Jeff Patty

There are several differences between the sampling methods used in these two studies. The
quantitative study utilizes larger sampling groups to adequately represent the population. The
qualitative study relied on a much smaller sample size to conduct their research. The quantitative
article utilized a stratified random sampling method to achieve desired results. In order to fulfill
the requirements of the stratified approach, representative subgroups of the larger population
were chosen, which provided a proportional sampling for the entire region. Within these two
groups of participants, teachers and students, a stratified proportional sample size was chosen
from each group to provide equal representation for both groups based on all the regions,
including both genders. This quantitative sampling provided a larger number of participants to
generalize the researchers findings. In the qualitative article, researchers followed a case study
design utilizing a criterion sampling approach to identify a specific set of participants who
worked with mobile cellular devices (MCD). A maximum variation strategy was also used in
order to ensure that the participants were selected from various sources in the areas of geography,
gender, public, private, and subject areas. Additionally, participants were solicited by a variety of
methods to add to the selection variation. Final participants for this study were agreed upon by
the research group and the participants kept to a smaller and manageable size of nine teachers.
This smaller sample size provided less generalization and depth of sampling for this study.
For the quantitative study, the sampling method offers a more representative outcome for this
study and the target population. A smaller, proportional group from the region was selected for
the study. An attempt was made to ensure that a diverse target population was selected for the
participants. There was also a representative number of men and women chosen. The researchers
attempted to utilize sampling methods that best matched a generalized teacher and student
experience across all regions. The selection of the five regions to be studied out of thirty-two
using a stratified random selection method should produce a reliable population to sample. Did
those five regions truly represent the entire region adequately? Were there large differences in the
geographic areas? In the qualitative study, the sampling method chosen, although representative
of a typical qualitative approach, does not offer as much participant input to form a generalized
opinion of the overall target population. Although the participant group was relatively small, the
authors attempted to overcome this caveat, allowing for diversity by utilizing various means to
attract participants, such as Google search, social networks, professional contacts, and magazine
articles.
For the quantitative article, the authors attempted to ensure reliability and validity of their data
collection instruments in a variety of ways. First, draft forms and scales were created for both
teachers and students separately to capture their perceptions and adequacies regarding their
answers. Representative statements were written as a result of the analysis of the literature
review, with special attention given to including negative statements for each scale. The scales
were verified by university professors working in different fields at the university and ultimately
proofed for face and content validity. Necessary changes were made to the statements and the
final instrument was completed. The authors then conducted pretrial testing of both teacher and
student groups to prove the effectiveness of the scales. Other measures were also used, such as
the Likert scale, to ensure an effective analysis of the data collected. Additionally, factor analysis
techniques such as Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Barlett were performed to ensure the validity of the
scales in relation to the data. Separate scales were also developed for both teachers and students

to determine the adequacy of the scales independently. The researchers calculated four reliability
coefficients to test for reliability and ultimately internal consistency.
The study conclusions accurately reflect the data analyses found in this study. The quantitative
article attempts to test three hypotheses to prove positive or negative results for the survey
sampling. Although their conclusion statements are not very detailed, they do generally
summarize the findings of the data analyses conducted for the survey respondents. The
conclusions in this study pointed to a positive view on m-learning by teachers and students, but
indicated a lack of competence levels necessary to achieve complete m-learning usage. The data
analysis for all three hypotheses indicated that both teacher and student groups had a positive
view towards using mobile devices for educational purposes. The data indicated there was an
adequacy issue present in fully integrating these devices into the coursework. Respondents
scored below the value of good in these areas. The conclusion did not exactly state this, but
there were also meaningful differences between the teacher and student groups, with students
scoring higher in all facets of the study. Teachers remain behind the students capabilities of
mobile usage resulting in barriers for teachers full integration of mobile devices into the
curriculum.
In the quantitative study, there is not much change needed in terms of the survey method or data
instruments. As for the sampling selection, they used a random sample from the 5 regions in the
Northern Cypress districts to be surveyed. The participant pool could be extended to a wider age
range for students allowing for greater participation by students and teachers. The qualified study
used a satisfactory sampling method to select participants for their study.
The quantitative study could be replicated with different subjects and participants. The authors
provided a thorough explanation of the different tools used to arrive at the data conclusions. An
expert researcher should be able to conduct a similar study assuming they understood how to
apply the different data analysis tools utilized in this study to the data. The addition of an
appendix of questions posed to the participants and a more thorough explanation of the
methodologies and accompanying tools utilized would improve the ability for replication. The
qualitative study would be more difficult to replicate. While the authors have explained the
process, information is missing on some of the middle steps of data analysis that was conducted.
One of the elements that appears to be missing is how the researchers arrived at the agreed upon
groupings or consensus of teacher statements.