hypothesis generating and hypothesis testing nov 20 2012

7/29/2019 Hypothesis Generating and Hypothesis Testing Nov 20 2012

1/31

Hypothesis generating and

hypothesis testing

Marjorie Lorch


2/31

Assignment

One essay of 3,500-4,000 words to be

submitted by6pm, January 11th 2012.**Both uploaded to Turnitin on Moodle and paper

copy delivered to the office.

(See handbook for details regarding deadlines,mitigating circumstances.)

This module is assessed by a structured

essay which presents a critical reading of a

piece of research literature to be selected from

a list provided by the lecturer.


3/31

1) how this piece of research fits into the

larger research context;

2) how well the particular research aims,

objectives or goals were met;

3) the appropriateness of the methodemployed;

4) whether the evidence presented to

support the research question was

adequate;

5) whether the interpretation of findings

was justified.


4/31

Each of these 5 points should be given

equal consideration. This should provide a

characterization of why the research wascarried out and an evaluation of how it was

done, what was found and what it means.

The essay should be presented with aclear structure and include an introduction

and a conclusion. In this final section,

consideration of alternative interpretations

and/or reflections on further research

innovations may be included.


5/31

Garrett, P. and Young, R. (2009) Theorizing affect in foreign language learning: An analysis of

one learners responses to a communicative-based Portuguese course. The Modern Language

Journal 93:209-226. https://readings.bbk.ac.uk/readings/G/Garrett&Young2009.pdf

Rob, A. Martinsen, R.A., Baker, W., Bown, .J and Johnson, C. (2011) The Benefits of Living in

Foreign Language Housing: The Effect of Language Use and Second-Language Type on Oral

Proficiency Gains. The Modern Language Journal 95, 2, 274290.https://readings.bbk.ac.uk/readings/M/Martinsen2011.pdf

Shin, S.J. and Milroy, L. (2000) Conversational codeswitching among Korean-English bilingual

children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 3, 351-383.

Otheguy, R. and Stern, N. (2011) On so-called Spanglish. International Journal of

Bilingualism 15, 85-100.

Breeze, R. (2012) Legitimation in corporate discourse: Oil corporations after DeepwaterHorizon. Discourse & Society 23,1, 3-18.

Bassiouney, R. (2012) Politicizing identity: Code choice and stance-taking during the Egyptian

revolution. Discourse & Society 23, 107-126.

Fehringer, C. (2012) The lexical representation of compound words in English: evidence

from aphasia. Language Sciences 34, 1, 65-75.

Ibrahim, R. (2011) Literacy problems in Arabic: Sensitivity to diglossia in tasks involvingworking memory. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24, 5, 571-582.

Catenaccio, P. et al. (2011) Discursive Perspectives on News Production. Journal of

Pragmatics 43, 7 1841-2094.

Carris, L. M. (2011) La Voz Gringa: Latino stylisation of linguistic (inauthenticity as social

critique. Discourse and Society 22, 4, 474-490.
http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030401http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030401http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006910379298http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431511http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431511http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431514http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431514http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.001http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.001http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.022http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395835http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395835http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395835http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395835http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.022http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.001http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.001http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.001http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.001http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431514http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431514http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431514http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431514http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431511http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431511http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006910379298http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006910379298http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006910379298http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030401http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030401http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030401http://ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069000040030401


6/31

Qualitative vs Quantitative

Qualitative evidence addresses

questions about how something is

Quantitative evidence describes howmuch/how many


7/31

Qualitative vs Quantitative

Qualitative research is

hypothesis generating

Quantitative research is

hypothesis testing


8/31

Qualitative Approach


9/31

Quantitative Approach


10/31

Questions

Research Question:

The question the research itself is trying to

answer

Methodological Question:

The questions asked in order to identify the

best way to gather evidence to provide theanswer to the research question


11/31

What are Hypotheses?

A predicted answer to a research question


12/31

Questions and Hypotheses

Qualitative research is typically theory

building and hypothesis generating.

The research focus is refined over the

course of the data collection.

The analysis of qualitative data results in

the generation of new hypotheses, models

and theories.


13/31

Questions and Hypotheses

Theory and the results of previous

qualitative or quantitative research may be

the starting point for generating specific

hypotheses.

Quantitative approaches test these

hypotheses.


14/31

Research Goals and Results

When there is a question but not a

hypothesis there is no clear expectation of

particular results but rather a researchobjective and goal.

This is typically pursued with qualitative

methods. The outcome is a new description.


15/31

Research Goals and Results

When a prediction exists before the research is

started there is an a priorihypothesis of

expected results.

This is typically pursued with quantitativemethods.

The outcome of prediction testing is evidence of

a causal relationship between two or more

variables.

Testing the hypothesis indirectly tests the theory.


16/31

The role of theory

Preconceived ideas

Basic assumptions

Implicit perspectives

--Rarely explicitly stated


17/31

Commons Sense

Intuitively obvious

Summarizes experience

Simple

**BUT ALSO

Rarely focused on a problem

Oversimplifies

Vague or unmeasurable

Predictions may cover allpossible outcomes


18/31

Scientific Theories

Internally logical

Avoid contradiction

Consistent with existing facts

Provides framework fororganizing new facts

Testable

May lead to counter-intuitiveor novel predictions

Parsimoniousi.e., simple is

best


19/31

Bad Theories

Unclearly defined foundational terms

Concepts that are non-objective

Too vague, leading to no predictions ormultiple predictions for a given outcome


20/31

Scientific Understanding

Observation Classification

Description Model

Explanation

Theory


21/31

What makes a good model?

The function of a model is to mediate

between theory and data.


22/31

DOMAIN ASSUMPTIONS

THEORY

MODEL

DATA


23/31

Types of Models

1. The model is Wrong

That is, one that does not fit

the data.

It is very useful to identify this

through the gathering ofresearch evidence.


24/31

Types of Models

2. The model is BAD

That is, one that does not fit either the

theory or the data.

This can be determined through logical

argument and a systematic review of

existing data to show that the model is ill-

formed.


25/31

Types of Models

3. TRIVIAL

That is, one that fits any data.

This shows that the model is too powerful

and can not be falsified.


26/31

Types of Models

4. MISCHARACTERISED

That is, a model that fits another theory as

well as the one intended.

This means pursuing evidence in support of

this model will not help theory building.


27/31

Types of Models

5. MISLEADING

That is, one that does not fit the domain

assumptions so that it appears to work but

for the wrong reasons.


28/31

The best way to unmask bad or trivial

models is by using data and prediction

techniques rigorously.


29/31

Scientific knowledge developsthrough the testing of hypotheses withthe potential to disprove theories.

For the philosophical foundations of this point and the work of KarlPopper and Thomas Kuhn see: Lakotos, I and Musgrave, A. 1970.Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press.


30/31

A particular model or theory is often

implicit in the choice of a particular

research topic.


31/31

Consider one of these Research Questions and decidethe Theoretical Framework and MethodologicalApproach which might be used to address it:

Which materials are effective in language learning?

Does second language learning involve the samepsycholinguistic processes as first language learning?

Are there significant differences in the ways in which

people communicate with the same or opposite gender? Do people from the same ethnic or linguistic background

share the same cultural preferences and values?

How are power relationships in the multilingual

workplace marked? Are managers trained in the language and culture of their

clients able to transact business more effectively?

How do bilingual parents help their children acquirelanguage?

hypothesis generating and hypothesis testing nov 20 2012

Documents