Research Article Critique/Araştırma Makalesi Eleştirisi

Bilimsel bir araştırma makalesini değerlendirmek/eleştirmek için giriş, metot, bulgular, tartışma ve
sonuç bölümleri ayrı ayrı, her bir bölümün güçlü ve zayıf yönleri dikkate alınarak incelenmelidir.
İnceleme iki şekilde yapılır: 1) Şekilsel olarak, 2) İçeriksel olarak.

1) Şekilsel olarak; yazı tipi, puntosu, akademik yazım formatına uygun olup olmadığı incelenir.

2) İçerik olarak; her bir bölümde yazılanların kendi içerisinde tutarlı olup olmadığı ve bölümün
gerektirdiği şartları taşıyıp taşımadığına göre incelenir.

1. Giriş, literatür taraması (Bu bölümde eleştiri için sorulabilecek sorular)

Yazılanlar iyi organize edilmiş mi?

Alıntılar ve açıklamalar (paraphrases) düzgün şekilde mi? Makalenin yazıldığı akademik formata
uygun mu? (örneğin APA, MLA ya da CMOS)

Referanslar birbiriyle tutarlı mı?

Problem durumu açık bir şekilde belirtilmiş mi?

Eğitim açısından yararlı ya da bir boşluğu dolduracak mı?

Araştırma soruları anlaşılır bir biçimde yazılmış mı?

Araştırma soruları araştırmanın amacına uygun yazılmış mı?

2. Metot

Araştırma sorularına cevap bulmak için kullanılan araştırma modeli uygun mu? Nicel, nitel ya da
karma metot?

Araştırmanın örneklemi, araştırma bulgularının genellenebilmesi için yeterli sayıda ve büyüklükte mi?

Veri toplama aracının hazırlanma süreci yeterli bir şekilde anlatılmış mı?

Veri toplama süreci ve süreçte yaşananlar detaylı bir biçimde açıklanmış mı?

Veri analizinde kullanılan teknikler açıklanmış mı?

3. Bulgular

Nesnel olarak sunulmuş mu?

Tablolar ve şekiller anlaşılır ve uygun mu?

Anlatım anlaşılır mı?

İstatistiksel sonuçlar doğru mu?

4. Tartışma

Araştırma sonunda bulunanlar, araştırma sorularına ya da hipotezlere cevap verdi mi?

Araştırmacı sonuçları, literatürden ve diğer araştırma sonuçlarından referans vererek destekledi mi?
Ya da kendi deneyimlerinden yola çıkarak doğruladı mı?

5. Sonuç

Araştırmacı bulguları ve tartışmaları genel çerçevede uygun bir şekilde toparlayıp, eğitim açısından
önemli ile bağladı mı?

Araştırmanın sınırlılıkları detaylı bir şekilde açıklandı mı?

Daha sonraki araştırmalar için önerilerde bulunuldu mu?

Eğitim açısından araştırma sonuçlarından yola çıkarak öneriler verildi mi?

Makale Eleştirisi Örneği

Eleştirilen makaleye erişim: http://rel.sagepub.com/content/42/1/69.abstract

Eleştiri Yapanın İsmi Soyismi

Ders Adı/Öğretim Üyesinin Adı Soyadı

Ödevin Adı

Tarih

Introduction

I decided to choose this article “Primary ELF Teachers’ Technology Use in China: Patterns and
Perceptions” by Guopang Li and Xioapeng Ni. The reason why I’ve chosen it that it would help me to
construct some concepts about ELT and technology integration because I want to research the
effectiveness of Flip Teaching in ELT setting.

In order to criticize this article, I referred Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research by John W. Creswell; Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma by Ali Balcı
and research method course notes provided by the instructor.
Literature Review

Strengths:

According to Creswell (2012), literature review gives a rationale for the purpose of the study and
shows the reason why the research problem is important. In this view, this article gives detailed
information about the importance of technology and English language in China. Also, it reflects the
previous results of the studies which investigate teachers’ technology use in instruction and uses
them to justify the need for further research about it. This shows the researchers understood the
problem. For all these reasons, I can say that the literature review was written orderly and it can
easily be understood.

Weaknesses:

Even if the researchers gave adequate references, they mostly stuck to the same researches. For
example, they gave six references from the study of Wozney, Vankates and Abrami. This can make
someone think that the researches did not expert in their area of study.

Method

Strengths:

The researchers described how the analyzed the data clearly. They showed which analysis they
conducted on data and explained the reason well. In addition, Li and Ni described which software was
used for the analysis.

Weaknesses:

Usinger (2011) stated “the method section is your recipe for your study.” however, I think it is the
weakest part of this article. The first reason is that the researchers did not describe the research
design. Second, in samples section, Li and Ni did not mention that they conducted survey whether in
public or private primary schools or both. Third, out of 141 teachers, 72 of them completed the
survey that equals to 51%. According to Balcı (2010), the response rate should be at least 80%; on the
other hand Creswell (2012) stated that if the response rate is over 60%, it will be acceptable for
getting valid and credible results. Although both authors contradict, this article doesn’t comply with
either of the standards. Fourth, out of 72 participants, only 4% were male. This rate should be at least
40% to 60%; otherwise, the result of the study will not be accepted as valid or credible.

In settings section, the researchers did not explain whether they conducted their research in every
school in Shanghai or they picked some primary schools.

Also, Li and Ni stated that they adopted a survey which consists of 51 items, but when I count the
items, there were only 49 and there is no explanation about the two missing items.

In addition, the researchers did not explain the procedure. How they get permission, how they
reached the schools/teachers or how the survey was distributed is unknown.

Finally, the titles of the methods section aren’t in order. It should follow these steps: 1) design, 2)
samples, 3) setting and procedure, 4) instrument, 5) data analysis (Creswell, 2012).

Data Analysis Technique

Strengths:

Li and Ni clearly defined the techniques which they used for analyzing data. They used frequency,
mean, standard deviation and correlation results where necessary.

Results

Strengths:

The tables are clear and easy to read. Also using percentages instead of numbers eases the reading
and results are well analyzed.

Weaknesses:

Mostly, even if the percentages were not rounded up, the researchers wrote “around, about, more
than, over” before them. These are unnecessary because these percentages already give the exact
results. This sometimes slows the reading, although I have mentioned percentages ease reading. Also,
table 3 should be below “EFL Teachers’ Attitudes towards Technology” title (p.77).

Discussion

Strengths:

Discussion is well written and the results were supported by the previous researches. Also, the
researchers gave examples using other researches to explain why some teachers think that
technology distracts students from learning.

Weaknesses:

At the beginning of the section, the researchers wrote “the findings indicate that most EFL teachers in
this study were competent in information literacy…” The participants may not be computer or
technology literacy but they may see themselves so and answer the question in that way.

Conclusion and Implications

Strengths:

Li and Ni summarized the findings clearly and gave important implications supporting them by
referring the previous studies about technology integration in instruction. They correctly use APA
style and correct, proper language.

Weaknesses:

In the limitation section, Li and Ni did not mention the huge difference between the numbers of
sexes.

All in all, the article is written and organized well in general; however method section could have
written better and that would have made the article more credible and valid for future researches.

References:
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Balcı, A. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. Ankara: Pegem.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson Education.

Li, G. & Ni, X. (2011). Primary EFL Teachers’ Technology Use in China: Patterns and Perceptions. RELC
Journal, 42(1), 69-85.