METODOLOGI PENELITIAN QUASI EKSPERIMEN
Keywords:
Quasi experiment, validity, design, treatment, analysisAbstract
Quasi-experimental research is a research method used to measure the effect of a particular treatment on a variable without using full subject randomization. This method is often used in situations where full control of external variables is difficult, such as in educational, social, or health settings. Quasi-experimental research designs involve a treatment group and a control group, but the subjects in both groups are not selected randomly. There are several types of designs in quasi-experiments, such as nonequivalent control group design, time series design, and pretest-posttest design. The main advantage of quasi-experiments is their flexibility in real-world situations, allowing researchers to test causal relationships in a more natural environment. However, this method has the disadvantage of potential threats to internal validity, such as selection bias and the influence of external variables. Therefore, data analysis in quasi-experiments requires special attention to control these factors, such as the use of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or other statistical methods. Quasi-experimental research is very relevant in developing policies or interventions that can be practically implemented in society. With a good design, this method is able to produce valid and useful findings for evidence-based decision making.
References
Abdulrahman, K., Makki, A., & Farooq, M. (2018). Blended learning: Promoting student engagement and critical thinking in medical education. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 9, 77–81. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S156042
Alharbi, H. (2017). Readiness for self-directed learning: A relevant factor for successful blended learning in higher education. Higher Education, 73(3), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0094-7
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2018). Teaching for quality learning at university. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1462305
Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a framework for digital engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1613–1634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09702-3
de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2018). Innovations in STEM education: The go-lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0054-2
Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed, and what remains uncertain. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5
Han, F., & Ellis, R. A. (2019). Personalised learning networks in higher education: How do students experience them? The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100753
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2019). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 35(3), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.050
Loes, C. N., Salisbury, M. H., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). Student perceptions of effective instruction and the development of critical thinking: A replication and extension. Higher Education, 69(5), 823–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9814-5
Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2016). Investigating student adoption of a course management system in higher education: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2282
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2016). Argumentation-based computer-supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.002
Robinson, K. A., & Lowe, M. E. (2015). Literature reviews vs systematic reviews: Applications for decision making. Nursing Standard, 29(26), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.26.36.e8937
Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Wigfield, A. (2016). STEM motivation interventions for adolescents: A promising start, but further to go. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1154792
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2019). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i3.4086
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 ADIBA : JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
