Dr. J. Nahachewsky
Critical Review of Journal Articles
Introduction
The journal article, Gaming, Play and Education by E. L. Koch presents an emphasis on the potential of ‘play’ integration in relations to education using a qualitative research methodology. His argument as he quotes, “an examination will be made of uses and developments by practitioners of gaming devices and some of the pros and cons regarding their uses with a special emphasis on educational potentialities”[footnoteRef:1] (Koch 1968) is the thesis of the journal. In knowledge of this, this paper aims to critically review the qualitative approach and analyze the research in hopes to clarify whether he effectively illustrates how play has educational potentialities. [1: ]
Critical Analysis
Koch begins the paper with an entire introduction composed of defining the word ‘play’ in reference to numerous past works by researchers of the same field. Doing this he effectively emphasizes the qualities of play and hints at the certain possibilities of educational importance. He designated the introductory portion as a chapter of five chapters in the research. Koch effectively utilizes subheadings that are clear and coherent that all relates back to his original thesis. First Introduction called Theoretical speculations in regard to play and gaming, then first body transition; Operational Gaming, which make the majority of the content, that include subheadings focusing on the aspect of the variety of genres within the realm of ‘play’/games. Second body being Functions and types of Games which is the dedicated chapter of the implications of Educational qualities and highlighting the objective goal in games that are crucial skills in education. The fourth being Pros and Cons which was the other half of the author’s thesis while closing the paper with a concise conclusion. Throughout the paper Koch uses the subheadings as a clear indicator of the topic elaborated yet fails to demonstrate an implication of the practical educational skills you gain from playing games. He offers broad and theoretical implications such as “the 4 types of application and utility for gaming… 1. As experimental instruments in the study of learning behavior. 2. As highly elaborated and specialized teaching machines. 3. As mechanisms and models aiding in the codification development and testing theoretical research. 4. As supposedly accurate and trustworthy mechanisms capable of arriving at decisions and outcomes of elaborate and complicated process of interest to persons utilizing the game in question” (Prof. Allen Feldt, 1962)[footnoteRef:2]. The author does elaborate on Cornell Professor Allen Feldt’s claim yet still offers theoretical and generalized assumptions of how it could, rather than how it will. Moreover Koch fails to address an entire audience populations namely the ages below young adulthood and adolescence when play is socially essential and practically inevitable. In fact, Koch does not clearly isolate a particular audience that the author wishes to address in the research. The causation of this issue may be because of the date of publication in which was an era when games were still in its developing stages. [2: ]
Conclusion
Without doubt, Koch succeeded in delivering and informing the reader about “the uses and developments by practitioners of gaming devices and some of the pros and cons regarding their uses on educational potentialities” (Koch 1968) but fails to answer several crucial questions such as who is the audience? What are specifically the educational potentialities? And outdated in terms of how games were viewed then and now.
Introduction
The research “College Impact on student learning: Comparing the Use of self-reported gain, standardized test scores, and college grades” by Anaya G is a detailed quantitative research study based on the three assumptions. “1. Student reported cognitive growth survey items have a modest relative validity. 2. The attenuation associated with the use of residual gain scores does not invalidate their use. 3. Comparable results are obtained when using the college GPA and standardized test scores.” (Anaya 1999)[footnoteRef:3]. This paper aims to critically analyze this research methodology and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the journal’s ideas and content. [3: ]
Critical Analysis
First and foremost, Anaya strategically composed 3 particular sections to her thesis leaving no room for other assumptions which is favorable towards the quantitative approach. She begins her research with certain clarifications and definitions of what she is studying while creating a direct association with the thesis. Moreover she avoids any and all bias towards standardized tests as well as any form of intelligence measurement which is an especially ambiguous topic in the education realm. She diligently provides objective data against objective claims, as is without any room for subjective inquiry. She has admitted to the flaws of her study and clarifies that she utilized what was available which was in this case; GPA, GRE, SAT, and College grades. This research has followed the step-by-step action research quantitative procedure which include the study, alternative measures of student learning, Instruments, Variables of the study, results and discussion, limitations of the study, summary and followed by graphical data throughout. Unfortunately the comprehensive data is one of its main flaws because of its exhaustive nature. Anaya is thoroughly particular which has the unprecedented effects that are subject to repetition and confusion for the readers. Another weakness is that the research thesis itself is far too specific in regard to an ambiguous and flexible topic like education. Nevertheless Anaya demonstrates a perfect use of methodology for her research and resolved her weaknesses.
Conclusion
This research study, “College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self-reported gain, standardized test scores, and college grades” by Anaya G. is an ideal quantitative research paper that takes the thesis and deconstructing it to build upon a clearer and elaborate study. By mentioning her limitations and weaknesses within the study itself proves that she is capable of understanding the room for improvement of her research.
References:
1. KOCH, E. L.. (1968). Gaming, Play and Education. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET) / Revue De La Pensée Éducative, 2(2), 78–90.
2. Allen Feldt, “Some Thoughts and Speculations on the development and use of games in teaching and research,” Fall 1962, Mimeographed, P. 1.
3. Anaya, G.. (1999). College Impact on Student Learning: Comparing the Use of Self-Reported Gains, Standardized Test Scores, and College Grades. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 499–526.
Liliaxx
Articlereviewexample1.docx
0
