Amanda Belker

The qualitative and quantitative both chose samplings of students, their approaches
sampling are differing. The quantitative study focused on Japanese students studying English in
private university. Students were chosen from like courses such as engineering and informational
science. Those selected were invited to take part in class. 222 students completed the voluntary
study. This sampling is a probability method; a random group of students. This study was done
with a stratified sampling. On the other hand, the qualitative study chose a smaller sample of
only ten participants. The participants have chosen with more specific criteria. There were seven
students, these students were involved in a particular school club. They also used a sample of
three teachers considered “involved” in the school and each of a veteran teaching status. This
study followed a non-probability method using a convenience method for the students and a
purposive method for the teachers chosen.

Methods used for the quantitative study, being a stratified sampling method is much
more general. Students may include interests, ability levels, etc. The limitations of this particular
study include the groups of students given the option are all from one private university which is
discussed to be very expensive and on one campus. Although this is a larger sampling and much
more general than the other study it still limits the study to that university setting and cannot
draw conclusions to higher education as a whole. The qualitative study increased bias by having
small sample criteria. The samples were taken from students involved in the key club and
teachers with experience.These groups are more alike in their views, already a part of peer
groups, than if drawn from a wider range of criteria. This impacts the study by limiting the
usefulness of the study. This study could not be used to draw generalizations for the use of
distractive technology on education and opinions of all students.

The instruments used in the quantitative article were paper questionnaires given to
students in a seated course. The authors of this article worked to ensure validity and reliability by
modifying an existing questionnaire. This was done to ensure it was research-based. It was done
also by using a researched base scale system, the Likert-type. It had a frequency scale using
research-based practices, listing authors. Consistency (reliability) was seen as they used a native
Japanese speaker to translate the English version of the survey and also to review all questions.
Validity was used by asking several types of questions to get a full understanding of the opinions
of the students on gaming in education.

The Quantitative article drew conclusions that students were enthusiastic about the use of
technology, although this is true for the study results as it shows students are interested in
technology and gaming it is an inaccurate statement to make these assumptions for the whole
population of students in Japan let alone in the world. This population group was too specific to
draw these conclusions. The study also used open-ended coding with response questions. This,
along with the fact that there was a rather large group of data collected leads me to believe that
the data is accurate, but the assumptions made are inconclusive to make about this group as a
whole. It would be accurate to assume that students in this department in this university are
interested in exploring technology in education.

The Quantitative study could improve by offering opportunities to participate in the study to a
broadened range of areas and include different socioeconomic status students. The current
university which held the study is a private university which has students of a higher
socioeconomic status and may have more experience with technology. Improvements could be
made with data, including more questions over educational technology over general technology.
Students interests in general technology may falsely calculate interest in educational use. The
qualitative study could improve by gaining a wider range of participants. It is currently seven
students and three teachers which is a small data pool to draw conclusions from. I would suggest
that they provide this survey to all homerooms so more students with a wider interest base can be
surveyed. This could be done for teachers through an activity during a planning meeting to help
gain opinions of a variety of teachers.

The replication of the Quantitative study would be rather simple. The study provides
readers scale questions and comment coding used to analyze open-ended questions through
tables. This could help to provide a basis for replication. The Quantitative study provides
examples of limitations of the study and suggestions for improved accuracy. This study along
with the Qualitative study both provide adequate literature reviews and reasoning behind
methods to be used by future researchers. The Qualitative study, however, is limited with its
examples and samples of conversations and questions asked.