Research Methods AND Practice Research Paper Examples

Introduction

The introduction chapter in any literary or scholarly piece is very important. In writing his scholarly article, Boon (2015) exhibited a perfect understanding of the introduction section. This is seen in his detailed explanation of the subject upon which the article is based (Boon, 2015, p.664). The author gives a context in which reader can best understand the article. He underscores the importance of peer assessment for both the teachers and the students. In his conception, it helps them improve the quality of their learning by way of formative assessment (Harris, 2007, p.255). The introduction section as written by Boon (2015) does not just highlight the subject to be explored in the article.
Boon (2015) also explains the importance of the subject and why it should warrant the efforts and finances and the attention of the reader and the academic field. The author shared his concerns that the feedback given by the children when they were required to perform peer reviews failed to capture the success criteria and the learning objectives for the unit (Boon, 2015, p.664). Instead, the children focused their review efforts on lower classification skills that included handwriting (Boon, 2015, p.664). This justifies the importance of the issue (Gielen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghena, Struyven, 2010, p.304; Gielen, Tops, Dochy, Onghena, and Smeets. 2010b, p.145).
The introduction of the article also presents objective information as seen in the reliance on secondary sources to qualify the arguments made the author. This gives an indication of the secondary sources that the author will use in developing his perspectives. Additionally, the author stakes his intentions of performing a review of literature to look for a plausible solution to the problem identified and a tentative exploration of the effectiveness of the proposed solution (Sollaci & Pereira, 2004, p.364).

Literature Review

It is imperative that in proposing a solution to an identified problem, the author relies on existing secondary materials for ideas and to also support his novel ideas. The quality of the research article is reflected by among other factors, the literature review. The author outlined the relation between the research that he proposed to perform and existing research in the field of peer assessment. This is an element that he had intimated in the introduction section. As pointed out at the beginning of the literature review section, there was a greater focus by the existing studies on the students in higher learning institutions (Boon, 2015, p.665, Sluijsmans, Brand-Gruwel and van Merrienboer. 2002, p.449). This is an intimation of a gap in existing literature, a fact that sets apart while it still relates his research to existing literature.
Through the review of literature, the author is able to underscore the originality of the research problem he proposes to address. The author achieves this by over viewing previous studies in the field and discussing the missing elements in these studies that are present in his proposed study. It is noteworthy that the author does not limit the discussion to the missing perspectives, but also the methodological choices in the studies cited, their significance, and how different they are from his proposed study (Pautasso, 2013). In addition to establishing gaps in literature, the author is also able to underscore the relevance of the research problem to be addressed by the proposed study.
Through the literature review, the author is also able to justify the methodology for the proposed study. As highlighted previously, the author discusses the various methodological choices made in the previous studies and their implications on the findings. In this respect, the author cites various studies. In addition to helping justify his methodological choice, the use of secondary literature also validates his work, a fact that contributes to the credibility of his proposal as well as the quality of the resultant findings. This enables the researcher to argue for his methodological choice and how it helps him fill the gap in literature identified. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the author did not include a theoretical framework, factor that undermines the quality of the literature review (Kemoni, 2008, p.104).

Methodology

The methodology section in a proposal underscores the modalities to be used in the collection and analysis of data in order to satisfy the objective of the research (Suzuki, Ahluwalia, Arora, and Mattis, 2007, p.318). This is an important part of the study because it communicates the deliberate actions of the researcher in performing his study. Therefore, the quality of the methodology section is a predictor of the quality of the findings and by extension, the entire study. The choice of the research approach to be used is dependent on many factors. Firstly, the aim of the study was to improve the peer assessment by the pupils in their sixth year in school. Given that this is a classroom activity, the choice of a qualitative approach by the researcher was justified. Among other reasons, the qualitative approach enabled the researcher to collect in-depth data to help him determine how effective training was in improving the ability of the pupils to offer task-involving feedback.
Additionally, the choice of a qualitative approach enables the researcher to deliberately acknowledge the abilities of the children in offering feedback rather than controlling these values through general assumptions and method (Ortlipp, 2008, p.695, Van Gennip, Segers and Tillema, 2010, p.25). The participants chosen or the study are also appropriate. Rather than seek the perspectives of the teachers regarding how to improve the peer assessment of the pupils, the author opted to focus on the children. This is an important choice because it allows the researcher to collect information directly from the children. The selection of the participants was done using convenience sampling. One disadvantage of this sampling method is that it is purposive in nature rather than a random. The implication is that the sample was not representative, and that the findings for this sample could not be generalized to other similar populations. An alternative that the researcher might have employed is to randomly sample from the pupils in the desired class from several schools in order to get a representative sample. This would allow other teachers to use the findings of his study for their pupils.
The choices of data collection methods made by the researcher were also appropriate, especially the triangulation methods (Oliver-Hoyo and Allen, 2006, p.44). The used of mind maps enabled the researcher to record the thoughts of the children regarding peer assessment before they were trained and after the training (Burgess-Allen and Owen-Smith, 2010, p.409; Meier, 2007, p.2). Using qualitative analysis, the researcher could compare the thoughts of the children pre and post-intervention to determine the occurrence of change. The data collection methods also suited the objectives of the study because they allowed the researcher to determine increase in the focus of the feedback given by the pupils towards the relevant success and the learning objectives for the units after they were trained on peer assessment (Davies, 2006, p.72; Rust, Price, and O’Donovan,. 2003 p.152).
However, it is notable that the methodology did not highlight the ethical issues that the researcher faced and how he dealt with them. It is common place for studies to list the ethical considerations of their studies and the measures taken to protect the subjects. Additionally, the methodology did not include the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition to the sampling methods, it is imperative to understand the criterion that was used to include and exclude the participants from the study. This has implications on the quality of the findings from the study.

Research Paradigms

The research paradigm employed by the researcher is the post positivist paradigm. This is an appropriate paradigm because it allows the researcher to use deterministic approaches in order to determine the outcomes of various interventions on the social environment (Spector, 2013, p.175).

Findings

The findings of the study were based on the analysis of the data collected, and ever more, the comparison of the feedback of the students prior to the training and after the training. It is encouraging that the researcher found that the comments of the pupils after the training were focused on the degree to which their peers met the learning objectives set for the unity (Boon, 2015, p.669). The baseline information collected before the training showed that comments of the students did not feature justifications using the success criteria outlined for them Rust, Price, and O’Donovan,. 2003 p.152). Instead, the comments were characterized by simple and low caliber expressions such as the calls for the improvement of the handwriting.
However, the researcher reported that the training enabled the pupils to use the success criteria to qualify their comments (Boon, 2015, p.669). It is also encouraging that the findings of the researcher highlighted themes that are important for practice. For instance, the researcher found that teacher modeling helped improve the ability of pupils to offer task-involving feedback (Boon, 2015, p.669). This is an element that other teachers can employ in their classes to improve the ability of their students to offer feedback. The researcher also found that continued practice also contributed to the ability of the pupils to offer better feedback when assessing the work of their peers (Topping,K. J. 2009, p.25).
The implication of this finding is that the teachers can give the pupils more opportunities for the pupils to perform peer assessment, a fact that based on the findings by Boon (2015, p.669) will enable the pupils to master the art of peer assessment. The most important finding of the study is that the use of checklists that were designed to help the pupils determine whether the work written by the peers satisfied the success criteria was the most influential in helping improve the ability of pupils to give task-involving feedback. This is significant for practice because it offers an effective approach for teachers to help their pupils improve their ability to offer a good peer assessment.

Analysis and Conclusion

In performing the analysis, the researcher uses several secondary sources to qualify his arguments. This is important because it relates his findings to those in existing literature. It is an opportunity for the researcher to show that his findings fill the gaps identified earlier. The researcher also discusses the implications of his findings on practice. For instance, the researcher explores the implications of teacher modeling on practice, and how practice without modeling also affects the peer assessment among the children (Boon, 2015, p.670). The conclusions that the researcher makes are based on the findings. The researcher calls for action to enable the pupils to offer better feedback that goes beyond the basic comments.

References

Boon, S. 2015. The role of training in improving peer assessment skills amongst year six pupils in primary school writing: an action research enquiry, Education 3-13, 43:6, 666-682.
Burgess-Allen, J., and Owen-Smith. V. 2010. Using Mind Mapping in Analysis of Qualitative Data. Health Expectations 13 (4): 406–415.
Davies, P. 2006. Peer Assessment: Judging the Quality of Students’ Work by Comments Rather than Marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 43 (1): 69–82.
Falchikov, N., and Goldfinch, J. 2000. Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta- Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational Research 70 (3): 287–322.
Gielen, S., L. Tops, F. Dochy, Onghena, P. and Smeets. S. 2010b. “A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher Feedback and of Various Peer Feedback Forms in a Secondary School Writing Curriculum.” British Educational Research Journal 36 (1): 143–162.
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K. 2010. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20: 304-315.
Harris, L. 2007. Employing Formative Assessment in the Classroom. Improving Schools, 10 (3): 249–260.
Kallestinova, E. 2011. How to write your first research paper. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 84(3): 181-190.
Kemoni, H. 2008. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review in Graduate Records Management Research. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science. 18(2): 103-119.
Meier, P. 2007. Mind Maps a Tool for Eliciting and Representing Knowledge Held by Diverse Respondents. Social Research Update, 52: 1–4.
Oliver-Hoyo, M., and Allen. D. 2006. “The Use of Triangulation Methods in Qualitative Educational Research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35 (4): 42–47.
Ortlipp, M. 2008. Keeping and Using Reflective Journals in the Qualitative Research Process. The Qualitative Report, 13(4): 695-705.
Pautasso, M. 2013. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. Computational Biology, 9(7): doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.
Rust, C., M. Price, and B. O’Donovan. 2003. “Improving Students’ Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (2): 147–164.
Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S. and van Merrienboer. J. 2002. “Peer Assessment Training in Teacher Education: Effects on Performance and Perceptions.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (5): 443–454.
Sollaci, L. and Pereira, M. 2004. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3): 364- 371.
Spector, J. M. 2013. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York, N.Y. [u.a.: Springer.
Suzuki, L.. Ahluwalia, M. Arora, A and Mattis. J. 2007. The Pond You Fish in Determines the Fish You Catch: Exploring Strategies for Qualitative Data Collection. The Counseling Psychologist, 35 (2): 295–327.
Topping, K. J. 2009. Peer Assessment. Theory into Practice, 48 (1): 20–27.
Van Gennip, N., Segers, M and Tillema, H. 2010. Peer Assessment as a Collaborative Learning Activity: The Role of Interpersonal Variables and Conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20 (4): 280–290.