondingly. The descriptive statistical tools such as fre7uency count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were employed. 8n the other hand, 9earson r, t-test for independent samples and 8ne-:ay ;nalysis of
ve-certain believers of the structure of knowledge, na>ve-simple believers of the source of knowledge. 8n the other hand, they are sophisticated-personal experience believers of the source of knowledge, sophisticated-changeable believers of the control of knowledge ac7uisition and sophisticatedgradual process believers of the speed of knowledge ac7uisition. ;s to the instructional practices, the cience teachers are outstanding in general. imilarly, they are outstanding in the / domains of instructional practices such as instructional planning, instructional strategies, learning environment, assessment, and professionalism. =o significant difference existed in pedagogical belief, epistemological belief and instructional practices of teachers when classified according to age, sex, tenure, highest academic 7ualification, teaching load, monthly salary, and type of school. inally, no significant correlation was noted among pedagogical belief, epistemological belief and instructional practices of cience teachers however, a weak-positive relationship existed between pedagogical belief and epistemological belief.
Taken from: (esa, "donis P. “Peda)o)ia* and +pistemo*o)ia* (e*iefs and nstr-tiona* Praties of Siene Tea!ers. Unp-'*is!ed $aster of "rts in Tea!in) #/enera* Siene& T!esis, i*amer C!ristian University, Roas City, "pri* 2016. #$odified %ersion&
