The key element of conducting this action research was to find out if the use of technology in specifically blogging would increase the communication about books read by students. As with most of the quantitative research, the study has a pre-determined hypothesis. The study is working to prove the hypothesis right or wrong. Albaugh (2013) had a well-defined and thought hypothesis. She was looking to determine how to use the student’s interest in technology to enhance their learning.

Albaugh (2013) utilized the cyclical nature of research. She followed the research steps from developing a hypothesis to developing a conclusion with recommendations and other areas of study. She followed all the research methods accordingly. Any research should provide privacy. Albaugh (2013) provided this by using a blog spot where privacy was enabled. She also used pseudonyms when referring to students’ comments and posts. As research dictates, the privacy of the students was well observed. She also controlled the number of variable available for her study by not imposing a impose any minimum numbers or lengths for student posts, considering these a threat to the validity of her study. While Albaugh’s was careful about the details of her study, there were some limitations.

Albaugh (2013) selected a group of students from a single school as the sample. There is some form is non-randomness in this sample. There was no random sampling in this case. Albaugh (2013) just used the students from her class to generalize about all students. This kind of generalization can be undesirable.  As Albaugh mentioned, the sample was students from a fifth grade students. Though she mentioned that all the students’ vol8nteered for the study, there is nothing about whether she acquired permission from the parents and the school administration. In addition, the study period of six weeks was rather short.

In the pre-assessing of students all the students reported to having access to internet at home. However, the reported time spent on internet daily was between 0-2. This means some students did not use the internet. In addition, there were variances in the possession of technology by the students.  There is no explanation into how these factors influenced the data analysis and interpretation. It can then be interpreted that some students were unjustly represented in the study( Efron & Ravid, 2013). The study participants should have equal access to the study variable.

References

Albaugh, B. M. (2013). Blogging about books: What can we learn from our students. Networks: An On-line Journal for Teacher Research, 15(2), 1-9

Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Response to Haley Horvath

Good analysis Haley, the study had a predetermined hypothesis, as is the case with quantitative studies. I agree with you that the study sample was not representative of the population. Albaugh’s (2013) only used the students from a single school to make a general conclusion about all students.  The rule of random sampling in this case was not observed. In addition, the elements of daily usage of the internet and the access to technological devices were not integrated in the data interpretation stage, which can be interpreted as unjustly representation.

Response to Janice Burton

Great view Janice, Albaugh (2013) wanted to determine the effects of utilizing the students’ interest in technology to improving their communication about books. The element of privacy was well observed in her study by enabling the privacy setting in the blog. She also used pseudonyms when referring to specific students. However, I feel that the sample used was not a good reprehensive of the whole population. She only used students from a single class in a single school. This does not institute random sampling.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?