Evaluate practical investigation from
learning theories (8)
One strength of my practical investigation is that it was reliable. The aim was to investigate
gender differences in prosocial behaviour such as politeness on public transport, quantitative
data was collected through event sampling where the number of males and females
thanking the bus driver before alighting was counted, and qualitative data concerned
observations about any interactions participants had with the bus driver, such as eye contact
and a friendly chat. The dependent variable of politeness on public transport was
operationalised to a behaviour that could be easily measured objectively such as thanking or
not the bus driver. This means that the findings were objective and reliable because
quantitative data does not require a researcher’s personal interpretation. This is a strength
as this implies that the study can be considered reliable due to the operationalised variables.
On the other hand, this study was conducted at a specific time of the day like 4 p.m., where
participants might have been more tired from work and maybe less likely to interact with the
bus driver. This implies that the findings may not represent true gender differences in
prosocial behaviour, thus lacking in validity.
One weakness of my practical investigation is that it may lack validity. A thematic analysis
was conducted to analyse the qualitative data gathered about participants’s behaviour
besides thanking the bus driver or not. The coding scheme included presence of eye
contact, greeting or chatting with the bus driver and smiling. Findings show that more males
thanked the bus driver with familiarity, smiled and greeted them, whereas more females
made eye contact with the bus driver. Results from the Chi-squared test showed that there
was no significant difference between males and females in thanking the bus driver or not,
thus accepting the null hypothesis. However, the coding scheme used might have been
different if the study was to be replicated again. This is because researchers might interpret
behaviours displayed by the participants differently, which means that the findings may be
subjective. This is a weakness as this reduces the validity of the study. However, since this
was a covert observation, participants’s behaviour is more likely to be natural because
researcher effects are minimal. Therefore, findings may still be valid as they represent the
prosocial behaviour that they were supposed to represent.
In conclusion, my practical investigation investigated gender differences in prosocial
behaviour through operationalising politeness on public transport to whether the participants
thanked the bus driver or not. This helps to make the results more credible since the
phenomena observed is easily measurable, which also makes the results more objective
and reliable. However, the thematic analysis conducted might have suffered from bias as
there was only 1 observer present, therefore the coding scheme used and the subsequent
findings drawn from it might have been subjective and not valid. To improve this, the
observation could be replicated on different times of the day in different days with more
observers present so that subjective interpretations of behaviour may be lessened and the
sample may be more representative.
learning theories (8)
One strength of my practical investigation is that it was reliable. The aim was to investigate
gender differences in prosocial behaviour such as politeness on public transport, quantitative
data was collected through event sampling where the number of males and females
thanking the bus driver before alighting was counted, and qualitative data concerned
observations about any interactions participants had with the bus driver, such as eye contact
and a friendly chat. The dependent variable of politeness on public transport was
operationalised to a behaviour that could be easily measured objectively such as thanking or
not the bus driver. This means that the findings were objective and reliable because
quantitative data does not require a researcher’s personal interpretation. This is a strength
as this implies that the study can be considered reliable due to the operationalised variables.
On the other hand, this study was conducted at a specific time of the day like 4 p.m., where
participants might have been more tired from work and maybe less likely to interact with the
bus driver. This implies that the findings may not represent true gender differences in
prosocial behaviour, thus lacking in validity.
One weakness of my practical investigation is that it may lack validity. A thematic analysis
was conducted to analyse the qualitative data gathered about participants’s behaviour
besides thanking the bus driver or not. The coding scheme included presence of eye
contact, greeting or chatting with the bus driver and smiling. Findings show that more males
thanked the bus driver with familiarity, smiled and greeted them, whereas more females
made eye contact with the bus driver. Results from the Chi-squared test showed that there
was no significant difference between males and females in thanking the bus driver or not,
thus accepting the null hypothesis. However, the coding scheme used might have been
different if the study was to be replicated again. This is because researchers might interpret
behaviours displayed by the participants differently, which means that the findings may be
subjective. This is a weakness as this reduces the validity of the study. However, since this
was a covert observation, participants’s behaviour is more likely to be natural because
researcher effects are minimal. Therefore, findings may still be valid as they represent the
prosocial behaviour that they were supposed to represent.
In conclusion, my practical investigation investigated gender differences in prosocial
behaviour through operationalising politeness on public transport to whether the participants
thanked the bus driver or not. This helps to make the results more credible since the
phenomena observed is easily measurable, which also makes the results more objective
and reliable. However, the thematic analysis conducted might have suffered from bias as
there was only 1 observer present, therefore the coding scheme used and the subsequent
findings drawn from it might have been subjective and not valid. To improve this, the
observation could be replicated on different times of the day in different days with more
observers present so that subjective interpretations of behaviour may be lessened and the
sample may be more representative.
