The Critique of a Published Research Article - Essay Example

1. Introduction Research is not a novel filled with literary illusions, but rather it is an activity filled with search and solution. The primary criteria for good scientific research writing are accuracy and clarity. The first step toward clarity is good organization that permits readers to read the report as they would any coherent narrative. Empirical research, in particular, is at the core of many fields of study. Because of the nature and importance of empirical research, it is essential that researchers have the necessary skills required to conduct objective empirical research projects specifically related to their topics of study. Furthermore, research results should be based on observed and measured phenomena; results should be derived from knowledge, from actual experience rather than from theory or belief. An essential ‘ingredient’ would be the article and/or abstract that would allow the reader to scan the article for a quick overview of the topic of discussion, or to locate specific information by turning directly to the relevant section of research interest. The purpose of this assignment is to provide critique in respect of the published empirical research article; ‘Collaborative Learning Enchances Critical Thinking’ (Gokhale, 1995). More specifically, the empirical research project focused on the analyses conducted to demonstrate and confirm the benefits and enhancement of students’ ability to learn as a result of collaborative learning when compared to individual learning. 2. Analysis of the Research Article Key characteristics of empirical research would be 1) a statement about the methodology being used, 2) research questions to be answered, 3) definition of the group phenomena being studied, and 3) process used to study this group or phenomena (including controls and instruments such as tests or surveys). The main question to be asked would be: could I recreate this study and the test results, understanding the characteristics and how it is conducted? 2.1 Opening Statements The first task of the article is to introduce the background and nature of the problem being investigated. In the first paragraph of the case study being analyzed, it was stated that collaborative learning had been widely researched. However, at a later stage it was mentioned that such research had been conducted at the primary and secondary levels only, carrying little empirical evidence of effectiveness at college level. Since the level of research has been identified as a key characteristic, the statement immediately poses certain problems. The ideas that we use for our theories cannot just be applied to the empirical world, we need to convert the concepts in the theories to ‘objects’ we will use as indicators of those concepts. Therefore much more detailed attention should have been paid to summarizing the current state of knowledge in the area of investigation including what previous research had been done on the subject of collaborative versus individual learning techniques. The article, however, adhered to the rule of keeping the opening statement people orientated (Bem, (2002), i.e. keeping it comprehensible to the layperson. It is recommended that the section containing the opening statement should end the introduction with a brief overview of the researcher’s own study which provides a natural and smooth transition into the method section (Britton, 1996). In the case of the research article under review, this continuity was disturbed by presenting the research questions and the definition of terms at the end of the introduction instead of at the beginning of the article. The purpose of the research was clearly defined as an examination of the effectiveness of individual learning versus collaborative learning in enhancing ‘drill-and practice skills’ and ‘critical thinking skills’ confirming the research objective and also serving as a logic step to introducing the methodology. 2.2 Methodology The researcher should first provide an overview of the study, including the description of participants, setting, and variables assessed, but then describe the experiment from the participants’ vantage point. Show sample items from questionnaires, labels on attitude scales. Although the methodology had been well structured and presented, it might be argued that a sample size of 48 students could not be regarded as representative of the population of college students. This statement is further supported by fact that the collaborative learning and individual learning treatment groups only consisted of 24 members each. Although it is appreciated that individual participation was ensured by introducing a smaller study size group with sub-groups of four, the validity of the results could be questioned. If participants are divided into groups, it must be ensured that such groups did not differ on some unintended variable that might have an influence on the interpretation of the results (e.g. social class, intelligence, etc). Such evidence is not explicit or clear from the case study being reviewed. For purposes of clarity ‘validity’ is defined as ‘a good indicator of what we want to count or measure’ (Alison Britton, 1996) not ignoring the question of how good an indicator the results would be. Favorable consideration should be given to that fact that the lecture was presented to both groups simultaneously to prevent the effect of any extraneous variables such as time of day, day of week, lighting of room, and others. The lecture was received under common circumstances and conditions. References made to the different groups were in all instances clear and understandable, without complicating the details and leading to confusion. The methodology section was concluded with an excessive number of facts whereas a brief summary of the procedure and overall purpose could have been presented which would have provided a smooth transition to the results section (Bem, 2002). 2.3 Results The method and results sections share the responsibility for presenting certain kinds of data that support the reliability and validity of your substantive findings (Bem, 2002). The final stage of carrying out a research project is to share your results (Alison Britton, 1996). By reliable it is meant that the indicator produces results that do not vary in an irrelevant way (Alison Britton, 1996). Such information should reveal 1) the interpretation of the behavior observed, and 2) readers should be in a position to arrive at their own judgments about the researcher’s conclusions. Expository writing fails in its mission if it diverts the reader’s attention away from the topic, thus the process of writing should be transparent to the reader. 2.4 Instruments / Data It should always be remembered that when conducting a research analysis one should be at liberty to criticize and complain as strongly as one feels is commensurate with the incompetence revealed, the object of criticism should be towards the work and not the author/researcher. The instruments were developed by the author and included the pretest and posttest sheets which were designed to measure student understanding the of series and parallel dc circuits. It would have been advisable to have included examples of the worksheets used for both the drill-and-practice items and well as the critical thinking items. Including such worksheets in the article would have contributed to assessing the degree of difficulty of the research. With the selection of examples and when developing arguments or introducing technical materials, it is important not only to provide your readers with illustrative examples, but to select the examples with care. In particular, you should try to compose one or two examples that anticipate your actual findings and then use them recurrently to make several interrelated conceptual points. This pedagogical technique strengthens thematic coherence of an article and silently prepares the reader for understanding the results. It also shortens the article by removing the need to explain the theory once in the introduction with hypothetical examples and then again in the context of the actual results (Bem, 2002). According to the research article, instructions and purpose of the exercise were clearly explained to participants. However, possible positive outcomes were clearly outlined and might even have been over-emphasized. Under different circumstances such behavior could be interpreted as manipulation and the objectivity of the research questioned. Theoretically, however, the data could be classified as structured data accompanied by closed questions which made analyzing the data relatively easy, but it might tend to restrict responses. Every comparison between groups or relationships between variables should be accompanied by its level of statistical significance. Despite the importance of statistics, they are not the heart of the narrative and should be subordinated to the descriptive results. Whenever possible, the result should be stated first followed by the statistical significance, but under no circumstances would it be acceptable to reflect results of the statistical test alone without interpreting it substantively. The statistical analyses clearly explained, interpreted and reflected the results on both of the research questions. Once again, as a result of the small sample size, these calculations and statistical analysis appear almost insignificant. 2.5 Discussions and Findings The initial evidence or raw data that a researcher collects has to be converted into a form of language that can be written clearly and unambiguously in standardized symbols that can be used for analysis (Allison Britton, 1996). Students were invited to provide their responses to the collaborative learning method. It was definitely favorably received and they reported advantages and benefits such as: 1) it helped understanding, 2) it pooled knowledge and experience, 3) stimulated thinking, 4) more relaxed atmosphere made problem solving easy, 5) it was fun. This kind of positive feedback will obviously contribute to and support the research argument. The discussion section also includes a consideration of questions that remain unanswered or that have been raised by the study itself, along with suggestions for the kinds of research that would help to answer them. 3. Conclusion Empirical research defines relationships, demonstrates cause and effect and even sparks our own minds to begin thinking of other possibilities to be tested and studied. Empirical research relies on, or is derived from, observation or experiment verifiable or provable by observation or experiment and guided by practical experience and not from theory or belief. Although the value of the research article should not be underestimated, future research studies would be required to investigate the effect of different variables in the collaborative learning process. In the research article under review the independent variable was method of instruction, a variable with two categories; individual learning and collaborative learning. The dependent variable was the posttest score which was made up of ‘drill-and-practice’ items and ‘critical thinking’ items. Group composition: Heterogeneous versus homogeneous, group selection and size would most certainly require some attention. However, the need for noncompetitive, collaborative group work is emphasized in much of the higher education literature. It is important and appropriate to compare your results with those reported by other investigators and to discuss possible shortcomings of your study, conditions that might limit the extent of legitimate generalization or otherwise qualify your inferences (Bem, 2002). Suggesting further research is probably the most common way of ending a research report. CRITIQUE OF THE PUBLISHED EMIPRICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE ‘COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ENHANCES CRITICAL THINKING 1. Introduction 2. Analysis of Research Article 2.1 Opening Statement 2.2 Methodology 2.3 Instruments 2.4 Discussion and Findings 3. Conclusion Bibliography Daryl J Bem; Cornell University, 2002. Writing the Empirical Journal Article http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/writing_article.html Allison Britton, (1996). Advice about Empirical Research http://www.mdx.ac.uj/www/study/Research.htm Levin, Richard I, and Rubin, David S (1991) Statistics for Management. USA Prentice-Hall, Inc. Mathur, K and Solow, D (1994). The Art of Decision Making. USA Prentice-Hall, Inc. Read More