# In presenting previous work it is important to highlight critique the data reviewed as strengths and limitations, compare and contrast of other findings. In this case the researcher compared but didn’t contrast due to the fact all the findings were similar.## the research question was correlated to the literature review and there was a relation to the variables in the literature review.#
#Though the theoretical framework was conceptual model but the introduction included two things the literature review that gave enough points that used as a guide to the study that gave enough boundaries to the research which will see later during the criticism.##In the method and Research design it included the material used, the data analysis and procedure used which illustrates a brief description and clear comprehension of the investigation route.##The students were chosen randomly and the analysis didn’t require any sophisticated program.##sample and sample size: is small size representation that might increase the error , however, who and what criteria were used to exclude population was expressed clearly and its reason to the connected to the concept.# the designed instruments show that the surveys are all from the research studies mentioned in the literature review thus there was no need to explain the appropriateness of the tests used. Instead the researchers showed the validity and the reliability of the surveys and test used.#
#Explaining the data analysis shows that the researcher using inferential statistics that can identify the difference between variables and whether these variables are statistically significant.## the results overall hold all the significance of the literature review so it was related to properly to the literature review#
#conclusion: the statement itself shows that the investigators aimed to generalize the result with a small sample.##another aspect that the investigators didn’t mention future suggestions in the study.##a main point to mention is that the research could have been investigating in achievement and attitude motivation and 3rd question research was meaningless to give attention to it, because the research as focusing on the student achievement academically and behaviorally.#
Research method critique on problem solving
BUID -2011-Research Methods Dana Dannawi ID: 100098 Module coordinator: Dr. Clifton Chadwick
GOK, T &Silay, I (2009)Resource:http://journal.lapen.org.mx/jan10/LAJPE_328_Tol ga_Gok_preprint_corr_f.pdfAbstract:The overview of the research was clear. The research purpose, the procedure and the participants, the methodology and the results were identified briefly .It gave a total idea of what has been investigated and what the result was.
The introduction of the research was a literature review of thefollowing :-several definitions of problem solving,- Achievement of experienced and inexperienced problem solvers inphysics.The experienced problem solvers, in contrast with the inexperiencedproblem solvers, had efficient way in solving physics problems inorganizing and using their knowledge structure about solving aproblem.-the reason why experienced problem solvers are more organized andits relation to cognitive thinking.-the problem solving strategies that are used in physics but theydidn’t relate how these strategies are related to a certain point toeach other and which strategy will be implemented during theresearch.-Cooperative learning (groupwork v.s individual work)The importance of cooperative learning and its effectiveness inproblem solving in physics. This shows to the reader that cooperative learning as teachingstrategy will be implemented during the investigation.
-Attitude,-Achievement motivation and its effect on gender differences.Attitude and achievement motivation was mentioned in brief.There was no need to mention the gender difference in such a casebecause it distracted the purpose of the research at the same timeattitude comes from motivation which affects on their achievement.This article reports the results of investigations at highschool level to answer the following questions:1. Were there any significant differences in a) achievement, b) problemsolving strategies, c) attitude toward problem solving, and d)achievement motivation of the students who use cooperative learningvs. conventional teaching?2. Were there any significant differences in a) problem-solving strategiesand b) achievement of the students who use cooperative learning vs.conventional teaching according to gender?3. Were there any significant differences in using problem solvingstrategies with problem solving worksheets between the students whouse cooperative learning vs. conventional teaching according to gender?
-Research Design and participants:How was the research study undertaken?-Experimental research because it experimented two groups ofdifferent treatments and by the Pre and post test design with controlgroup using assessment strategy it evaluated the cause and effect.Sample and sample size :high school in Turkey.After according to pretest performed on 10th grade students,two classes. One of them was named as experimental group;the other one as control group. The experimental groupconsisted of 25students (12 female and 13 male).Data collected:-A-Physics Achievement Test (PAT)-Problem Solving Strategies Survey (PSSS)-Problem Solving Attitude Survey (PSAS). PAT PSSS PSAS-Achievement Motivation Survey(AMS) Validity 0.4 0.95 0.92-Problem Solving worksheets(PSW) reliability 0.95 0.75
Data analysis:The collected data from the PAT, PSSS, PSAS, and AMS were analyzed bySPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science) 15.0 program forwindows. Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), t-test were employed. Allstatistical tests reported in this paper were conducted with a significancelevel of α = 0.05.Procedure : The procedure was written in steps which shows the consistency ofthoughts and steps taken during the investigation that helps out for thereviewer to have a deep understanding.Results and data analysis:PAT, PSSS, PSAS, and AMS t-tests was used for the independent samples were carried out to checkthe whether differences between averages is meaningful.Effect of applied teaching methods and gender differencesANOVA test was used , variance analysis were used.
In the conclusion a summary of the findings and the answer of eachresearch question was illustrated.There was conceptual meaning for the strength and the limitations ofthe study was not elaborated properlyThe question research was related to the data analysis that was taken ..However the question research (3)* was a limitation in the researchdata they could have gone into further investigation.(3*. Were there any significant differences in using problem solvingstrategies with problem solving worksheets between the students whouse cooperative learning vs. conventional teaching according to gender?) The Research didn’t mention any limitations of the study consideringthey avoided the limitation by the key factor sampling and factoranalysis of the surveys chosen.Conclusion of the study:The result pointed out that the teaching of the problem solvingstrategies is more effective on cooperative learning than traditionallearning.The references varied from old to recent from journals to books.
The cooperative learning in literature review discussed varioustechniques, however in the methodology –procedure- thecooperative learning used wasnt identified properly.The observation technique taken in class was not identified properlyin the research and how it was evaluated .The research didn’t identify the type of problem solvers in thephysics course.The investigators didn’t identify the language problems that thestudents faced ? Is there a correlation of language to problemsolving since problem solving is expressed by comprehension?After summing up the research, what are the recommendations theresearchers advise for readers?!
Riasat Ali (Corresponding author)Institute of Education & ResearchUniversity of Science & Technology, Bannu, (NWFP) PakistanResource:http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/5040/4181The references in this research were recent.
Article 1 Article 2 Their purpose was a question Their purpose was based onTitle hypothesis.Abstract no introduction was summarized. No introduction summary,Introduction It did describe the problem needed It did not describe the but not a relevant practice and the material properly however however it presents clearly the they explained and background material and the purpose elaborated about the of the research problem needed and the purpose of the research.Literature review It did not define a critical There was no literature assessment of the literature. It did review. not provide definitions.Method or Key Identified the research design, It discussed the populationprocedure sample was defined and minimizing and sample, research the sample error was described. design was brief. no minimize of the sample error
Article 1 Article 2Method - It described the appropriate It did not mention validityinstrumentation ,validity, statistical test relevant of the test or reliability to research , statistical evaluation tools.Results-Discussion There was no statistical Reports the results of statistical discussion about the data analysis related to each research found however it went question, demonstrates objectivity directly to the conclusion in reporting results, it integrates in this category. findings with related literature and discusses the implication of of results for practice.Recommendations No recommendations were Recommendations were mentioned in the research. mentioned with no summary or limitations.