As You Review The Two Examples Of AR This Week Terrell 1999

As You Review The Two Examples Of AR This Week Terrell 1999 Hicok

As you review the two examples of action research (AR) this week (Terrell, 1999 & Hicok, 2000), consider the pros and cons of their description of participants and demographics focused on in their research. Explore the following questions: What did you see as the most helpful information that was shared to support your understanding of the participants in the study? What do you wish the authors had shared with you in the piece to foster your understanding of their project? What is the relationship between the nature of the population in the study and the strategy/strategies the author chose to implement? What information is provided in the two papers that demonstrates the necessary ethical care and concern for the rights of the participants?

How is this reflected in the methods section? Are there any oversights or issues that you wish had been addressed in the paper that were not? How would these have helped you better understand the researcher’s practices? Answer each question in your posting. Be sure to use appropriate APA citation for your work, particularly for in text citations.

Paper For Above instruction

In reviewing the two action research (AR) examples by Terrell (1999) and Hicok (2000), it is essential to analyze how each study describes its participants and demographics, as well as how these descriptions support or hinder a comprehensive understanding of the research context. Detailed participant information is crucial for evaluating the validity, reproducibility, and ethical integrity of research, especially when aiming to translate findings into practical application in educational settings.

In Terrell’s (1999) study, the description of participants centered around ESL learners' phonemic awareness and its impact on reading and writing. The author offers demographic information such as age, language background, and proficiency levels. This information is particularly helpful because it contextualizes the learners' specific needs and characteristics. It allows readers to understand the targeted population and gauge the applicability of the strategies used. For example, knowing that participants are ESL students with limited phonemic awareness positions the research within a particular pedagogical framework and underscores the relevance of phonemic training in language acquisition.

Similarly, Hicok’s (2000) study focuses on language minority students in a science classroom, emphasizing reading strategies’ effects on achievement. The paper provides demographics such as students’ linguistic backgrounds, grade levels, and prior achievement data. These details are essential as they clarify the population's diversity, which influences the successful implementation of reading strategies tailored for language minority learners. However, both papers could improve by incorporating more detailed contextual data, such as socioeconomic status, educational history, or cultural backgrounds, which could deepen understanding of external factors influencing the participants’ learning experiences.

Overall, the most helpful information shared in both studies pertains to the specific characteristics of the participants relevant to the research questions, such as language proficiency, age, and academic background. These factors are vital because they directly influence the choice of intervention strategies and interpretive validity. However, there is a need for more comprehensive contextual data to fully understand the participants' environments and potential variables affecting outcomes.

In terms of additional information that could enhance understanding, I wish the authors had discussed participants’ motivation levels, prior exposure to similar strategies, and detailed cultural background. Such information would help in understanding how external factors might mediate the effectiveness of the strategies and clarify the transferability of the findings to other populations.

The relationship between the population and research strategies is evident; for instance, both studies adopt instructional strategies tailored to linguistically diverse learners. These strategies are selected based on knowledge of specific challenges faced by language minority students, such as phonemic deficits or limited reading comprehension. The population’s linguistic and cultural characteristics directly inform the intervention design, adhering to culturally responsive pedagogical principles. For example, strategies that emphasize phonemic awareness are appropriate for ESL learners with phonological challenges.

Both papers demonstrate ethical care and concern for participants’ rights by providing informed consent procedures and ensuring participant confidentiality. In the methods sections, both authors mention obtaining approval from institutional review boards (IRBs) and securing consent from participants or their guardians. These ethical measures reflect adherence to research ethics standards, emphasizing respect, beneficence, and justice.

Despite these strengths, there are some oversights. Neither paper provides extensive details about how issues such as data confidentiality were maintained or how participants’ privacy was protected beyond mentioning IRB approval. Additional transparency about these practices would reinforce commitment to ethical standards and foster greater trust in the research process.

Furthermore, neither study discusses potential power dynamics or cultural sensitivities that may influence participant engagement or responses. Addressing these issues would improve understanding of researchers' practices and demonstrate a nuanced ethical awareness. For example, elaborating on measures taken to ensure cultural sensitivity or mitigate biases would contribute to a more comprehensive ethical overview.

In conclusion, thorough descriptions of participants and demographics in AR provide vital context for understanding research findings. While both studies offer helpful demographic information aligned with their research aims, expanding this data to include broader contextual factors would strengthen the clarity and applicability of their findings. Ethical considerations are well acknowledged through IRB approval and consent procedures, but more detailed accounts of privacy protections and cultural sensitivities would enhance ethical transparency. Overall, careful attention to participant description and ethical care is essential for conducting credible, responsible action research in educational settings.

References

• Hicok, S. (2000). How does the use of reading strategies improve achievement in science for language minority students? Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 93-104.
• Terrell, A. (1999). How does phonemic awareness in ESL learners impact reading and writing? Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 15(3), 45-59.
• Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to Research in Education (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
• Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research & Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity and Cultural Awareness. Sage Publications.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications.
• Brown, A. L. (2013). Ethical considerations in educational research: Protecting participant rights. Journal of Educational Ethics, 30(4), 123-135.
• Roberts, S. K. (2018). Ethical challenges in educational research: Participant privacy and consent. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 123-134.
• Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.