Assessment 1 – Critical Review 17456933

Both qualitative and quantitative studies have been undertaken in the article “How do

secondary school English teachers score NAPLAN? A Snapshot of English teachers’ views”

(Carter, Manuel and Dutton, 2018), aiming to gather views of secondary English teachers on

the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). The study focuses on

teachers’ voices and perspectives which are not often recognised and addressed in public

debates or research regarding NAPLAN. A discussion on the background and context of the

testing as well as previous research findings regarding the impacts and perspectives of

standardised testing programs are presented and create a general idea of the direction of

the study. The study utilises a questionnaire to question the principle, validity and purpose

of the testing from NSW secondary English teachers across three sectors including

government, non-government and Catholic schools. This Critical review will scrutinize the

“Present Study”, “Results” and “Conclusion” from the research paper around the

requirements of both qualitative and quantitative research as well as acknowledge whether

the research question has been addressed.

The research adopts a mixed-mode design of a qualitative and quantitative method allowing

the study to integrate the strengths of both approaches increasing the depth and reliability

of the study. The interpretation of the findings are carried out using thematical coding

where findings are segmented, and summarised capturing the significant notions (Given,

2008, p.2). The qualitative approach has been welcomed by educators due its strength in

providing rich and diverse insights into educational contexts and allowing for exploration,

resulting in findings that will have an impact on educational practices (Kerrvin, Viale,

Howard, Herrington and Okely, 2016, p.34). Conversely, the quantitative research approach
Assessment 1 – Critical Review 17456933

allows for the examination of the causes and trends behind the effects that are observed

which is vital in an educational context where there are dynamic aspects of improvement

continuously being encouraged (Kerrvin, Viale, Howard, Herrington and Okely, 2016, p.35).

The research method was clearly identified, adopted rating scales for the purpose of

gathering qualitative data with a degree of sensitivity and differentiation and open-ended

questions to catch authenticity, richness, honesty and depth of responses. However, the

researchers chose to compile data using the non-random sampling method. Such an

approach limits the generalisation of the findings making them susceptible to criticism. The

researchers have mentioned that participants were NSW Secondary English teachers from

the three schooling sectors, however, they have not identified the requirements which were

used to select the participants leading to an assumption of researcher bias (Ames, Glenton

and Lewin, 2019, p.3).

The findings of the research have been clearly structured and have provided some depth

into the data obtained. A strength of the article is that is utilises thematic coding to present

the research findings. The results are segmented in question and answer format

summarising the data collected per question, providing some direct quotations from the

respondents and portraying the significant notions from the views shared by the

participants allowing for a deeper and realistic understanding of their perceptions. However,

the data presented gives utmost emphases on the negative views regarding NAPLAN

obtained through qualitative methods. The positive responses are slightly mentioned using

only quantitative data and no emphasis or discussion on these findings nor any mention of

the positive qualitative data gained is presented, thus making the research subject to being
Assessment 1 – Critical Review 17456933

“bias or unbalanced” (Bishop, Oldendick, Tuchfarber, 1982, p.81). The inclusion of positive

qualitative data to provide some discussion and an understanding of teachers views to the

positive quantitative data presented could have allowed the researchers to shape more

insightful perceptions in the research.

The conclusion sees the researchers tie up the study by confirming that the research

findings are consistent with previous studies surrounding standardised testing. An overview

of the research findings focusing only on negative views regarding NAPLAN gained

throughout the study is presented, neglecting any in-depth discussion of positive views

which may have been addressed.

The researchers also mention that “the present offers additional empirical evidence to

inform debate and policy reform” (Carter, Manuel and Dutton, 2018, p.152) which is a

generalised statement with no statistical evidence to support the claim. As the study has

adopted a non-random sampling approach, researchers should be cautious and limited to

the generalisation of the findings (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011).

In addition, the researchers fail to reflect on their study to recognise any areas of

weaknesses or areas which require further investigation. Reflection allows researchers to

consider their practise and plan using diagnostic and unbiassed thinking to enhance their

learnings for future study (Waring and Evans, 2014, p.18) as well as support the credibility of

their research (McMillan, 2016).

Assessment 1 – Critical Review 17456933

The researchers, however have presented overall findings in the conclusion which

contribute to adequately answering the research question and purpose which can generally

contribute to previous and future research regarding the views on NAPLAN.

In conclusion, the researchers have presented a well-investigated study on the views of

secondary school English teachers on NAPLAN. The use of mixed-mode design of a

qualitative and quantitative questionnaire generates a depth and reliability in the data

obtained. The data is well presented and structured in segments where findings are

summarised, and direct quotations are used to create a realistic impression of perceptions.

Despite the study’s strength, it does lack credibility in various ways. These include; the use

of non-random sampling which limits the generalisation of findings and makes the research

susceptible to researcher bias, the in-depth presentation and discussion of the negative

views obtained from the study whilst very briefly presenting positive responses utilising only

quantitative data without the support of quantitative data, a generalised statement of the

findings with no statistical evidence as well as a lack of disclosing any weaknesses in the

study. Had the researchers adopted a random sampling method for obtaining data,

presented un-biased findings, and presented and reflection, the study would have obtained

greater creditability and balance with regard to this significant educational topic.
Assessment 1 – Critical Review 17456933

References

Ames, H., Glenton, C., & Lewin, S. (2019). Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence
synthesis: A worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination
communication. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0665-4

Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1982). Effects of Presenting One Versus Two
Sides of an Issue in Survey Questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(1), 81. doi:
10.1086/268700

Carter, D., Manuel, J., & Dutton, J. (2018). How do secondary school English teachers
score NAPLAN? A snapshot of English teachers' views. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 41(3), 144-154.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.

Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vols. 1-0).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.

Kervin, Lisa, Vialle, Wilma, Author, Howard, Steven J., Author, Herrington, Jan, Author,

and Okely, Tony, Author. Research for Educators. Second ed. 2016. Print.

McMillan, J. (2016) Educational research: Fundamentals of Educational Research, (7 th

ed.,pg. 308-336). Boston: Pearson.

Assessment 1 – Critical Review 17456933

Waring, M., & Evans, C. (2014). Understanding pedagogy: Developing a critical approach to

teaching learning. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from

uwsau on 2019-04-01 04:44:09.