Help with homework?

Question

Describe and compare experimental and non-experimental methods of research. Include observational, survey, correlational and experimental-(the disadvantages and advantages of). This all describes the methods used in Child Development Research.

Answer 1

Experimental involves an experiment, that is, your research will be based on a scientific experiment. In order to do that, you will have to select what to observe (for example, breast-fed and bottle-fed babies); collect data (observation, field notes over a long period of time, say, a year); compare and contrast the two groups (development, growth, etc.); analyze the results (use quantitative data to show the differences between the groups of subjects); and, finally, draw conclusions.

Non-experimental research does not involve experiment, that is, you could report the findings of other researchers (compare and contrast their experiments and/or results and draw your own conclusions). Or you may even conduct a survey (a non-experimental research), based on interviews. For example, you could interview doctors, nurses and mothers (by means of a questionnaire or open questions). From your data, draw your own conclusions.

Both types of research are limited to a specific context (the subjects, their profile, the method used). Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:
(A) both methods are reliable;
(B) experimental: the researcher makes all the choices (subjects, experiments, etc.); therefore, (s)he can really follow each and every step;
(C) non-experimental is quicker because you may use questionnaires and interviews.

Disadvantages:
(A) experimental and non-exp.: the results, in both cases, relate to the subjects analyzed; a different group of subjects could disprove someone else's results;
(B) experimental: if the researcher bases (her)his study on quantitative data only, it could be questioned because it lacks qualitative analysis;
(C) non-exp.: if the researcher bases (her)his study solely on qualitative analysis, it could be questioned because it lacks quantitative analysis.

Conclusion: both have positive and negative factors. Yet, both are reliable methods of investigation. A lot depends on the researcher (her)himself.

Answer 2

Hmm, I've been out of school for a while but I'll try to help. The names are pretty self-explanatory. Observational would describe observing a child during activity. The observer would simply take notes about behavior, social interaction, the environment, and how the child goes about his activity. Survey would involve interviewing others, parents, caregivers, family, etc. It might involve a questionnaire, or survey, for those individuals to complete. A correlational study would involve comparing data accumulated in several studies. Possibly several observations of groups, or surveys of groups. An experimental study I think would be a structured study of a specific activity and how a child completes specific tasks.

An observational approach would give you a very accurate idea of a child's capabilities in the activities observed, but not a broad look at other areas. A survey gives you the view point of one or more adults close to the child but no opportunity to observe on your own. A correlational study would give a broad comparison of groups of children, but would not give specific data on a particular child. And an experimental study would give you a look at a child's reaction and behavior in a controlled situation, but might not accurately represent the child's behavior in a different, less controlled environment. To accurately look at a specific child, I would want to use several methods, or possibly all of these described. That way you would see the child in action and get others' view points as well as norms to compare to.

Hope this helps! Be sure to read your text for more information. Try to imagine a specific child in a specific situation to help yourself understand a little better.