Assignment 1: Researching Teaching and Learning

By Luke Ranieri

17698506

Word Count: 1071

 Assignment 1: Researching Teaching and Learning

A case study into why students behave responsibly, supported by La Trobe University of
Melbourne, is the focus of Rochelle Fogelgarn and Ramon Lewis’ research article: ‘Are you being
your best?’ Why students behave responsibly (2015). Fogelgarn & Lewis expand on the unperceptive
obedience to authority or compliance spurred by social consent, and how they vary considerably
from volitional moral reasoning based on internalized values. The aim of the article was to establish
and determine why students would decide to act and perform responsibly in the non-existence of
exterior limitations and restrictions.

Within the article, it is reported that the data is gathered from primary school students attending
ten Australian schools, who explained the details and intentions behind the reasoning for acting
responsibly. This document aims to critically evaluate and examine the case study, by examining
each individual section, starting with ‘Method’, subsequently the ‘Results’, thereafter the
‘Conclusion’. This will be achieved with reference to the quality of the research (e.g., participants,
design & analysis), suitability of the data gathered and interpreted, and providing an evaluation as to
what extent the article has sufficiently answered the research questions.

Methods Section

The methodology depicted in the article aimed to answer the research question of ‘Why
students behave responsibly?’ and did so in a concise and methodical approach. Although, Fogelgarn
& Lewis (2015) stated that the data drawn from this study was collected as part of an ongoing
professional development (PD) activity that was focused on the teaching of literacy and numeracy
and development of classroom management strategies. This draws the issue of cross-study
influence, and whether by having these two studies cross paths in terms of the sample group and
time frame, might have affected one another’s results.

With the sample size of the PD being 300 schools, only ten allowed for this study to be conducted,
and participants were randomly selected by the researcher. This is known as convenience or
opportunity sampling, which is the popular type of sampling in L2 studies where the only measure
according to Dörnyei (2007) is the suitability for the researcher (Farrokhi & Mahmoudi-Hamidabad,
2012). Although, no set minimum number of participants is essential to organise and run sound
qualitative research, Fossey, Harvey, Mcdermott & Davidson (2002) maintain that sufficient depth of
information needs to be gathered to fully describe the phenomena being studied.

The interview protocol illustrated the six questions used within the study, however, there were
interview questions with underlying hints on what to say; ‘Are there some things you feel like doing
that you don’t do, for example, moving around, talking to your friends, swearing, hitting kids, ...
jumping from desk to desk?’ (Fogelgarn & Lewis, 2015). Lichtman (2011) expresses that this method
of questioning is out dated and biased in data collection, as it gives possible responses in the
question itself. Despite this, the question list is open ended and allows for reliable qualitative data to
be recorded from the students.

The methodology behind these interview questions is based on probing and challenging the students
for data, although, the examples demonstrating how the interviewers would conduct the questions
shows data manipulating, as the interviewer may probe for more data without a dedicated set of
probing questions or methods in place, and thus demonstrating inconsistent research methodology
practice (Wu, Thompson, Aroian, McQuaid & Deatrick, 2016).

Results Section
 The eight categories of results have been dichotomized into groups related to social
awareness and personal interest. With the first group (A to D) focussing on consequences of
behaviour which are acclaimed by students to directly affect themselves, while another group (E to
H) concentrates on the consequences and outcomes which affect others. Lewis, Montuoro &
McCann (2013) stated the removal of external behavioural controls in a classroom would cause
student behaviour to deteriorate.

This accounts for only half of the data received in this study, with this study generating several
further dynamics involving self-motivating factors; self-concept (congruence), perceptions of
authority and rule enforcement. The implications stated within the study demonstrate a biased
attitude to teaching methodology and pedagogy, as fostering moral growth in students is scene as
the main method to improve students’ behaviours. However, the study was meant to find out why
students behave responsibly and is more focused in the discussion on the growth of morals affecting
behaviour, and the disapproval of the rewards and punishments system, External motivation, the
proverbial carrot-and-stick approach, predominates not only in most classrooms but also in the
world (Erwin, 2003).

Conclusion Section

The researchers finally conclude stating the figures and facts from the study demonstrates
some students have internalized the concept of ‘wrong’ and would not conduct themselves in
reckless behaviour because they believe this to be harmful to themselves and others. Although, this
would have been more credible if the numbers of the research data were correct and the missing 2%
of responses were included in the research method and results.

The conclusion and the research its self fails to address credibility to make the assumptions of
internalized behaviour being the goal of teaching. The purpose of qualitative research is not to
provide generalizable findings. Instead, qualitative research has a discovery focus and often uses an
iterative approach. Thus, qualitative work is often foundational to future qualitative, quantitative, or
mixed-methods studies (Wu, Thompson, Aroian, McQuaid & Deatrick, 2016).

Conclusion

Throughout this study, it is evident that they have answered the research question but is
also clear that the data’s validity can be called into question with quantitative data contained within
the study having errors. Not only are there numeric errors, but the researchers fail to provide reason
for the findings and why the students that were interviewed contain internalized and externalized
behavioural foundations and tendencies.

Therefore, it can be said that this study has the absences of important aspects of a quality
quantitative study. While not failing to give their opinion on what parts of behaviour and the
method to teach students, the research falls short with now reference to behavioural reasoning,
referencing to culture, sexuality, gender, religion or ethnicity. Qualitative research aims to give
privilege to the perspectives of research participants and to illuminate the subjective meaning,
actions and context of those being researched (Fossey, Harvey, Mcdermott & Davidson, 2002)
Further work could have been done to expand and develop the reliability and integrity of this study,
including checking for numerical errors and dispelling any bias towards any findings.
References

Anderson, C. Pharm, B. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 1-141. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/791470265?accountid=36155

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating
qualitative research. Australasian Psychiatry, 2002, Vol.36(6), P.717-732, 36(6), 717-732.

Erwin, J. C. (2003, September). Giving Students What They Need. - Willamette University. Retrieved
April 7, 2018, from
http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=3008AF1C469C4010A58D04C1C7E03565&CID=1E5AB73C44D96D13066
BBCF145766CC9&rd=1&h=sYKERgs1k70yHUnvP4tw8aWqocJ9Deta8km0GbjQpdg&v=1&r=http://ww
w.willamette.edu/~regray/cm/Erwin (2003).pdf&p=DevEx,5067.1

Farrokhi, F., Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A. (2012). Rethinking Convenience Sampling: Defining Quality

Criteria. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4). doi:10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792

Lewis, R., Montuoro, P., & McCann, P. (2013). Self-predicted classroom behaviour without external
controls: Imagining a ‘Lord of the Flies’ scenario. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 270-291.

Lichtman, M. (2011). Understanding and evaluating qualitative educational research. Los Angeles:
SAGE.

Tran, V. (2015). Predicting Student Misbehavior, Responsibility and Distraction from Schoolwork
from Classroom Management Techniques: The Students’ Views. International Journal of Higher
Education, 4(4), International Journal of Higher Education, 09/04/2015, Vol.4(4).

Wu, Y., Thompson, D., Aroian, K., McQuaid, E., & Deatrick, J. (2016). Commentary: Writing and
Evaluating Qualitative Research Reports. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 41(5), 493-505.