Article Critique

6,884 views
6,490 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
6,884
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
93
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Article Critique

  1. 1. Article Critique 17 Nov 2008 EDS 502 (RESEARCH METHODS IN EDUCATION) Comparing EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension Between Hypertext and Printed Text Tseng, M. (2008). Comparing EFL learners' reading comprehension between hypertext and printed text. CALL-EJ Online, 9(2) 1
  2. 2. Critique in a Few Words Summary of the Article 1. Critique (+/- points) 2. Recommendation 3. Implications of the study 4. Summary 5. 2
  3. 3. Before summary: 3
  4. 4. Summary of the Article What are the effects of reading printed text and hypertext on RQ: the EFL learners' reading comprehension? Quasi-experimental article: matching only post-test only Design: control group design Forty-six Taiwanese students equally divided into two Participants groups: the Experimental Group and the Control Group. : Instruments Four reading texts and a comprehension test and a : questionnaire The students who read from printed text were more successful, apart from one skill: guessing a word’s meaning Results: from context 4
  5. 5. Summary of the Article (Cont.) (1) to give students some related vocabulary, and pictures to predict the articles, Procedure: (2) to give them four articles to read (3) to test their skimming skill, scanning skill, and vocabulary knowledge through reading comprehension questions 5
  6. 6. Summary of the Article (Cont.) There is a difference between reading from a printed text Hypothesis: and reading from a computer screen Independent Variable: Reading printed text and hypertext Variables: Dependent Variable: EFL learners' reading comprehension 6
  7. 7. 2. Critique of the Article The possible confounding variables or their  Threats to internal possible effects on the outcome of the research were not mentioned validity: Implementation:  No information about the course instructors  What were the major difficulties of reading hypertext? (Tseng, 2008) Subject Characteristics :  No random sampling and random assignment (JOINED?)  No detailed information to control confounding variables (age, gender, reading ability, socio-economic status, etc…) Location:  Experimental group: Each student has a computer Control group: no computers Instrumentation:  Instrument Decay: 9-page reading test. Attitude of Subjects: Control group: no computers (John Henry effect) 7
  8. 8. 2. Critique of the Article (Cont.)  Validity and reliability of test scores:• No statistical evidence on validity and reliability • Only raw scores were provided 8
  9. 9. 2. Critique of the Article (Cont.) Questionnaire Results  Internal validity threats to the outcome of the study  No statistics, did not mention validity or reliability 9
  10. 10. 2. Critique of the Article (Cont.)  External Validity  No population and ecological generalizability  Did not mention target and accessible populations  Quasi-experimental design  No random assignment  No pre-test  Conclusion: Interpretation from the raw data  Contradiction with the literature review Literature review: Advantages of reading from the computer screen. (non linear reading) Result: This study also confirmed that students made poor performance when they read hypertext (Tseng, 2008). 10
  11. 11. 3. Recommendation 1. State confounding variables 2. Supply more information about the individuals who implemented the study 3. Try to use random sampling and if possible random assignment 4. Supply more information about the subjects 5. Try to keep locations constant, remove such variables as uncomfortable seating 6. Support the instruments with reliability and validity data 7. Not to affect attitudes of the subjects provide similar opportunities 8. Interpretation: Give statistical data analysis 9. Mention generalizibility (external validity) 10. Choose a stronger design (one of the randomized designs) 11. Literature review should present more research findings rather than definitions 11
  12. 12. 4. Implications of the study The pedagogical implications: The importance of selecting web pages for students The importance of setting up computer screens and web pages The importance of teaching students how to read hypertext. Only three questions without statistical data analysis helped such interpretation: 1. What factors affected reading via computer screens? About 26.4% of participants chose the size of the font, 24.5% of them chose the background color of the web pages, and 47.3% chose the downloading speed. 2. In the background color of web pages, about 35% of participants chose dark background with white words, 60% of them chose white background with black words and 5% chose either ways. It might be speculated that students extended their reading inclination to computer screens because most of the paper was white and printing color was black. 3. Participants were asked whether they preferred to read texts through computer screens or paper. In the Control Group, 18% of them chose screens and 82% of them chose paper whereas in the Experimental Group, 17% of them chose screens and 83% of them chose paper. Entirely, 31% of the entire class chose screen and 69 of them chose paper. For participants, they still preferred to read texts on paper instead of computer screens. 12
  13. 13. 5. Summary While the study has merit, the methods need to be re-evaluated. The power of the study needs to be increased by obtaining a larger sample size. The numerous potential threats to internal and external validity need to be addressed and minimized where possible. It would also be helpful to be given data analysis regarding the validity and reliability of the scores of the instruments. Without these, it is impossible to evaluate the potential meaningfulness of this study. 13

×