Mor 6 Nvsu-Fr-Icd-05-00

Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
COLLEGE: COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

CAMPUS: BAMBANG CAMPUS
DEGREE PROGRAM Bachelor of Science COURSE NO. ME 11

in Mechanical
Engineering
SPECIALIZATION Mechanical COURSE TITLE Methods of Research for ME
YEAR LEVEL 3rd Year TIME FRAME 3 hrs. WK NO. 11 IM NO. 6
I. UNIT TITLE/CHAPTER TITLE:
CHAPTER 6. RESEARCH PARADIGM
II. LESSON TITLE:
1. Definition of Research Paradigm

2. Components of a Research Paradigm
2.1. Ontology
2.2. Epistemology
2.3. Methodology
2.4. Methods
3. Different Approaches to Educational Research
3.1. Positivism
3.2. Interpretivism
3.3. Critical Theory
4. The Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
4.1. Difference Between Theoretical from Conceptual Framework
4.2. Symbols Used in Constructing a Framework
4.3. Critiquing the Theoretical Framework
4.4. Conceptual Framework Models
5. Dependent and Independent Variables
5.1. Dependent Variables
5.2. Independent Variables
5.3. Other Types of Variables
III. LESSON OVERVIEW:

This chapter discusses the overview on research paradigm specifically its components, different
approaches to educational research, the framework and the different research variables (i.e. dependent
and independent). Moreover, the students will engage to explore the various conceptual frameworks that
they will develop and utilize in their respective research topics.
IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of the lesson, the students must be able to:
1. differentiate dependent variables to independent variables
2. identify the relationship function of the variables in research model frameworks
3. come up with an input – process – output conceptual framework.
“In Accordance with Section 185, Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293,
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
the copyrighted works included in this material may be reproduced for educational
. not for commercial distribution.”
purposes only and Page 1 of 14
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
V. LESSON CONTENT:
1. DEFINITION OF RESEARCH PARADIGM

When theorizing data, according to Silva (2016), it tries to explain and shows how the results of
the study and its conclusion helps and oppose the present studies. The method for theorizing data is
simply the method of determining how the information fit with the field theory. Every phase of the research
study project should correspond to the purpose of the study. The theory of literature review must be
details and tries to oppose the information of study. The methods must be determined to know its
suitability into the field theory. There must be some linkage of these results of the published results and
outlined with structure in the literature review section.
Every study is intended to contribute to any body of knowledge. The researcher initially generates
the first conceptual framework and must correspond to the second framework (theoretical knowledge).
These two frameworks that are conceptual and theoretical can lead the researcher into the information
collection stage of the study with respect to the fields to be investigated and questions to be raised. The
information will be evaluated, and the conclusions made will be theorized. From the earlier discussion,
data are theorized by binding the conclusions into the research extracted in the literature review. These
frameworks show the researchers in collecting the data for the area to be discovered and queries to be
asked. Thus, the conceptual framework provides good direction to the theoretical framework. The
conceptual framework is the most important because from this framework, where key words are found,
the main goal and specific goals are established. The creative involvement of the researcher with the
main ideas of studies, with the theory and ideas they have on the information collected for the research
study and creates a fresh theory to current theories. Silva also emphasized that the creative involvement
of the reflective process causes the researchers to create new and fresh ideas from the chosen topic.
Figure 6.1. Process of theory, research and knowledge (Source: Silva, 2016)
A research paradigm serves as a model and guide, which describes and illustrates how the
variables are treated in the study. It is a figure that represents the interplay of the variables. The term
paradigm was first used by Kuhn in his work, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, where he defined
research paradigm as “an integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems attached
with corresponding methodological approaches and tools.”
2. COMPONENTS OF A RESEARCH PARADIGM

As researchers, we have to be able to understand and articulate beliefs about the nature
of reality, what can be known about it and how we go about attaining this knowledge. These are elements
of research paradigms. A paradigm is a basic belief system and theoretical framework with assumptions
about 1) ontology, 2) epistemology, 3) methodology and 4) methods. In other words, it is our way of
understanding the reality of the world and studying it. We will look closely at the four components
of a research paradigm.
2.1. Ontology
Ontology refers to “the nature of our beliefs about reality” (Richards, 2003, p. 33). Researchers
have assumptions (sometimes implicit) about reality, how it exists and what can be known about it. It is
the ontological question that leads a researcher to inquire what kind of reality exists: “A singular, verifiable
reality and truth or socially constructed multiple realities” (Patton, 2002, p. 134)
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
2.2. Epistemology
Epistemology refers to “the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and the
process by which knowledge is acquired and validated” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 13). It is concerned
with “the nature and forms [of knowledge], how it can be acquired and how communicated to other
human beings” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 7). It is the epistemological question that leads a
researcher to debate “the possibility and desirability of objectivity, subjectivity, causality, validity,
generalizability” (Patton, 2002, p. 134). Adhering to an ontological belief system (explicitly or implicitly)
guides one to certain epistemological assumptions. Therefore, if a singular verifiable truth is assumed,
“then the posture of the knower must be one of objective detachment or value freedom in order to be
able to discover ‘how things really are’ and ‘how things really work’” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.
108). Conversely, belief in socially constructed multiple realities leads researchers to reject the
notion that people should be studied like objects of natural sciences; they get involved with the subjects
and try and understand phenomena in their contexts.
2.3. Methodology
Methodology is “an articulated, theoretically informed approach to the production of data” (Ellen,
1984, p. 9). It refers to the study and critical analysis of data production techniques. It is the “strategy,
plan of action, process or design” that informs one’s choice of research methods (Crotty, 1998, p. 3). It
“is concerned with the discussion of how a particular piece of research should be undertaken” (Grix,
2004, p. 32). It guides the researcher in deciding what type of data is required for a study and which data
collection tools will be most appropriate for the purpose of his/her study. It is the methodological question
that leads the researcher to ask how the world should be studied.
2.4. Methods
Methods are specific means of collecting and analyzing data, such as questionnaires and open
ended interviews. What methods to use for a research project will depend on the design of that project
and the researcher’s theoretical mindset. However, it must be noted that use of particular methods does
not entail ontological and epistemological assumptions.
3. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

There are three different approaches to educational research: 1) Positivism 2) Interpretivism
3) Critical theory. This is essential because as consumers of research, we have to be able to look
deeper into claims made by researchers who adhere to different research paradigms. According to
Patton (2002), “When researchers operate from different frameworks, their results will not be readily
interpretable by or meaningful to each other” (p.134). Being aware of a researcher’s ontological and
epistemological beliefs (which are not always made explicit but have to be deduced) will help us
better understand the import and relevance of the study. Furthermore, someone who is ideologically
rooted in one research paradigm and ignorant of the theoretical underpinnings and terminology of
other research paradigms is not in a good position to appraise research conducted under a different
tradition.
3.1. Positivism
The term positivism refers to a branch of philosophy that rose to prominence during the early
nineteenth century because of the works of the French philosopher Auguste Comte (Richards, 2003, p.
37). Positivism assumes that reality exists independently of humans. It is not mediated by our senses
and it is governed by immutable laws. The ontological position of positivists is that of realism. Positivists
strive to understand the social world like the natural world. In nature, there is a cause-effect relationship
between phenomena, and once established, they can be predicted with certainty in the future.
For positivists, the same applies to the social world. Because reality is context free, different
researchers working in different times and places will converge to the same conclusions about a given
phenomenon. The epistemological position of positivists is that of objectivism. Researchers come in
as objective observers to study phenomena that exist independently of them and they do not
affect or disturb what is being observed. They will use language and symbols to describe
phenomena in their real form, as they exist, without any interference whatsoever. As Hutchinson
(1988) states, “Positivists view the world as being ‘out there’, and available for study in a more or less
static form” (cited in Gall et al., 2003, p. 14). Positivists believe that there are laws governing social
phenomena, and by applying scientific methods, it is possible to formulate these laws and present
them through factual statements. Many scholars have criticized the positivist approach (see Richards,
2003, p. 37). While objective and scientific methods are appropriate for studying natural objects, they
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
are not as successful when they are applied on social phenomena. The complexity of laws
governing individuals, their idiosyncrasies, their relationship with each other, with institutions and with
society are in stark contrast with the order and regularity one finds in the natural world. The positivist
assumption that applying scientific methods to social phenomena will lead to discovery of laws that
govern them has been deemed “naïve” by Richards (2003, p.37) who cites different researchers who go
so far as to say that “Positivism is dead. By now, it has gone off and is beginning to smell” and “It has
become little more than a term of abuse” (Richards, 2003, p.37). Criticism of the positivist paradigm
lead to the emergence of post-positivism, which “straddles both the positivist and interpretivist
paradigms” (Grix, 2004, p. 86). Post-positivism is an attempt to address the weaknesses of the positivist
paradigm. The ontological position of post - positivism is that of critical realism. It assumes a reality
that exists independent of the observer, but which can only be apprehended imperfectly because of
the complexity of social phenomena; it also recognizes the possibility of the researcher’s own beliefs
and values affecting what is being observed.
Positivist methodology relies heavily on experimentation. Hypotheses are put forward in
propositional or question form about the causal relation between phenomena. Empirical evidence
is gathered; the mass of empirical evidence is then analyzed and formulated in the form of a
theory that explains the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The approach to
analyzing data is deductive; first, a hypothesis is proposed, then it is either confirmed or rejected
depending on the results of statistical analysis. The purpose is to measure, control, predict, construct
laws and ascribe causality (Cohen et al., 2007). If it could be proved that A caused B, then a theory will
be formulated for wider applicability which will illustrate the causal relation between A and B: ‘A causes
B’ or ‘A leads to B’ etc. To be able to do this, the researcher has to make sure that it was indeed A that
caused B, not anything else. This calls for manipulation because in the social world, there are always
different factors that could lead to a certain effect. For the theory to be robust, it has to be able to withstand
efforts to refute it empirically. To make sure no other variables caused the effect, positivist
researchers try to control extraneous variables, with two or more groups being subjected to the same
conditions with the only difference being the independent variable. Establishing causal relation between
phenomena without any interference from extraneous variables means that the experiment has internal
validity. However, that still leaves open to discussion the question of external validity. The more rigorous
the attempts of a researcher to control extraneous variables, the more effect it has on generalizability.
If the amount of control has created an environment that is nearly impossible to find in a real world
situation, the results of the experiment could be meaningless. Positivist research often generates
numerical data. Gall et al. (2003) sum this up cogently when they say: The use of quantification to
represent and analyze features of social reality is consistent with positivist epistemology. Because this
epistemology assumes that features of social reality have a constancy across time and settings, a
particular feature can be isolated and it can be conceptualized as a variable, that is, as an entity
that can take on different values. These values can be expressed as numerical scales. (pp. 19-20)
The quantitative data that positivist researchers use to answer research questions and formulate
theories can be collected through true experiments or less rigorous quasi-experiments,
standardized tests and large or small scale surveys using closed ended questionnaires. The
numeric data that are generated through these methods are subjected to descriptive or inferential
statistical analysis. According to the positivist approach, research is deemed to be of good quality if it
has a) internal validity b) external validity c) reliability d) objectivity (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). If the
researcher proves that it is the independent variable (and not other variables) that had an effect on the
dependent variable, the study is considered to have internal validity. If the results thus arrived at are
generalizable, it has external validity. If different researchers conduct the study in different times, places
and contexts and arrive at the same results, it has reliability. If researchers study phenomena
without contaminating their apprehension, they are considered to be objective. The positivist paradigm
has been widely criticized by interpretivists and critical theorists (See Gage, 2007; Richards, 2003).
One of the most commonly repeated criticisms is that scientific methods, though appropriate for
studying natural phenomena, fall short when they are used to study individuals and social phenomena
(Gage, 2007; Gall et al., 2003; Grix, 2004; Richards, 2003). Although this criticism is not without
merit, one must remember that sometimes, those leveling this criticism at positivism might have
different worldviews. As Hughes and Sharrock (1997) point out, “The critics of positivist social science...
like all critics have a tendency to present a picture of the opposition, in this case positivism, as if it were
not only stupid but without any subtlety and variety” (p.24). Anti-positivists, for all their criticisms, “have
never been able to formulate an alternative conception that answers the most important questions”
(House, 1991, p. 3). Despite the barrage of criticism from anti-positivists, there has been no decline in
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
positivistic research in education and some positivist researchers have “awakened from their torpor
in responding to criticism and began to reply, point by point” (Gage, 2007, p. 6). Grix (2004) outlines the
reasons for this most cogently: The attractiveness of an approach seeking the precision, exactitude and
power of prediction promised by the natural sciences is understandable. The human sciences can
be messy, people unpredictable and factors leading to events hard to unravel. Positivism attempts to
overcome this messiness by seeking rules and laws with which to render the social world understandable.
(pp. 81-82)
3.2. Interpretivism
Interpretivism is a “response to the over-dominance of positivism” (Grix, 2004, p. 82).
Interpretivism rejects the notion that a single, verifiable reality exists independent of our senses.
Interpretive ontology is anti-foundationalist. It refuses “to adopt any permanent, unvarying (or
foundational) standards by which truth can be universally known” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 204). Instead,
interpretivists believe in socially constructed multiple realities. Truth and reality are created, not
discovered. It is not possible to know reality as it is because it is always mediated by our
senses. Interpretive epistemology is subjective. External reality cannot be directly accessible to
observers without being contaminated by their worldviews, concepts, backgrounds etc. As Flick
states, “Perception is seen not as a passive-receptive process of representation but as an active
constructive process of production” (2004, p.89). Individuals interact with other individuals and society
and ascribe meaning and names to different social phenomena. According to Grix (2004), “researchers
are inextricably part of the social reality being researched, i.e. they are not ‘detached’ from the subject
they are studying” (p.83). In the case of different well-argued interpretations about one phenomena, one
interpretation is not chosen or preferred over others as the “correct” one but the existence of multiple
knowledges is accepted with the acknowledgement that different researchers bring different perspectives
to the same issue. The goal of interpretive research is not to discover universal, context and value free
knowledge and truth but to try to understand the interpretations of individuals about the social
phenomena they interact with. This concept of knowledge is an inevitable corollary of interpretive
ontology. If one believes in multiple socially constructed realities, it follows that these realities are
approached from different angles by different people. As Blaikie (2000) states: Social researchers
can only collect data from some point of view, by making ‘observations’ through spectacles with lenses
that are shaped and colored by the researcher’s language, culture, discipline-based knowledge, past
experiences (professional and lay), and experiences that follow from these... Therefore, there will
always be a gap of some kind between the data that are collected and the reality that they are supposed
to represent. (p. 120) Interpretive methodology requires that social phenomena be understood “through
the eyes of the participants rather than the researcher” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 21). The goal of interpretive
methodology is to understand social phenomena in their context. Interpretivists collect mostly qualitative
data from participants over an extended period of time, as in ethnography and case studies. The
approach to analyzing data thus generated is inductive, i.e. the researcher tries to discover patterns in
the data which are collapsed under broad themes to understand a phenomenon and generate
theory. This is the polar opposite of the deductive approach, in which researchers start off by
identifying patterns and themes before starting the data collection process; once data is collected,
researchers would search through the data for words, statements and events which are instances of the
pre-identified patterns and themes. Interpretivists use the inductive approach instead of the deductive
approach because “they tend to see theory as deriving from data collection and not as the driving force
of research” (Grix, 2004, p. 108). Data is mostly verbal instead of statistical and it is usually audio/video
recorded to “preserve the events in a fairly authentic manner for subsequent data analysis” (Gall et al.,
2003, p. 21). Interpretive researchers employ methods that generate qualitative data, and although
numerical data could be involved, they are not relied upon. Examples of data collection methods
that yield qualitative data include: open ended interviews with varying degrees of structure
(standardized open-ended interviews, semi-standardized open ended interviews, and informal
conversational interview), observations, filed notes, personal notes, documents etc. Guba and Lincoln
(1994) have proposed a set of criteria to judge the trustworthiness of interpretive research. Research is
considered to be of good quality if it has credibility (internal validity), transferability (external validity),
dependability (reliability) and confirmability (objectivity) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.114). If researchers
are honest and conscientious in their efforts for approximation to truth, the results hold resonance for
people in other contexts and the steps and methods of the study are described in detail, then study has
elements of the quality criteria proposed by Guba and Lincoln. The interpretive paradigm has been
criticized for, among other things, being “soft”, incapable of yielding theories that could be generalized
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
to larger populations and the involvement of the researcher with participants which leads to lack of
objectivity (Grix, 2004). Richards (2003) disagrees and states that qualitative inquiry is not “soft... it
demands rigour,precision, systematicity, and careful attention to detail” (p.6). Although positivist research
has its merits, there are social phenomena that could be best investigated under the interpretive
paradigm. Surveys, closed ended questionnaires and lists of numbers alone are sometimes not the best
option because “they are not designed to explore the complexities and conundrums of the immensely
complicated social world that we inhabit” (Richards, 2003, p. 6).
3.3. Critical Theory

Critical theory originates from the works of a group of twentieth century authors who were
affiliated with the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt, hence the name ‘the Frankfurt
School’. They include Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm and later Jürgen
Habermas. The ontological position of critical theorists is that of historical realism. It is assumed that
a reality exists, but it has been shaped by cultural, political, ethnic, gender and religious factors
which interact with each other to create a social system. Epistemologically, critical theory is subjective in
that it is assumed that no object can be researched without being affected by the researcher. Critical
educational researchers try to be self-conscious of their own epistemological presuppositions and
communicate them clearly when entering into an investigation so “no one is confused concerning the
epistemological and political baggage they bring with them to the research site” (Kincheloe & McLaren,
2005, pp. 305-306). Knowledge endorsed by those in power (politically or educationally) is to be
viewed critically. The rules that legitimatize some bodies of knowledge and delegitimize others should be
questioned. In the words of Kincheloe (2008), we should ask ourselves: “How did I get stuck with this
body of knowledge and these lenses through which to see the world?” (p.21). The aim of critical
educational research is not merely to explain or understand society but to change it (Patton, 2002). It
is critical of both interpretive and positivist approaches to research because they are regarded to be
“enmeshed in dominant ideology... neither has an interest in changing the world, and neither has an
emancipatory goal” (Scott & Usher, 2000, p. 35). Instead of generating knowledge of the social world as
it exists and perpetuate knowledge status quo (Kincheloe, 2008), critical researchers endeavor to
bring to light the beliefs and actions that limit human freedom with the ultimate aim of transforming the
situation. The task of critical educational researchers is to confront those in positions of power and
expose the oppressive structures that subjugate people and create inequality. According to Guba
and Lincoln (1994), “The inquirer is cast in the role of instigator and facilitator” (p.113). Critical
methodology is dialogic and dialectical (Guba & Lincoln, 1994); it requires the investigator to engage the
subjects in dialogue with the aim of bringing about a change in their outlook on social systems that keep
them deprived of intellectual and social needs. To prevent the possibility of the participants being
marginalized, researchers use a collaborative approach and engage the subjects in formulating
questions, data collection and analysis etc. The transformation of social systems that are built on
injustice and discrimination could be achieved by the methodologies employed by critical educational
researchers: critical ethnography, critical discourse analysis, action research, ideology critique, etc.
Critical ethnography is aimed at probing and criticizing taken for granted assumptions about race,
culture, gender, economy, politics etc. to change awareness. In critical discourse analysis, analysts set
out to study how the powerful use language to maintain their authority. According to Gall et al.
(2003), “An individual’s awareness is both expanded and constrained by the language that is available
to the individual for encoding his experience” (p.497). Therefore, it is possible to control awareness by
controlling language. Action research refers to ways of investigating an immediate problem by identifying
a problem, planning an intervention, implementing the plan, observing the changes and reflecting on
the changes observed (Richards, 2003). Ideology critique exposes values and practices that aim to
keep people subjugated. In critical research, mostly qualitative data is generated, although quantitative
data could also be used. Examples of qualitative data collection methods are mentioned under
the interpretive paradigm. Critical research is deemed to be of good quality if it takes into account
the political, cultural, ethnic and gender antecedents of the situation. Another criterion for quality
critical research is the degree to which the subjects’ misapprehensions about the dominant ideology and
status quo are exposed and the degree to which it facilitates “action designed to redress the unequal and
oppressive structures that have now been exposed” (Richards, 2003, p. 40).
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
4. THE THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
4.1. Difference between Theoretical from Conceptual Framework

The term theoretical framework and conceptual framework are often and erroneously used
interchangeably (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Just as with traditional research, a theory does not or cannot
be expected to explain all phenomenal conditions, a conceptual framework is not a random identification
of disparate ideas meant to incase a problem. Instead, it is a means of identifying and constructing for
the researcher and reader alike an epistemological mindset and a functional worldview approach to the
identified problem.
A theoretical framework provides a general representation of relationships between things in a

given phenomenon. Furthermore, it consists of concepts and, together with their definitions and reference
to relevant scholarly literature, existing theory that is used for your particular study. The theoretical
framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of
your research paper and that relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered. The theoretical
framework is most often not something readily found within the literature. You must review course
readings and pertinent research studies for theories and analytic models that are relevant to the research
problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should depend on its appropriateness, ease of
application, and explanatory power.
The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways:

1. An explicit statement of theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
2. The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory,
you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
3. Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why
and how. It permits you to intellectually transition from simply describing a phenomenon you have
observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
4. Having a theory helps you identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies
which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the need to examine how those
key variables might differ and under what circumstances.
By virtue of its applicative nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because
it fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges associated with a
phenomenon, often experienced but unexplained in the world in which we live, so that we may use that
knowledge and understanding to act in more informed and effective ways.
A conceptual framework on the other hand is a synthetization of interrelated components and

variables which help in solving a real-world problem. It is the final lens used for viewing the deductive
resolution of an identified issue (Imenda, 2014). The development of a conceptual framework begins with
a deductive assumption that a problem exists, and the application of processes, procedures, functional
approach, models, or theory may be used for problem resolution (Zackoff et al., 2019). The application
of theory in traditional theoretical research is to understand, explain, and predict phenomena (Swanson,
2013). In applied research the application of theory in problem solving focuses on how theory in
conjunction with practice (applied action) and procedures (functional approach) frames vision, thinking,
and action towards problem resolution. The inclusion of theory in a conceptual framework is not focused
on validation or devaluation of applied theories. A concise way of viewing the conceptual framework is a
list of understood fact-based conditions that presents the researcher’s prescribed thinking for solving the
identified problem. These conditions provide a methodological rationale of interrelated ideas and
approaches for beginning, executing, and defining the outcome of problem resolution efforts (Leshem &
Trafford, 2007). The conceptual framework, on the other hand, embodies the specific direction by which
the research will have to be undertaken. Statistically speaking, the conceptual framework describes the
relationship between specific variables identified in the study. It also outlines the input, process and output
of the whole investigation. The conceptual framework is also called the research paradigm.
4.2. Symbols Used in Constructing a Framework

a. Box – it contains the variables. Normally, it answers a question in the standard operating procedure
(SOP) which needs descriptive analysis.
b. One headed arrow – illustrates the influence on one variable on the other.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
c. Two headed arrow – it represents association or relationships between variables.

d. Connector line – connects one variable with another but does not necessarily mean that the variables
will be subjected to a statistical procedure.
4.3. Critiquing the Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

In critiquing the theoretical framework, it is necessary to ponder on these questions:
1. Is the theoretical framework clearly identified?
2. Is the theoretical framework consistent with what is being studied?
3. Are the concepts clearly and operationally defined? Do they reflect the area of investigation?
4. Was sufficient literature reviewed to support the proposed relationships?
5. Is the theoretical basis for hypothesis formulation clearly articulated? Is it logical?
6. Are the relationships among propositions clearly defined?
7. Does the instrument used to measure the variables consistent with the theoretical framework?
8. Are the study findings related to the theoretical rationale?
4.4. Conceptual Framework Models

The conceptual framework has different types based on how the research concepts are
organized.
4.4.1. Taxonomy. In this type of conceptual framework, the phenomena of your study are grouped
together into categories without presenting the relationship among them. The point of this type of
conceptual framework is to distinguish the categories from one another.
Example: A framework for designing multi – sensory displays.
4.4.2. Visual Presentation. In this type of conceptual framework, the relationship between the
phenomena and variables of your study is presented. Using this conceptual framework implies that your
study provides empirical evidence to prove the relationship between variables. This is the type of
conceptual framework that is usually used in research studies.
a. Using the Independent - Dependent Variable Model
You may create this model by writing the independent and dependent variables inside rectangles.
Then, insert a line segment between them, connecting the rectangles. This line segment indicates the
direct relationship between these variables.
Example: Relationship between organic fertilizer and the growth rate of a plant.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
b. Using the Input – Process - Output (IPO) Model

If you want to give emphasis to your research process, the input – process - output model is the
appropriate visual diagram for your conceptual framework.
To create your visual diagram using the IPO model, follow these steps:
1. Determine the inputs of your study. Inputs are the variables that you will use to arrive at your
research result. Usually, your independent variables are also the inputs of your research. Also, these are
the variables that causes the problem, phenomenon or transformation.
Inputs include the 6M’s: material, measurement, machine, method, mother nature
(environment) and man (people)
2. Outline your research process. Using our example above, the research process should be like this:
Data collection of student profiles → Administering questionnaires → Tabulation of students’ responses
→ Statistical analysis of data.
3. State the research output. Indicate what you are expecting after you conduct the research. In our
example above, the research output is the assessed level of satisfaction of college students in the use of
Google Classroom as an online learning platform.
4. Create the model using the determined input, process, and output of the research.
Example: The researcher wanted to assess the level of satisfaction of engineering college students in
the use of google classroom as online learning platform of a certain university.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Profile of engineering a. Data collection of

college students according students’ profiles Assessed Level of
to: b. Administering Satisfaction of
a. course and year level questionnaires Engineering College
b. gender c. Organization of Students in the Use of
c. internet accessibility students’ responses Google Classroom as
d. Statistical analysis of Online Learning Platform
Current curriculum used data using ANOVA on
by the university SPSS
With feedback:
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Profile of engineering a. Data collection of

college students according students’ profiles Assessed Level of
to: b. Administering Satisfaction of
a. course and year level questionnaires Engineering College
b. gender c. Organization of Students in the Use of
c. internet accessibility students’ responses Google Classroom as
d. Statistical analysis of Online Learning Platform
Current curriculum used data using ANOVA on
by the university SPSS
Feedback
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
c. Using Concept Maps

If you think that the two models presented previously are not enough to summarize the concepts
of your study, you may use a concept map for your visual diagram. A concept map is an effective visual
diagram you can use if you have multiple variables that affect one another. Concept maps are visual
representations of information, which can take the form of charts, graphic organizers, tables, flowcharts,
Venn Diagrams, timelines, or T - charts. They can also be used to analyze information and compare and
contrast.
Example: Let’s say your research is about Coping to the Remote Learning System: Anxiety Levels of
College Students. Presented below is the concept map for the research’s conceptual framework:
4.4.3. Mathematical Description. In this type of conceptual framework, the relationship between
phenomena and variables of your study are described using mathematical formulas. Also, the extent of
relationship between these variables are presented with specific quantities.
Example: Conceptual framework of the Rutter model. Modified from Valente F, David JS, and Gash JHC
(1997) Modelling interception loss for two sparse eucalypt and pine forest in central Portugal using
reformulated Rutter and Gash analytical models. Journal of Hydrology 190: 141–162.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
purposes only .and not for commercial distribution.” Page 10 of 14
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
5. DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
5.1 Dependent Variables

The experimental design of a research study is the research design that is being carried out when
the study is specific to experimental setup. This is in contrast and not applicable to when conducting
social research or any qualitative type of research methodology since it is best administered in the
laboratory setup. Since in the experimental design has two group tests, the experimental and controlled
variables. When doing this experimental design, the first thing to do is to test both the groups and
determine which one is the dependent variable. The other test group could be the independent variable
and tag it as the experimental group.
Both groups are subjects to retest so that the identified dependent group is measured repeatedly.
If the dependent variable of the experimental group is different from the previous dependent variable, but
the same for the case of control group, we can say that the independent variable clearly caused any
difference. In this regard, the experimental design can be thought as successful since it was proven that
any modification in the independent variable clearly caused adjustments and some variations in the
dependent variable in the case of the experimental group.
In simple algebraic expression, given y= f(x), the y variable is the dependent variable since its
value depends on the modification of values set for variable x, thus, similar when saying that value can
go up or down based on the changing value of x. Yet these variables are assigned with its own description
according to the researcher.
The researcher, in every experimental design, cannot easily generalize the overall working
function since its accuracy depends on different factors: relevance of data, actuality of data, percentage
error, number of gathered quantities, etc. However, in this section, the dependent variables are the ones
set by researcher as the expected output of test experiment in the controlled environment.
5.2 Independent Variables
Independent variables, on the other hand is described in the experimental group and its variation
does not depend entirely from one another. Some common examples of this type are age and time since
they do not entirely depend on any changes, i.e. the time is considered fundamental unit that continuously
move forward, similar to age that does not go back to origin. Here, the researcher has the possibility to
change or control the variable, so that it has direct effect to dependent variable depending on the objective
of the researcher. In the function of getting the heat transfer rate due to conduction,
∆𝑇
𝑄̇ = 𝑘𝐴 ∝ 𝑓(𝑥)
∆𝑥
where k as thermal conductivity, T as temperature, A as cross-sectional area and ∆x as the width of plate
parallel to heat flow. This function of heat transfer, when translated to variable relationship, tells that Q
per time is the dependent variable while varying changes in plate width shows independency controlled
by experimenter.
Inferential statistics can be applied to these variables depending on the purpose of test so that
prediction of output is analytically understood, or to know the degree of their connections based on the
significance of their relationship aligned with research objective.
5.3. Other Types of Variables:
5.3.1. Nominal variables. This is when labels are the elements that represent such type of variable
where the value of nominal cannot be ranked, thus considered the lowest level of measurement. When
dealing with nominal variables, there are no conditions or presumptions that can be inferred about any
relations of these variable. An example is gender where only two categories (male and female) don’t
have specific ordering as well as blood type (O+, AB, etc.) having more than 2 categories without
ordering.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
5.3.2. Ordinal variables. The ranking of ordinal variables is based on the set level of measurement, such
as usage of certain parameters, criteria or scale system. There are clear ordering of these kind of
variables. Some examples are the educational level (SHS, BS, MS, PhD), or satisfaction rating.
5.3.3. Interval variables. Considered as the highest unit of measure, interval variables contain data with
measurable and meaningful distance among the values. Such types are pH level and Temperature Scale.
5.3.4. Dichotomous variables. These are variables that has only two values and can be called as
dummy. These values can be quantitative or qualitative type. Some of the examples are electoral party
in USA (Democratic or Republican), Coin face (Head or Tail), etc.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES:

NAME: ______________________ SCHEDULE: _____________
COURSE & YEAR: ____________ DATE: __________________
ACTIVITY 6
Directions:
1. Talk to your groupmates and identify the dependent and independent variables in your assigned
research topic.
2. Develop a conceptual framework using the “Input – Process – Output Model” incorporating the different
variables that you have identified.
VII. EVALUATION (To be uploaded in the MS Teams)
VIII. ASSIGNMENT:
NAME: ______________________ SCHEDULE: _____________
COURSE & YEAR: ____________ DATE: __________________
ASSIGNMENT 6
Direction: Answer the following questions comprehensively.
1. What are the main roles of the conceptual framework in a research?
2. Discuss the process on how to initiate research paradigm.
3. Discuss the relationship of theory, research and knowledge in the formulation of research paradigm.
4. Cite five examples each of nominal, ordinal, interval and dichotomous relationships learned in any of
the subjects: Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer, Machine Elements, Vibration
Engineering.
IX. REFERENCES:
A) Book/Printed Resources
Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellen, R. F. (1984). Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Flick, U. (2004). Constructivism. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion
to qualitative research (pp. 88–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gage, N. (2007). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A historical sketch of research on
teaching since 1989. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational Research and Evidence-based
Practice(pp. 151–166). London, England: Sage.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)
IM No.6: ME 11-1S-2021-2022
B) e-Resources
Defining the Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from https://ncu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1013602

&p=7661246.
Research Paradigm. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/j0eylei_08/research-paradigm-

63679905.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/rsmehta/

theoretical-conceptual-framework.
Prepared by:
ENGR. DALE MARK N. BRISTOL, MSME, PhD-ME (Candidate)

Faculty, Mechanical Engineering Dept.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220)

Mor 6 Nvsu-Fr-Icd-05-00

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mor 6 Nvsu-Fr-Icd-05-00

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE: COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEGREE PROGRAM Bachelor of Science COURSE NO. ME 11

I. UNIT TITLE/CHAPTER TITLE:

CHAPTER 6. RESEARCH PARADIGM

II. LESSON TITLE:

1. Definition of Research Paradigm

III. LESSON OVERVIEW:

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES:

1. DEFINITION OF RESEARCH PARADIGM

2. COMPONENTS OF A RESEARCH PARADIGM

3. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

3.3. Critical Theory

4. THE THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

4.1. Difference between Theoretical from Conceptual Framework

A theoretical framework provides a general representation of relationships between things in a

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways:

A conceptual framework on the other hand is a synthetization of interrelated components and

4.2. Symbols Used in Constructing a Framework

c. Two headed arrow – it represents association or relationships between variables.

4.3. Critiquing the Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

4.4. Conceptual Framework Models

Example: A framework for designing multi – sensory displays.

b. Using the Input – Process - Output (IPO) Model

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Profile of engineering a. Data collection of

Profile of engineering a. Data collection of

c. Using Concept Maps

5. DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

5.1 Dependent Variables

5.2 Independent Variables

5.3. Other Types of Variables:

VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES:

VII. EVALUATION (To be uploaded in the MS Teams)

Direction: Answer the following questions comprehensively.

1. What are the main roles of the conceptual framework in a research?

2. Discuss the process on how to initiate research paradigm.

Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Defining the Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from https://ncu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1013602

Research Paradigm. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/j0eylei_08/research-paradigm-

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/rsmehta/

ENGR. DALE MARK N. BRISTOL, MSME, PhD-ME (Candidate)

You might also like