Name : Intan Suhariani

NIM : 2181121001
Class : English Education 18 A
Subject : Research Methodology

ROUTINE TASK 9

Design 1. One-Group-Pretest-Posttest Design

The Effect of Total Physical Response (TPR) on Reading Ability
Ho : TPR is not sicnificantly affect Reading Ability (TPR does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : TPR is significantly effect Reading Ability (TPR significantly affects Reading Ability)

experimental Treatment A
Group 1
s pretest
TPR

experimental
Treatment B
Group 2

Experimental Random Experimental Random

Group Students Group Students

1 1
2 Teaching by 2 Teaching by
Teaching by Teaching by
using TPR TPR
...dst using TPR ...dst coventional

30 30
Pre Test Y1 Post Test Y2
Post Test Y1 Pre Test Y2
(Mid) (Mid)
(Mid) (Mid)
t-test
 Y1 > Y2 tobs = 2.42
85 > 75 t-table = 1.02
The Treatment is affect P = 0.5

If the tobs > t table , then Ho is REJECTED and Ha is ACCEPTED

It means that, TPR is significantly Reading Ability (TPR significantly affects Reading
Ability)
The advantages of this design :
Weakness is that Design 1 affords no way to assess the effect of the pretest. We know
there is a practice effect when subjects take a test a second time or even take an
alternate form of the test or they may learn something just from taking the test and
will do better the second time. To deal with this problem, some researchers have used
Design 1 without the pretest. However, eliminating the pretest would only make a
poor design worse.
The disadvatage of this design:
Without a control group to make a comparison possible, the results obtained in a one-
group design are basically un-interpretable.

Design 2. Static Group Comparison

The Effect of Total Physical Response (TPR) on Reading Ability
Ho : TPR is not sicnificantly affect Reading Ability (TPR does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : TPR is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (TPR significantly affects Reading Ability)

Experimental Random Control Group Random

Group Students Students

Teaching by Teaching by
using TPR coventional

Post Test Y1 Post Test Y2

(Mid) (Mid)
t-test
 Y1 > Y2 tobs = 2.42
85 > 75 t-table = 1.02
The Treatment is affect P = 0.5

If the tobs > t table , then Ho is REJECTED and Ha is ACCEPTED

It means that, TPR is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (TPR significantly affects Reading
Ability)
The advantages of this design :
1. The static group comparison uses two or more preexisting or intact (static) groups,
only one of which is exposed to the experimental treatment.
2. This design makes the assumption that the groups are equivalent in all relevant
aspects before the study begins and that they differ only in their exposure to X
The disadvatage of this design:
1. It is basically worthless. Because neither randomization nor even matching on a pre-
test is used, we cannot assume that the groups are equivalent prior to the experimental
treatment. Because of the possibility of initial differences between the groups, one
could not conclude that the outcome is a result of the experimental treatment.

Design 3. Randomized Subject, Posttest-Only Control Group Design

The Effect of Total Physical Response (TPR) on Reading Ability
Ho : TPR is not significantly affect Reading Ability(TPR does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : TPR is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (TPR significantly affects Reading Ability)

Experimental Random Random

Group Control Group
Students Students

1 1
2 2
Teaching by Teaching by
...dst using TPR ...dst coventional

30 30
Post Test Y1 Post Test Y2

(Mid) (Mid)
t-test

tobs = 2.42
If the tobs > t table , then Ho is REJECTED and Ha is ACCEPTED
It means that, TPR is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (TPR significantly affects Reading
Ability)
The advantages of this design :
1. It is random. So the two groups (experimental and control group) is equal
2. The experiment can be extended to include more than two groups if necessary.
The disadvatage of this design:
2. There is no pretest, so morality can be threat. Researchers have no way of knowing
whether those who drop out of the study differ from those who continue the study.

Design 4. Randomized Matched Subject, Posttest-Only Control Group Design

The Effect of Total Physical Response (TPR) on Reading Ability
Ho : TPR is not sicnificantly affect Reading Ability (TPR does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : TPR is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (TPR significantly affects Reading Ability)

Experimental
Control Group
Group Random ,
Random,
Matched (Boys) Matched
(Girls)
Students Students
1 1
2 2
Teaching by Teaching by
...dst using TPR ...dst coventional

30 30
Post Test Y1 Post Test Y2

(Mid) (Mid)
t-test

tobs = 2.42
Y1 > Y2 t-table = 1.02
85 > 75 P = 0.5
If the tobs > t table , then Ho is REJECTED and Ha is ACCEPTED
It means that, TPR is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability(TPR significantly affects Reading
Ability) on girl’s students
The advantages of this design:
1. It is random. So the two groups (experimental and control group) is equal
2. It is matched. So the researcher must first randomize and then assign suitable pairs to
the group
3. The experiment can be extended to include more than two groups if necessary.
The disadvatage of this design:
1. Matching as a control tool so that if one or more subjects were excluded because a
match could not be found, it skewed the sample.

Design 5 (Randomized Subjects, Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design

The Effect of PBL on Reading Ability
Ho : PBL is not sicnificantly affect Reading Ability (PBL does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : PBL is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (PBL significantly affects Reading Ability)

Exp Group Control Grup

Pre test – Y1 >< Pre test – Y2 My1 = My2

= 40
PBL Conventional
Treatment
teach 3 months

1…. 1….

2…. 2….

3…. t-test 3…. T obs = 2,67

T table = 1,58
4…. 4…. P = 0.05
….dst ….dst

30 30
 My1 > My2
80 > 60
Post Test – Y1 >< Post Test – Y2

Design 6 (Solomon Three-Group Design)

The Effect of TBLL on Reading Ability
Ho : TBLL is not sicnificantly affect Reading Ability (TBLL does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : TBLL is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (TBLL significantly affects Reading
Ability)
Exp Group >< Control Group 1

Control Group 2
Pre test Y1 Pre test Y1
TBLL
TBLL Conventional
Treatment
Treatment
MY1E > MY1C teach 3
teach 3
1…. = 40 1…. months
months 1….
2…. T-test 2…. 2….
T obs = 2,67
3…. 3…. T table = 1, 58 3….

4…. P =0,05 4….

4….
….dst ….dst ….dst
MY2E > MY2C
30 80 > 60 30
30

Post test-Y2 >< Post test-Y2 Post test-Y2

Design 7. Solomon Four-Group Design

The Effect of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) on Reading Ability
Ho : CLT is not sicnificantly affect Reading Ability (CLT does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : CLT is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (CLT significantly affects Reading Ability)

Experimental Group Control Group 1 Control Group 2 Control Group 3

 Random, Matched Random, Matched Random, Matched Random, Matched
Students Students Students Students

Pretest – X1 Pretest – X2 No Pretest No Pretest

1 Teachin 1 Teachin 1 Teachin 1 Teachin

g by g by g by g by
2... dst (30) 2... dst (30) 2... dst (30) 2... dst (30)
using conventi using conventi
CLT onal CLT onal

Post test – Y1 Post test– Y2 Post test– Y3 Post test– Y4

t-test tobs = 2.42

t-table = 1.02
Y1 >Y2, Y3>Y4
P = 0.5
95>85, 75>65
The Treatment is Affect

If the tobs > t table , then Ho is REJECTED and Ha is ACCEPTED

It means that, CLT is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (CLT significantly affects Reading
Ability)

The advantages of this design :

This combination takes advantage of the information provided by the pretest–posttest
procedure and at the same time shows how the experimental condition affects an unpretested
group of S’s.

The disadvatage of this design:

 The difficulty involved in carrying it out in a practical situation. More time and effort are
required to conduct two experiments simultaneously, and there is the problem of locating the
increased number of subjects of the same kind that would be needed for the four groups.

Design 8. Simple Factorial Design

The Effect of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) on Reading Ability

Ho : CLT is not sicnificantly affect Reading Ability (CLT does not significantly affect
Reading Ability)
Ha : CLT is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (CLT significantly affects Reading Ability)

Group A (Level 1) – X2 Random, Matched Group B (Level 2) – X2 Random, Matched

Students Students

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

CLT – X1 Conventional – X1 CLT - X1 Conventional – X1

1 1 1 1
2... dst (30) 2... dst (30) 2... dst (30) 2... dst (30)

Mean Mean Mean Mean

tobs = 2.42 t test Group 1, Group 3 > Group 2, Group 4

t-table = 1.02 Group A Group B

IfP the tobs > t table , then

= 0.5 85 > 75

The treatment is affect.

If the tobs > t table , then Ho is REJECTED and Ha is ACCEPTED

It means that, CLT is sicnificantly effect Reading Ability (CLT significantly affects Reading
Ability)
The advantages of this designis :
It accomplishes in one experiment what otherwise might require two or more separate
studies, provides an opportunity to study interactions that are often very important in
educational research, and provides a more powerful test of hypotheses.

The disadvatage of this design is:

The carry over effect that may occur from one treatment to another. To deal with this
problem, researchers typically arrange for the participants to experience the different
treatments in random or counterbalanced order.