Introduction
The study by Mulligan and Kirkpatrick (2000) aimed to study the comprehension of university lectures by students. The researchers state that the goal of the research was to expand on a recent study that pointed out gaps in lecture understanding by Australian students, particularly those coming from non-English speaking countries. Mulligan and Kirkpatrick (2000) performed the study to expand on the findings and provide a deeper insight into the nature of the gaps. The research is significant to educational practice as it could be used to inform practices used by lecturers, thus improving students’ academic performance. Also, the authors focus on the specific challenges experienced by students from non-English speaking countries, which is important due to the increasing number of international students in European, Australian, and American education systems. The article uses a traditional structure that includes an introduction, rationale, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusion.
Research Article Analysis
The present essay seeks to analyze the methods used by researchers to fulfill their goals. Analyzing methods is critical to understand the practical issues affecting research in education. The methods will be evaluated based on the work by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007), as it offers a useful discussion of study designs used in educational settings.
Methodology Evaluation
The methods section of the article contains a detailed description of the research process. The authors used a mixed methodology, which is based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques. A mixed methodology is beneficial for the study as it allows reaping the benefits of both qualitative and quantitative designs. For instance, while a quantitative design allows us to observe overall trends and focus on a large sample to conclude, qualitative designs offer more depth and can be used to address underlying processes leading to the outcome (Cohen et al., 2007).
The researchers chose three instruments of data collection: observation, interview, and questionnaire. Similarly, each instrument has significant benefits and contributes to the authors’ exploration. For example, as noted by Cohen et al. (2007), “Interviews enable participants – be they, interviewers or interviewees – to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live, and to express how they regard situations from their point of view” (p. 349). Questionnaires, on the other hand, help in collecting large volumes of data for analysis, thus improving the scope of the research (Cohen et al., 2007). Finally, recorded observations are useful as they help to understand the common factors affecting gaps in comprehension, such as the use of visuals or structure. Therefore, by including all of these tools in the research, the authors managed to obtain a relatively large volume of useful information.
Choosing an adequate sample size for the research is important. If the sample is too small, this will affect the ability to generalize data to other populations and thus impair the application of the study to practice (Cohen et al., 2007). The authors use an adequate sample size of 414 students for the questionnaire and 29 for the interview. Such sample sizes allow handling the data efficiently while being representative of other university courses with a similar share of international students.
The researchers do not provide any information about data analysis in the methods section of the work. It is unclear, which tools were used for analyzing questionnaires and interviews and what the process for evaluating lecture recordings was. Also, the authors show no evidence of addressing validity, reliability, and ethical concerns affecting the study. This is a major limitation as it obstructs full analysis of the work and does not allow evaluating it thoroughly.
Conclusion
Overall, the methods used by the authors are consistent with the goals of the study. Using a mixed design improved the quality of data collected for the study and allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of it. Aside from discussing the key trends in lecture comprehension, the authors were able to address the participants’ views about lectures and barriers to comprehension. Adequate sample size and a good selection of collection tools used also improved the possibility of generalizing the data, making the study useful for practice and further research.
The approach used for analysis has some limitations. Firstly, the analysis was based solely on the research write-up, which contains incomplete information about the study. Thus, it was not possible to evaluate the authors’ approach to data analysis or reliability testing. Secondly, the evaluation only concerning the methods used by the authors and did not reference other parts of the article. While focusing on a single section contributes to the depth of the evaluation, expanding the analysis to other sections of the work would assist in building a thorough understanding of the authors’ work. Finally, the evaluation was based on the discussion offered by Cohen et al. (2007). In the future, it would also be useful to review other sources about research in education before making conclusions about the study.
References
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Mulligan, D. & Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). How much do they understand? Lectures, students and comprehension. Higher Education Research and Development, 3(1), 311-335.