QUANITIATIVE ARTICLE REVIEW1

Quantitative Article Review

Corinne Blake

EDUC 518

Professor Woodward

Liberty University

Quantitative Article Review

Summary

This paper is a review of the article entitled “Teaching style and learning in a quantitative classroom.” The article was co-written by J. Giles, D. Ryan, G Belliveau, E. De Freitas, and R. Casey and published in 2006. The authors objectives were to establish protocols, determine evidence, and assess feasibility for technology integration in a statistics classroom. Through these objectives, the authors have developed a general purpose of their study.

“The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of teaching style on student learning; therefore, the true intent of the study was not revealed to participants until all data were collected and analysed [sic]” (Giles, Ryan, Belliveau, De Freitas, & Casey, 2006, p. 215). The study took place at the University of Prince Edward Island, where the majority of the authors were from. Therefore, the 143 participants can be determined to be an accessible population. The study was broken up into two statistics classes, Histogram and Confidence interval, that were further categorized into four sections each. The sample of students taken was a volunteer sampling. Although the true purpose of the study was not revealed to them, they all consented to participating to afaux research question pertaining to the effectiveness of the program. The number of students that participated in the student-centered class sections for Histogram was 61 (38 females and 23 males) and 57 for Confidence interval (37 females and 20 males). The number of students that participated in the teacher-centered classes was 82 (49 females and 33 males) for Histogram and 35 (21 females and 14 males) for Confidence interval.

Another type of population these statistics courses represent is a targeted population. It fits this criterion because the students enrolled in these courses wererequired to fit the needs of this study. Due to this, the research design can be determined as quasi-experimental. In addition, this study is a quasi-experimental designsince it’s foundation a replicated Latin Square. The variables of this study were the type of instruction being given (independent variable) and the amount of understanding of the students (dependent variable) while the controls were the class types, material taught, instructors, and students.

Data was collected in both qualitative (class evaluation) and quantitative (knowledge evaluation)forms. The quantitative data included the results of a 15-minute quiz over the material taught throughout the class. A mixed linear model from the SAS system was used for the statistical analysis of the quiz. Through this method, the authors could find the effects of both types of instruction as well as other random effects that might have been determined.

One can deduce that the authors used an ANOVA, analysis of variance, to find their results as the independent variable was categorical and the dependent variable was continuous and standard errors were calculated. The results show that there was no significant difference the instructors’ knowledge and their engagement (p-value 0.2396) between the two types of instructional strategies. However, the results dididentify that there was in fact a difference in understanding in favor of a teacher-centered classroom. The different categories that determined that a teacher-centered classroom was better were, “effectiveness of the presentation (p-value 0.0080), use of examples (p-value 0.0391), overall rating (p-value 0.0004) and confidence to write the quiz (p-value 0.0005)” (Giles, Ryan, Belliveau, De Freitas, & Casey, 2006, p. 217).

Additional results were found to determine if there were any student characteristics that could be an extra variable to the experiment. Influence of gender (p-value 0.9717) and student grouping preference (p-value 0.2882) did not have an effect on the student’s quiz scores while a student’s personality (p-value 0.0325), mathematical ability (p-value 0.0201), and reason for success (p-value 0.0242) did affect their quiz performance. There was a Type I error of five percent was used to determine significance in this analysis. Table 2 illustrates how the standard error compares for a teacher-centered class versus a student-centered class. The results show that students, on average, received a 3.76 percent increase on their quiz scores in the teacher-centered classroom.

Analysis

Further research could include testing in various subject fields, a new location,changing the parameters of instructional time for the class, looking at a different age group, increased consistency among the student populations in both courses, larger sample size, and the length of the assessment quiz being reviewed. The validity of this study can come into question because the exact questions that the students were tested on were not revealed. In addition, the quiz used for the quantitative measurement did not count against the student’s grades therefore; the effort put into the answers could be skewed. The implications of this research are that students in a university statistics class generally work better with a teacher-centered classroom, learn better with PowerPoint presentations and hard copies, and achieve understanding more when observing examples instead of figuring them out for themselves.

Overall this limited research study has shown that students achieve better understanding in a teacher-centered classroom. However, I do not feel that this can be taken as the final word on this subject. Many studies have shown that an increase in student engagement will lead to an increase in student achievement. “Engaged time, or time on task, the number of minutes actually spent learning, is the time measure that is most frequently found to contribute to learning” (Slavin, 2012, p. 317).This study is just one pieceto understanding the massive puzzle of teaching effectively.

References

Giles, J., Ryan, D., Belliveau, G., De Freitas, E., & Casey, R. (2006). Teaching style and learning in a quantitative classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7, 213-225. doi: Sage Publication

Slavin, R. E. (2012). Educational psychology, theory and practice. (10 ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Peer Editing Rubric for the Quantitative Article Review

Author of Review: Corinne Blake

Peer Editor: linda Tajima

Summary / 2.5 / 2 / 1.5 / 1 / 0 / Total
Purpose of the study / Purpose of the study clearly and concisely identified. / Purpose of the study identified. / Purpose of the study is unclear. / No discussion of the purpose of the study. / Incomplete / 1.5
Description of Participants/sample / Thorough description of participants/sample, including sample selection. / Good description of participants sample and sample selection procedures. / Moderately well description of participants sample and sample selection. / Little if any description of sample. No mention of sampling procedures. / Incomplete / 1
Research Design / Research Design documented with indicators of why this is an appropriate design. / Research Design documented with a general recognition of why this is an appropriate design. / Research Design documented. / No research design indicated. / Incomplete / 0
Data Collection & Analysis / Method of collection and statistical procedure(s) used to analyze data is indicated and explained thoroughly. / Method of data collection and statistical procedure(s) indicated and somewhat explained. / Method of data collection and statistical procedure analyzed incorrectly / No method of data or statistical procedures indicated. / Incomplete / 0
Results / Tightly focused writing summarizing the results of the study / Generally focused summary of the results of the study / Somewhat focused summary of the results of the study / Scattered random writing without focus on the results of the study / Incomplete / 1
Analysis
Further Research / Provides multiple directions for further research. / Provides a few directions for further research. / Directions for further research are unclear or inconsistent with findings. / Incomplete discussion of further research. / Incomplete / 1.5
Validity/rival hypotheses / Complete yet concise discussion of the validity/rival hypotheses / Concise and generally recognizes most aspects of the validity/rival hypotheses / Validity/rival hypotheses tend to be one-sided with aspects of the validity/rival hypotheses missing. / Incomplete validity/rival hypotheses discussion / Incomplete / 1.5
Original insight/Criticism / Insight/Criticism based on fact, research, or scholarly authority. / Generally good evidence given in support of opinion. / Evidence only somewhat supports opinion. / Opinion entirely unsupported. / Incomplete / 1.5
Implications / Complete yet concise discussion of implications of research on practice / Concise and generally recognizes implications for practice. / Unclear implications for practice. / Incomplete discussion of implications. No connection between research and practice. / Incomplete / 1.5
Writing/Style
Writing and APA / Free of spelling, syntax, and grammatical errors. Well-edited material. APA style applied consistently throughout / Only a few errors of minor significance with grammar and APA / A number of errors. Not well edited. / Many errors. Poor grammar and sentence structure as well as APA errors / Incomplete / 0
Total / 9.5/25
Peer Comments:
I am trying to help you, so please take my peer review as you wish. What concerns me most is that the article you chose does not appear to contain statistical analysis that this assignment requires. (See the “NOTE” at the bottom of Quantitative Article Review Instructions.) At least from your draft, I did not see any evidence of t-test, p-test, etc. done in the study. If this is the case, I strongly encourage you to find another article that has statistically analyzed data. In case you want to move on with the article, below comments are provided.
APA style lacking greatly (some examples include: title page incorrect, no header or pagination, incorrect in-article citations, title of reference page incorrect, improper word usage). Refer to APA manual for correct examples.
Incorrect simple word usage (effect vs affect, an vs in). Inconsistent verb tense. Some sentences do not even make sense (one example your first sentence “The article that will be reviews throughout this paper…”). First paragraph is wordy, and choppy. A few sentences can be combined for smoother flow. Poorly written overall. Poor grammar.
I had no idea what the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative was. The explanation of the term sooner will potentially help the readers to understand the study more. Check page 91 Section 4.07 for correct APA usage of when a title of an article is mentioned in-text; article title should be in quotation marks in-text, and italicized on reference page. I would also recommend checking into the use of 1:1 vs one-to-one, or at least use proper use of abbreviations and how to correctly do this APA style.
The study was described as taking place over three years. Longitudinal study was not even mentioned in article review, let alone specific quantitative research design. Research design needs to be clearly documented and indicate why the design is appropriate.
Purpose of the study not clearly stated. What kind of an effect were researchers looking for with one to one technology on students and teachers? May consider rewording and redefining.
Description of sample and participants was confusing. How many students? How many teachers? More detailed information. No idea how many participants in study and what were the additional two public schools mentioned involved for comparison? What were they comparing them to? No mention of how your sample was chosen either.
Data collected through surveys. What kind of surveys? What kind of questions? How were they collected or administered?
Results were very poorly described and confusing. Scattered. What kind of impact did the study show? Positive impact is implied, but did not clearly state. What is Table 6 showing? Quantitative data? Citation missing for Table 6. Probably better to describe data in table than just refer to a table in an article review. In the results, stated “There was a significant increase in communications with others…” Who are others? Result data appears fragmented with a random quote. Here is the problem. The mentioning of percentages is not indicative of statistical analysis. In your case, just a summary of percentage increases. Any correlations mentioned in the article? calculated results? Without them, how did the study prove there was an increase in student engagement and motivation? Percentage increase is a good indication, but hardly proof. How had the school climate changed per the teachers’ beliefs? How did teachers’ roles change? Much use of percentages, what are you comparing? Why are these percentages significant? What is the purpose of breaking up the students into categories? You mentioned there was an increase in student engagement and motivation, from how much did these items increase?
There is no statistical analysis mentioned in this article review.
I believe it is probably prudent to seek Professor Woodward’s guidance on this review to help you on current and future assignments. I am only trying to be a help to you.