102096 RESEARCHING

TEACHING AND
LEARNING ANALYSIS Researching
Teaching and
Student Name: Samuel Chappuis Learning Analysis

Student Number: 18331631

Date Submitted: 11/4/16
Word Count: 994
Campus: Kingswood
1 102096 Researching Teaching and Learning Analysis

A case study into why students behave responsibly is the focus of Rochelle Fogelgarn and Ramon

Lewis’ research article: ‘Are you being your best?’ Why students behave responsibly (2015).

Fogelgarn and Lewis outline the reasons and motives behind students behaving responsibly, as well

as providing prior research into these reasons in their introductory and background sections. After

these is the illustration of the research into the case study where primary school students from 10

Australian schools were interviewed individually to provide their motivations behind acting

responsibly. This analysis aims to explore sections of the research article starting with the methods

of study, the interview results, and the concluding statements, and it will inspect how well the article

fits the criteria of effective qualitative research with the use of supporting evidence.

The methods of study expressed in the research paper were quite affective in providing answers to

the research question of ‘why students would chose to act responsibly in the absence of external

constraints?’, however there were important features missing. For a research article, the method of

selecting participants should be clear (McMillan, 2012). This study completed this criterion to a

certain degree but was quite broad with their explanations. Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015) outlined that

their sample of classes within schools and students within classes were randomly selected. There

was no in-depth explanation for why the sample was randomly selected, however, they explained

that is was a ‘convenience sample’ and that generalisations based off the research would be

inappropriate.

Furthermore, there is not much background given to the participants taking part in the study. Enago

Academy (2018) illustrate that the characteristics of the participants should be described e.g.

gender, age. Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015) only list the percentages of students interviewed from each
2 102096 Researching Teaching and Learning Analysis

year group. It is possible that the diverse characteristics of the participants could have affected the

results; therefore this needed to be included in the methods section.

Contrastingly, the experimental design is appropriate for the study. Flinders University (2012)

explain that the methods section should clearly state what the researcher did and how it was done.

Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015) clearly and effectively outline the interview process, providing examples

and explaining what they were looking for. However, McMillan (2012) explains techniques which

would enable the credibility of the research findings to be enhanced including using numerous

approaches of collecting data (triangulation) or conducting several interviews over a lengthy period

of time with the same participants. The researchers could have enhanced their study by using these

techniques. Nevertheless the research article for the most part adequately reports the who, what,

when, where and how in the methodology.

The results and findings section of the research article provides a sufficient thematic analysis of data

to help answer the research question; however the analysis doesn’t really specify how the results

were split into different themes. Fogelgarn and Lewis provided a logical detailing of the findings in

this section using a variety of quotes from interviews, organised into motives which constructively

answer the research question of why students behave responsibly. Gall et al. (2015) and Flinders

University (2012) illustrate this approach as effective and quality research. Contrastingly, Fogelgarn

and Lewis don’t fully examine a full interview with a student, only grabbing particular quotes that fit

with the themes they have recognised. The questions the students were answering as well as the

reason they fitted the particular motive were omitted. McMillan (2012, p. 306) clarifies that the

“research may have missed important behaviours” by not providing detailed descriptions of the

results. By not doing this, the validity of the study suffers and possible biases from the authors come
3 102096 Researching Teaching and Learning Analysis

to light. Additionally, Gall et al. (2015) and McMillan (2012) identify that detailed descriptions of

participants (member checking) increase a studies validity and standing. Fogelgarn and Lewis could

have used this to dispel any missed behaviours or biases, unfortunately it was not done.

Flinders University (2012) identify that the conclusion section of a research article should review the

key ideas, specify the research’s effectiveness and include suggestions for further research. The

researcher’s final conclusions are well supported by the study; Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015, p. 290)

link their findings with evidence such as “Kohlberg’s stages of moral development” and also posit

suggestions for further research “further research is require to examine the link between these

elements”. This suggestion for further research is well supported by the outcomes of the study

which Parada (2018) explained in his lecture that recommendations for further research should be

linked to the study. Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015, p. 290) also acknowledge limitations to their work by

recognising “the convenience sample prevents generalisations” which Shank et al. (2014) identify as

a requirement for quality research. On the other hand, the conclusion fails to address possible issues

with the credibility of the research. Fogelgarn and Lewis do not discuss in detail the strong and weak

points of their research, which is what Anderson (2010) explains is extremely significant; and nor do

they acknowledge their own perspectives and backgrounds and how this could have influenced the

research. This is a crucial area to leave out as this could have linked to biases in the study. McMillan

(2012, p. 306) illustrates that “good qualitative researchers acknowledge how their expectations and

preconceived ideas affect what they observe, interpret and conclude” which unfortunately

Fogelgarn and Lewis did not do.

In conclusion, it is clear in this study that Fogelgarn and Lewis have answered their research

question. The schools and individuals involved in the study have provided them with plenty of
4 102096 Researching Teaching and Learning Analysis

reasons and motives for ‘why students behave responsibly?’, and they have interpreted them in a

thorough manner. However, the article could have increased its credibility if: the researches

acknowledged their own perspectives and backgrounds, the members of the study were given more

detailed description and if the strength and weaknesses of the study were explained in more detail.

Despite this, Fogelgarn and Lewis conducted an adequate study to gather information about the

reasons and motives behind students behaving responsibly and furthered the research into this area

of educational issues.

References
Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research. American Journal Of
Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 5, 7.

Enago Academy. (2018). Reporting Participant Characteristics in a Research Paper - Enago Academy.
Enago Academy. Retrieved 6 April 2018, from https://www.enago.com/academy/reporting-
participant-characteristics-in-a-research-paper/

Flinders University. (2012). Critiquing Research Articles. Flinders.edu.au. Retrieved 6 April 2018, from
http://www.flinders.edu.au/slc_files/Documents/Blue%20Guides/Critiquing%20Research%20A
rticles.pdf

Fogelgarn, R., & Lewis, R. (2015). ‘Are you being your best?’ Why students behave responsibly.
Australian Journal Of Education, 59(3), 278-292.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2015). Applying education research (custom edition) (2nd ed., pp. 168-
169, 252-255). Sydney: Pearson Education.

McMillan, J. (2012). Educational research (6th ed., pp. 306-313). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Parada, R. (2018). Teacher’s research in practice: Evaluating Research Validity. Lecture, Western
Sydney University.

Shank, G., Brown, L., & Pringle, J. (2014). Understanding education research: a guide to critical
reading (1st ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.