Evaluating beyond format module 4
Download as PPT, PDF1 like399 views
This document evaluates the key components of a research paper beyond just its format. It identifies several attributes that should be considered, including whether the introduction clearly establishes the purpose and significance of the study, if the literature review is comprehensive and relates previous studies to the current problem, and if the methodology and procedures are described fully and without bias. The results, discussion, and conclusions are also examined to determine if they are presented clearly and based on the actual findings of the study.
Evaluating beyond format module 4
- 1. MODULE 4 EVALUATING BEYOND FORMAT
- 2. Other attributes of a research paper beyond the format: INTRODUCTION • 1. Is the general purpose of the study clear?
- 3. 2. Is the study significant? The potential value/s of the study .
- 4. 3. Will it make a practical or theoretical contribution? • Pragmatic potential benefit/s of the study. • New knowledge? • New processes? • Etc.
- 5. 4. Is the introduction well organized and clear? • The organization of the introduction must effectively establish the framework upon which the researcher proposes to undertake the study.
- 6. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE • 1. Is the review comprehensive and up to date?
- 7. 2. Is there an emphasis on primary resources?
- 8. 3. Is there a critical review or a review of findings? • Advantages • Disadvantages • Limitations
- 9. 4. Is the review well-organized?
- 10. 5. Does the review clearly relate previous studies to the current research problem?
- 11. 6. Does the review help establish the importance of the study?
- 12. RESEARCH PROBLEM, QUESTIONS OR HYPOTHESIS 1. Is the problem or hypothesis clear and concise?
- 13. 2. What kind of research is being carried out? • Qualitative • quantitative
- 14. METHODOLOGY: SAMPLES/ PARTICIPANTS • 1. Is the population described adequately?
- 15. 2. Is the sample clearly described?
- 16. 3. Is the method of selection of the sample clear?
- 17. 4. Could the method of selection affect the result?
- 18. 5. Are subjects likely to be motivated to give biased responses?
- 19. METHODOLOGY: INSTRUMENTS • 1. Is evidence for validity and reliability clearly presented and adequate? • Qualitative – matter of degree than absolute state. • Quantitative – – Stability – Equivalence – Internal consistency
- 20. 2. Is there a clear description of how the instrument was administered? • What instructions and guidelines were given? • What was the nature of the text? • What was the degree of difficulty? • Was there interview? • Focus-group discussion? • Who conducted the interviews/FGDs?
- 21. 3. Is it likely that subjects would fake their responses?
- 22. 4. Are interviewers and observers trained?
- 23. METHODOLOGY: PROCEDURES • 1. Are there clear weaknesses in the design of the study?
- 24. 2. Are the procedures for collecting information described fully? a. kinds of written questions b. kinds of semi-structured interview questions.
- 25. 3. Is it likely that the researcher is biased? • Use help of colleagues to triangulate problems.
- 26. RESULTS • 1. Are the findings presented clearly? • 2. Is there appropriate use of tables, charts, and figures?
- 27. 3. Is the number of subjects taken into consideration when presenting the results?
- 28. 4. Is there sufficient descriptive information to interpret the results?
- 29. 5. Do illustrative quotes and specific instances accompany the results?
- 30. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS • 1. Is the discussion based on the research problem and results, or is there a tendency to discuss unrelated material or ideas?
- 31. 2. Is there an adequate interpretation of the findings?
- 32. 3. Is the interpretation separate from the results? 4. Are the results discussed in relation to previous studies?
- 33. • 5. Are limitations due to methodology included in the discussion? • 6. Are the conclusions clearly stated and based on the results and the discussion? • 7. Are the conclusions reasonable?
- 34. • 8. What is the external validity of the study? • 9. What factors would affect the external validity? – Does the sampling capture variation in a diverse enough manner? (Profiling) – Is the context fully described so that the reader can judge transferability to other settings? – How well have the concepts been extracted from the data?
- 35. END OF MODULE 4 BY: Jocelyn M. Gallegos