Practical Research 2

Methodology– Definition & Purpose

  • Detailed narrative of how research was conducted

    • Design, participants, equipment/materials, and participant actions

  • Must be replicable: another researcher should be able to reproduce the study exactly (Cherry, 2017)p

Research Designs

  • Declares overall strategy / structure / approach through Qualitative, Quantitative, or Mixed-Methods

  • Sub-Designs:

    • Action Research        

    • Grounded Theory

    • Factorial Design

    • Mixed-Methods Sequential:

    • Exploratory Sequential Design (quali→quanti)

    • Explanatory Sequential Design (quanti→quali)

Action Research – Interactive Quiz Apps

  • Participatory Action Research (PAR) - Enhances current conditions or processes

  • Teacher Ms. Reyes sees low hand-raising participation

  • Intervention: Quiz app (e.g., Bamboozle)

  • Cycle: Implement → monitor → gather feedback → reflect → adjust

  • Goal: immediate, context-bound improvement (Koshy et al., 2010)

  • Mnemonic: “Lets try something new to improve the situation and see if it works”

Grounded Theory – High-School Dropouts

  • Developing new theories “grounded” in data that is systematically collected and analyzed.

  • Little prior literature → in-depth interviews with n=15n=15 former students

  • Data analysis reveals themes: financial stress + family pressure ⇒ emergent theory

  • Mnemonic: “Build theory from real experiences.”

Factorial Design – Cooling of Fluids

  • All combinations tested ⇒ four experimental conditions. Studies two or more variables at the same time to see how each one affects the other.

  • 2×22\times2 factorial: Liquid type (water vs saltwater) × Container material (plastic vs metal)

    allows for a total of four experimental groups:

    • Water in plastic containers

    • Water in metal containers

    • Saltwater in plastic containers

    • Saltwater in metal containers.
      This design enables us to analyze not only the effect of each variable individually but also the interaction between liquid type and container material on the cooling rate.

  • Purpose: study main effects and interaction effects simultaneously

  • Mnemonic: “Let’s test how different factors work together and separately”

Mixed-Methods Exemplars

1. Exploratory Sequential (QUALI-QUANTI) – Household Food Resilience

  • QUALI Phase: Student interviews urban-poor families → themes: budgeting, meal-skipping, relief reliance

  • Instrument Development: Localized Food-Resilience Scale derived from themes

  • QUANTI Phase: Scale distributed across multiple barangays to measure prevalence

  • Mnemonic: “Explore first, then measure.” (Berman, 2017)

2. Explanatory Sequential (QUANTI-QUALI)– Safe Spaces Act Awareness

  • QUANTI Phase: Survey → high awareness but persistent harassment experiences

  • QUALI Phase: Follow-up interviews to explain discrepancy between awareness and behavior (Draucker et al., 2020)

  • Mnemonic: “Measure first, then explain.”

Parts of the Methodology

  • Research Design (already defined)

  • Context & Participants

    • Where/when study occurs, demographic traits, sampling method, inclusion rationale

  • Research Instruments (plus Validity & Reliability)

    • Surveys, tests, interview guides, observational sheets, etc.

    • Validity = measuring intended construct; Reliability = internal consistency & stability

  • Data Gathering Procedure

    • Step-by-step collection process, consent, ethics

  • Data Analysis Procedure

    • Statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA\text{ANOVA}) or qualitative coding (e.g., Thematic Analysis)

Covey vs Eisenhower Matrices (Prioritization Tools)

Covey’s Time Management Quadrants (Importance × Urgency)

  • Q1 Urgent+Important ⇒ Crisis, immediate action

  • Q2 Not-Urgent but Important ⇒ Long-term planning, prevention\text{Long-term planning, prevention} (ideal focus)

  • Q3 Urgent+Not-Important ⇒ Delegate/minimize

  • Q4 Not-Urgent+Not-Important ⇒ Low-priority, eliminate

Eisenhower Matrix (Urgency Focused)

  • DO NOW (urgent+important)

  • SCHEDULE (less-urgent+important)

  • DELEGATE (urgent+less-important)

  • ELIMINATE (less-urgent+less-important)

Sample Multiple-Choice Review Items

  1. Advantage of participant observation ⇒ C Detailed understanding of context

  2. Crucial interview guideline ⇒ B Keep questions concise & open-ended

  3. Primary purpose of content analysis ⇒ D Analyze textual/visual content

  4. Ethical principle for right to withdraw ⇒ D Voluntary participation

  5. Key item in informed consent ⇒ C Potential risks & benefits

  6. Moderator’s primary role in FGD ⇒ A Guide the conversation

  7. Likert scale purpose ⇒ B Measure attitudes or agreement levels

Two-Phase Data-Collection Workflow

Phase 1 Planning & Preparation

  1. Identify instruments/materials (adopt vs develop)

  2. Determine total population

  3. Compute sample size (use formulas such as n=N Z2 p (1−p)e2 (N−1)+Z2 p (1−p)n = \frac{N\,Z^2\,p\,(1-p)}{e^2\,(N-1)+Z^2\,p\,(1-p)} )

  4. Identify participants via sampling technique

  5. Compile contact info

  6. Prepare documentation

    • Letters: permission to conduct, permission for respondents, informed consent, validator requests

    • Pilot testing, validity by experts, reliability testing (e.g., Cronbach’s α\text{Cronbach’s } \alpha )

Phase 2 Execution

  1. Finalize instruments after pilot revisions

  2. Distribute consent forms & letters

  3. Administer instruments / conduct experiment

  4. Collect data

  5. Analyze data (stat/quali)

Research‐Related Correspondence

1. Letter of Permission to Conduct Study

  • Formal request to authority/organization

  • Contents: study purpose, methodology, benefits, data-protection plan

  • Formatting cues: use uppercase bold headings, send ≥1 week before data collection, adapt “This School” phrase if external

2. Letter of Permission to Respondents

  • Explains study purpose & what participation entails

  • Affirms confidentiality & voluntary nature

  • Can be embedded in online survey platforms

3. Informed Consent Form

  • For legal-age participants vs parents/guardians (minors)

  • Must include:

    • Study overview, procedures, risks/benefits, confidentiality, right to withdraw, contact info

    • Signatures / e-consent checkboxes

4. Letter for Research Validators

  • Sent to expert reviewers to validate instruments

  • States specific help requested (e.g., “please review observational sheet for measuring tensile strength”)

Approval Workflow & Signatories (Internal vs External)

  • Documents routed through: Researchers → Research Adviser → Subject Area Coordinator (Social Studies) → Assistant Principal (SHS) → Principal/OIC (final)

  • External letters require Assistant Principal’s recommending approval + Principal’s final “Approved by” notation

IMRaD

  • TITLE, AUTHORS, ABSTRACT: searchable metadata

  • INTRODUCTION

    • Background, SOP, Theoretical/Conceptual Framework, Significance, Definitions, Scope & Delimitation

  • METHODS

    • Research Design

    • Materials

    • Context & Participants

    • Instruments (Validity & Reliability)

    • Data Gathering Procedure

    • Data Analysis Procedure

Example Conceptual Framework

  • Figure 1: Income Level (IV) → Life Satisfaction (DV)

  • Narrative explains hypothesized influence pathways across life domains

Key Takeaways & Practical Implications

  • Methodology transparency is essential for replicability and ethical rigor

  • Mixed-methods designs allow for richer insights by integrating QUAL and QUAN strengths

  • Action research bridges immediate classroom issues with systematic inquiry

  • Proper prioritization (Covey/Eisenhower) enables researchers to balance urgent tasks (letters, instruments) with important long-term goals (validity, ethics)

  • Ethical paperwork (permissions, consent) is not bureaucratic red tape—it safeguards participants and research integrity