Article Critique Worksheet 1

EDUC 815

Article Critique Worksheet 1

Group number: 1

Members: Vernon Ball, Alisha Castaneda, Jason Cheek, Sasha Crocker and Deborah Davis

Questions:

1. Correctly reference the article using current APA format.

Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Liu, J. (2005). School climate: Sense of classroom and school communities in online and on-campus higher education courses.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 361-374. Retreived from

1. What is the purpose of the study?

The purpose of the study executed by Rovai, Wighting, and Liu (2005) was to investigate the influence of two variables, sense of community and perceived learning, in student attrition from higher education studies. More particularly, they examined the statistical differences between student persistence rates among students taking face-to-face courses and those studying in distance classes to learn whether the students’ sense of community and perceptions of learning were influenced by the course delivery method (face-to-face or distance) and the students’ status (undergraduate or graduate) (Rovai, et al, 2005).

1. List the research questions.

Are there statistically significant differences between perceptions of learning and sense of community (classroom community or school community), between course delivery methods (online or on-campus) and student status (undergraduate or graduate) (Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005).

1. List the hypotheses; then, underline and label the corresponding independent/dependent variables or predictor/criterion variables. Are there any covariates? If so, name them.

H00:Undergraduate and graduate face-to-face and distance students(IVs) do not significantly affect four community subscales:classroom social community(DV) andclassroom learning community(DV),school social community(DV), andschool learning community(DV).

H01:Undergraduate and graduate face-to-face and distance students(IVs) do not statistically differ in mean scores of school climate, as measured byclassroom community(DV) andschool community(DV), andstudent perceptions of learning(DV).

1. Do the questions pose an ethical or moral problem for implementation? Why or why not?

The research question does not pose an ethical or moral problem for implementation because the participants willfully participated in the research study, and the instruments administered did not pose a physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual threats to the participants’ well being.

1. Do the questions or hypotheses measure any theoretical constructs? If so, list them.

According to Jansen and Rieh (2010), "Theoretical constructs can be seen as fundamental elements that drive a field’s research" (p. 1519). Working with this defnition of theoretical constructs, it is apparent that the foundation of this research study rests upon the concepts of community and perceived learning. These concepts are theoretical in that they are dependent upon an underlying understanding of other terms. In other words, while a consensus on the defintions of terms might be reached, initial perceptions may be quite different.

Jansen, B., & Rieh, S. (2010). The seventeen theoretical constructs of information searching and information retrieval.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(8), 1517-1534.

1. Do the author(s) clearly identify the participants and setting? If so, describe them.

Rovai, et al. (2005) clearly identify the participants and setting of the research study. The participants consisted of 279 university students, with 104 undergraduate and 175 graduate students that were 89.6% female and 10.4% male (Rovai, et al., 2005). The participants also consisted of undergraduate and graduate Education majors, and “a total of 195 (69.9%)…were Caucasian [and] 55 (19.7%) were African American”—the remaining students were classified as “Asian/Pacific Islander,” “Hispanic,” and “other” (p. 365). Additionally, the setting for the study was convenience sample of students taking education courses at two urban universities in Virginia (Rovai, et al., 2005). The course material was delivered in either a face-to-face format on campus or distance format through the Blackboard learning system, and, according to Rovai, et al. (2005), the data were collected during the final three weeks of the course through online and paper surveys.

1. What research design is used and why?

The research design used was a causal-comparative research design. This design was used because the researchers were interested in finding a correlation between a cause (course delivery method) and its effect (sense of community and perceived learning) using the two student statuses (undergraduate and graduate).

1. What type of sampling method is used?

The nature of studying university students' in the face-to-face and distance class environments cannot be truly randomized. Therefore, a convenience sample of graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in education programs at two universities in an urban area of Virginia was used.

1. What are the names of each instrument used in the study (provide a list)?

The instruments used in the study includedthe Classroom and School Community Inventory (CSCI; Rovai, Wighting, & Lucking, 2004), and the perceived learning instrument developed by McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, and Barraclough (1996).

1. Are the instruments valid and reliable? Why or why not?

Yes, the instruments are valid and reliable. The Classroom and School Community Inventory has been found valid and reliable according to evidence found by Rovai, Wighting, and Lucking (2004). Reliability is estimated at about 0.84 (classroom community) and 0.83 (school community). The perceived learning instrument (McCroskey, et al., 1996) used in the study had a “test-retest reliability over a 5-day period [that] was .85 in a study of 162 adult learners” (Rovai, et al., 2005, p. 366).

1. Dothe author(s) give enough detail regarding the procedure so that the study could be replicated? How or how not?

Whether the study can be replicated depends largely on the intent of the replication. If the purpose of replication wasa general correlation study on types of course delivery (online via blackboard vice and face-to-face instruction) and student status(undergraduate or graduate) then it is likely the study can be replicated as distribution was specified during the last three weeks of coursework and prior to final examinations. If the study replication depends largely on teaching methods or the specifics of administration of the instrument, then the lack of those elements would preclude replication.

1. What type of statistical analysis is used and why?

A one-way MANOVA was “conducted to determine the effect of delivery method and student status on the four community subscales” (Rovai, et al., 2005, p. 368), and a Two-way MANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of the delivery method and student status on the “total classroom community, total school community, and perceived learning” (Rovai, et al., 2005, p. 368).

1. What are the major conclusions of the study? How do they relate to the hypothesis?

Rovai, Wighting, and Liu’s (2005) study found that online students scored lower on the classroom social community and school social community than students who studied in the face-to-face classroom environment. Consequently, online students “feel a weaker sense of connectedness and belonging than on-campus students” and are “more likely to drop out of their online programs” (Rovai, et al., 2005, p. 369). However, there was no statistically significant difference in students’ perceived learning scores, and the online students scored higher than on-campus students on the classroom learning community and school learning community scales (Rovai, et al., 2005). These conclusions reveal that the null hypotheses for the one-way and two-way MANOVAs should be rejected because the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variables are significant in the aforementioned ways.

1. Do the author(s) suggest any future studies to resolve ambiguities in the present study or to answer questions raised by the present study?

Rovai, et al. (2005) indicate that the results of the study are not generalizable because of the specified nature of the convenience sample, as well as the course subject taught. The classes in the sample were offered in urban Virginia universities with a predominantly white, female population of participants, and the course subjects focused specifically on education. The researchers, therefore, suggest that additional research is needed among different sample groups. Furthermore, the CSCI self-report is a “reactive measure, and there is a threat of bias based on possible dishonest responses” (Rovai, et al., 2005, p. 367), and implementing a different instrument may expand the research knowledge surrounding the topic.

Page 1 of 7