Term Paper on "Inclusion Research Daniel, L.G. & King"

Quoted Instructions for "Inclusion Research Daniel, L.G. and King" Assignment:

open to all *****s!

Critique of a Research Study

Chosen Article:

*****Impact of Inclusion Education on Academic Achievement, Student Behavior, and Self-Esteem, and Parental Attitudes*****. From: JVIB, November 1, 1977, author: Debra A. King

The critique is to be broken down into three parts *****“

1) intro and definition of the problem,

2) the methods section, and

3) the results and conclusions.

For each part, be sure to

a) describe the concept you are referring to when you

b) evaluate the quality of the work and

c) provide reasons for your judgments. See a-c below for examples.

a) Describe the concept as it is found in the specific section of the article (ex. There were 45 subjects drawn from a random sample*****¦).

b) b) Evaluate the quality of the author*****s presentation of research. (ex. The author provides a very clear description so that another researcher could duplicate the study with the exception of the explanation of how the groups were randomized*****¦)

c) reasoning as to what makes the presentation strong and/or weak. (ex. This is a good selection of sample because in order to make accurate predictions, randomizing the sample leaves fewer chances that the sample is skewed in the direction of*****¦)

Address each of the major topics in bold within the three main parts of the paper. The sub-questions under each heading are just guidelines - things to think about while addressing the topic. The paper should be written in paragraph form with general headings to identify each of the parts. The questions are listed under the sections where they are commonly found in a research report. However, you may find some of your information in other sections

Part 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Title - How complete is the title in giving the reader a clear idea of the contents of the article?

1. Does the title make clear the population of interest and the major variables?

2. Might the title be improved? If so, how?

3. Have vague, biasing, and/or emotion-laden terms been avoided?

Problem - What is the problem being addressed in this study?

1. What was the purpose of the study?

2. Is the problem statement clear?

3. Is the problem *****researchable***** as stated; i.e., can it be investigated through the collection of appropriate data?

4. Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship(s) between those variables that were investigated? If so, what were they?

Review of the Literature *****“ How complete and concise is the review of literature in relation to the problem?

1. What is the educational (psychological, administrative, instructional, etc; whatever is

appropriate) significance of the problem? Is the significance (importance) clearly discussed?

Are you convinced?

2. What background information on the problem is presented? Is it sufficient, appropriate in

breadth and depth?

3. Is the review of literature comprehensive; are studies recent and inclusive of disagreeing or

contradictory findings?

4. Is the review evaluative? Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of

various studies compared and contrasted; i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or

annotations?

5. Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and implications for the

problem under investigation?

6. Is the review well organized; does it flow logically?

7. Is the language used neutral or biased; does the language and style help or hinder your

understanding?

8. Are all references cited relevant to the problem under investigation? Are all relevant aspects of the study addressed in the review?

9. Are the references generally primary (i.e., original studies) or secondary sources?

Hypothesis (or Research question), Variables, & Operational Definitions *****“ What are the major variables being studied and how are they operationalized? What are the hypotheses or research questions being addressed? Discuss the quality of their presentation.

1. What are the major variables in the research? How have they been defined so far?

2. What are the specific questions to be answered or specific hypotheses to be tested? Are

the questions and/or hypotheses stated clearly and specifically?

3. Do the research questions or hypotheses follow logically from the statement of the problem?

4. Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference among variables? Does

each research question clearly identifies the variables of interest?

5. Is each hypothesis testable? Is each research question answerable?

Part 2: METHODS

Subjects *****“ Describe the subjects of the study and how they were selected. Discuss advantages and/or disadvantages of this sample selection.

1. Are the size and major characteristics of the target and/or accessible population described?

2. Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?

3. What sampling method was used? Is the method of selecting the sample clearly

described?

4. What sampling method was used? Is the method of selecting the sample clearly

described?

5. Does the sampling allow for generalization to the population of interest; i.e., is the method

of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?

6. Is the sample size appropriate for the method of research represented and for

generalizability of results?

Variables *****“ List all of the variables (independent, control, and dependent) included in the study and the specific operational definitions given to each one. How adequate are the operational definitions of each of the variables? Are there any major concerns about how the variables were defined?

Instruments *****“ What instruments are used in the study? To what extent do the researchers describe the instruments and discuss relevant validity and reliability issues?

1. Is the rationale given for the selection of each of the instruments and measures used?

2. Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?

3. Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables? Why or why not?

4. Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5. Is instrument validity discussed? Are coefficients given if appropriate?

7. Is instrument reliability discussed? Are type and size of reliability coefficients given?

8. Are there reliability concerns with any of the instruments used?

9. Were any instruments developed specifically for the study? If so, are the procedures

involved in development and validation described?

10. Are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

11. Was adequate information provided about each of the instruments used?

Design - Diagram and explain the design being used. To what extent does the design match the hypotheses or answer the questions of the study?

Procedures - How well does the author describe the procedures used in the study? Discuss potential internal and external validity - whether or not the author addresses them. How well did the author address these?

1. Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another

researcher?

2. What control procedures are used?

3. Are any potentially confounding (intervening) variables, that were not able to be

controlled for, discussed or accounted for?

4. Do the procedures provide sufficient control for internal validity? What internal validity

concerns remain?

5. In addition to the above, what are the important issues involved in this type of research?

How were they addressed in this study?

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results *****“ Describe the descriptive and inferential statistics presented in the study. What were the major results? How thoroughly did the researcher present the tests of significance and probability levels in relation to the hypotheses being tested?

1. What descriptive statistics are used for summarizing the data?

2. What were the main inferential statistical procedures used in this study?

3. Are the tests of significance described clearly relative to the design and hypotheses of the

study?

4. Was the probability level at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated

specified in advance of the data an*****s? Was the probability level given explicitly; if not

how did you infer it?

5. Is there evidence that the researcher considered any assumptions required for the statistical

tests used?

6. Are the data and the results clearly presented?

7. Was each hypothesis or research question tested?

8. Are the data described in tables, figures, the text, or all of these? Do tables and text

complement each other? Are the tables and figures, if any, well organized and easy to

understand?

9. How might the data have been presented more clearly?

Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations *****“ To what extent are the results presented in relation to the hypotheses? Are all hypotheses addressed clearly? How completely does the researcher discuss possible alternative reasons for the results? Discuss any alternatives that should have been addressed but were not. What recommendations are presented? Are these reasonable?

1. Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

obtained by other researchers in other studies?

2. Are generalizations consistent with results; i.e., has the author avoided reaching

conclusions that are not directly supported by the outcomes of the study?

3. Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

4. Are plausible alternative hy0potheses discussed?

5. Are the theoretical implications of the findings discussed? The practical implications?

6. Has the author addressed practical as well as statistical significance?

7. Are recommendations for future research made?

8. Are recommendations for future practice made? Are they relevant?

__________________________________________________________________

Abstract *****“ If provided. To what extent does the abstract summarize the study? How could it be improved?

1. Is the problem stated clearly?

2. Are the number and type of subjects described?

3. Are the major variables described? The measuring instruments used?

4. Is the design used identified?

5. Are the procedures described in brief?

6. Are the major results and conclusions stated?

7. What important information was missing from the abstract?

8. Overall, how adequately did the abstract summarize the study?

Overall Study Evaluation - Considering all of the factors in your critique, the purpose of the study, its place in the literature, and its strengths and weaknesses, what is your overall evaluation of the study? Why?

__________________________________________________________________