Upload
laurel-oliver
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
“The fact that one has to justify a study of human behaviour in a natural setting, where humans ordinarily behave, as opposed to in a laboratory setting, is certainly extraordinary” (Xaio, 1994; cited in Vicente, 1997, p. 323.).
Citation preview
Vicente, K. J. (1997). Heeding the legacy of Meister, Bunswik, & Gibson: Toward a broader view of human factors research. Human Factors, 39, 323-328.
Payne, D. G., & Blackwell, J. M. (1997). Toward a valid view of human factors research: Response to Vicente (1997). Human Factors, 39, 329-331.
“The fact that one has to justify a study of human behaviour in a natural setting, where humans ordinarily behave, as opposed to in a laboratory setting, is certainly extraordinary” (Xaio, 1994; cited in Vicente, 1997, p. 323.).
Ecological validity is a measure of the extent to which research represents real world problems.
It is often referred to as a “Gibsonian” approach because Gibson argued for more ecologically valid research methods and developed the area known of as ecological psychology.
Motor behavior research has been criticized because of its lack of ecological validity.
See Issue of Quest (1990)
Singer, R.N. (1990). Motor learning research: Meaningful ways for physical educators or a waste of time?
Magill, R.A. (1990). Motor learning is meaningful for physical educators.
Locke, L.F. (1990). Why motor learning is ignored: A case of ducks, naughty theories, and unrequited love.
Hoffman, S.J. (1990). Relevance, application, and the development of an unlikely theory.
Quest, 1990, 42 (2)
Seidentop, D.A. (1977). Motor learning and instructional design: Why the shotgun wedding? Proceedings of the NCPEAM/NAPECW National Conferenece (pp. 145-152). Chicago: National College Physical Education Association for Men and the National Association for Physical Education of College Women.
Personal experience Authority Inductive and deductive reasoning Scientific method Systematic forms of qualitative data
collection
Type 1 - “Highly controlled laboratory experiments”
Type 2 - “Less controlled but more complex laboratory experiments”
Type 3 - “Evaluations conducted in high-fidelity simulators or in the field”
Type 4 - “Qualitative, descriptive field studies”
Rigorous laboratory controls Well-defined and measured variables Reductionist approach Laboratory based Real science Objective Basic
Experimental control is lacking Observational variables are measured Measures are not quantifiable Not statistical Subjective analysis
Type 1 - May be limited because of reductionist approach, i.e., controls, tasks selected, context
Type 2 - Reduced control, increased representation of sample
Type 3 - Increased representation of the context, good generalizability
Type 4 - Conducted on real world problems