Discussion Question

A Critique of “Reflecting on Practice: Using Learning Journals in Higher and Continuing

Education” by A. M. Langer

Student’s Name

Institution

Date

A Critique of “Reflecting on Practice: Using Learning Journals in Higher and Continuing

Education” by A. M. Langer

“Reflecting on Practice: Using Learning Journals in Higher and Continuing Education” by Langer (2002) is a journal article that helps to demonstrate the importance of using learning journals as tools of encouraging critical reflection among non-traditional students in comparison with traditional students. The main objective of the study was to understand how non-conventional students respond to the requirements of learning journals in a technical computer class. The research used a qualitative methodology which helped todetermine that the non-conventional students are more cynical when using learning journals as compared to the conventional students. The study helps to demonstrate that student perceptions can affect their reflective thinking when it comes to the use of learning journals. This study had some strengths as well as weaknesses that can affect its accuracy and credibility. The purpose of this article critique is to determine the various strengths and weakness of the article. The critique will review the purpose of the study, the conceptual framework, the methods, the results, and the discussion section of the paper individually to determine their strengths and limitations.

Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article

The Research Question and Purpose

This article has a very concise introduction section that introduces the purpose of the study and the resaerch questions. One factor that makes the introduction of the paper to be strong is that it is quite short yet contains a comprehensive explanation of the issue being studied. The purpose of the study has been clearly stated. The author explains that the use of learning journals has been common among traditional students but there has been concern over the effectiveness of these journals on the learning of adult non-traditional students (Langer, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of the research is to investigate how journals impact reflective thinking among the non-traditional students.

However, one limitation with the research purpose and questions of the study is the formatting. The questions of the resaerch have been fitted within the introductory paragraph which can be hard for a reader who is just perusing through to see it. The research questions are an important part of a research paper that needs to be clearly stated (Denzin& Lincoln, 2011).

The Conceptual Framework and Literature Review

The conceptual framework of this resaerch journal is based on the concept of reflection in learning. This section of the study has been well presented using evidence from previous research about the concept of reflection. The section helps the reader to understand why the ability to reflect on information studied is important in learning. The use of evidence strengthens the validity of the section because it helps to show that the information presented is valid as it has been collected from relevant academic sources. Similarly, the author has presented a comprehensive literature review that helps to show past research that has been done on the use of journals as learning tools. The literature review helps to build on the credibility of the resaerch because the readers can understand why it is important to study the effectiveness of journals as learning tools for non-traditional students.

Methodology

One of the weaknesses of the resaerch methodology used was the inefficiency data collection techniques. Qualitative research methods were used to investigate the impact of learning journals on the reflective thinking of adult students. Two modes of data collection were used to collect data for the study. First, the researcher interviewed students and conducted an evaluative review of the journals submitted by the students(Langer, 2002). The researcher reviews 10 journals and interviewed 10 students six months after the completion of their course. The sample size for this study was too small for the results to be considered a representation of all the adult students. Having a small sample size gives a lot of room for inaccurate results (Beck, 2003). The researcher would have possibly made a different conclusion if they had used a bigger sample size.

However, the methodology has some strength that could have helped to make the results more accurate. First, the researcher was very careful in the sample selection process to ensure that there is limited bias in the responses given. For instance, the gender representation was almost equal with 4 male participants and 6 female participants. The researcher also made sure that the participants were volunteers and that they signed a consent form. This shows that the researcher took the rules of conducting research into consideration to respect the rights of the participants.

Results and Findings

The results and findings section of this study is well presented in different sub-headings which makes it easy for the reader to point out the main points about the results of the resaerch. The findings of the journal reviews and the interviews have been presented separately; hence, making it easier to understand the results (Langer, 2002). The researcher has added to the credibility of the results by providing a summary of the interview information. Therefore, when the conclusion is made the reader can be able to understand why the author made such a conclusion. In addition, the researcher has presented a short summary of the common themes that were identified in the resaerch. The presentation of the themes help the reader to have a better understanding of the main issues related to learning journals that limit the reflective thinking of non-conventional students (Marshall, 2005).

Discussions, Implications, and Conclusion

The discussions and implications section of this study is built using the results of the study and how they can be linked to previous studies. The advantage of this section is that it is successful in helping the reader of the journal in connecting the work done by the researcher to the concepts that have been developed by past scholars and researchers. The section begins by summarizing some of the important points from the literature review and later connects them to the findings of the study. The main implication of this study as stated in the researcher is that the study can be useful in helping non-traditional students develop their ability to apply reflective thinking when using journals in order to improve their learning outcomes(Langer, 2002). The conclusion of the study has also been well presented. Just by reading the conclusion section, one can get an idea of what the entire study has covered. The conclusion summarizes the study problem, the resaerch itself, and the main conclusions that have been made by the researcher.

Conclusion

The article by Langer (2002) can be considered to be a good study. The study is helpful in improving learning among non-traditional students by helping them to make better use of learning journals as their study tools. The main strength of the study is in the presentation and the use of relevant sources to back up information presented by the author. However, the study’s accuracy and credibility has been limited by the researcher’s choice of sample size. The sample size is too small for the results to be considered a representation of the entire adult student population. Critiquing this article has helped me to learn how to break down the different sections of a resaerch study and determine how each section contributes to the overall academic vigor of the study.

References

Beck, C. T. (2003). Qualitative research: The evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability. Western journal of nursing research, 15(2), 263-266.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.).(2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research.Sage.

Langer, A. M. (2002). Reflecting on practice: Using learning journals in higher and continuing education. Teaching in higher education, 7(3), 337-351.

Marshall, G. (2005). Critiquing a research article. Radiography, 11(1), 55-59.