Introduction
It is pivotal to be able to critically assess the results of research because there might exist some non-obvious nuances of it which have a considerable effect on these results (Suter, 2012). This paper provides such an assessment of a study by Boyle and Forchelli (2014). Multiple aspects of the article are analyzed.
Strengths
The strengths of the article by Boyle and Forchelli (2014) include a thorough analysis of the student’s notes and the use of rather precise measures of their quality. It should be noted that the results obtained were highly significant and of large effect size (Warner, 2013)–the minimal ηp2 was.32 (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014), which indicates considerable differences.
Weaknesses
The weaknesses include a relatively small sample, the convenience sampling from only one urban school, the inability to measure other factors which might have affected the results (cultural, racial differences, motivation, etc), the use of videotaped lecture only, etc. (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014).
Overall Reaction
The study provided interesting results, finding evidence for initial hypotheses that high-achievement students perform better than low-achievement learners and those with learning disabilities (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014). The authors recommend introducing specific instructions on taking notes (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014).
Methodological Issues
There are several methodological issues in Boyle and Forchelli (2014). For instance, there was no differentiation in the three groups of students (e.g., students with different types of disabilities were not measured separately). It was also impossible to assess many other possible external factors such as cultural differences, disposition towards verbal or visual learning (Kollöffel, 2012), etc.
Instrumentation
It might be possible to state that Boyle and Forchelli (2014) utilized high-quality instrumentation. For example, the scores given by different raters during notes assessment were almost the same (at least 95% of inter-rater reliability) (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014). An obvious limitation is that the instruments were created ad hoc, and their validity was not tested (Lissitz & Samuelsen, 2007; Moss, 1994).
Generalization
The generalization of the results by Boyle and Forchelli (2014) is highly problematic because a convenience sampling technique was utilized in the study (Field, 2013). Also, several other factors possibly affecting the outcome were not accounted for–e.g., the motivation.
Alternative Explanation
The authors stress that several alternative explanations of the differences are possible, for example, the cultural differences, the lack of motivation, the lack of interest because of the format (videotaped lecture), and so on (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014). However, the named phenomena could have occurred in all three groups.
Overall Recommendations
It might be recommended to confirm the results of Boyle and Forchelli (2014) using some types of random sampling techniques and larger sample sizes (Warner, 2013), as well as other formats of the lecture.
Conclusion
On the whole, Boyle and Forchelli (2014) yielded interesting and reliable results that could be used in practice (e.g., by introducing instruction on taking notes). However, several methodological issues pose a barrier to properly generalizing these results.
References
Boyle, J. R., & Forchelli, G. A. (2014). Differences in the note-taking skills of students with high achievement, average achievement, and learning disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 9-14.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kollöffel, B. (2012). Exploring the relation between visualizer–verbalizer cognitive styles and performance with visual or verbal learning material. Computers & Education, 58(2), 697-706. Web.
Lissitz, R. W., & Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher, 36(8), 437-448. Web.
Moss, P. A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability?Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5-12. Web.
Suter, W. N. (2012). Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.