A Critical Review of Qualitative Research Studies Relating to Technology Use and Learning
Introduction
The word criticism is often used in conjunction with the phrase critique, which is commonly considered to be a disparaging term. However, criticism is related with critical thinking and assessment, which are important in the arts and sciences because they require the development of certain cognitive abilities. An intellectual critical review is the term used to describe this kind of investigation. It is the element that was developed, such as a study project, that is the focus of an intellectual critical evaluation, and it is concerned with evaluating the quality of the thing in question, rather than the author. To provide an example, it is feasible to carry out a critical intellectual review of a work of art or a piece of study, or to write an article. The purpose of this critical evaluation is to increase understanding, summarize material for practical application, and serve as a knowledge basis for future research efforts.
Mundy and Kupczynski (2013)
However, despite the increased availability of digital technologies both inside and outside of the education system, technology is typically not used to significantly support learning and teaching in many situations. Rather than merely learning how to use technology, teachers want aid in altering their instructional techniques. According to Mundy and Kupczynski (2013), the TeachUp! Program was developed by the Digital Opportunity Trust to promote the use of technology in everyday instructional techniques and activities by using trainers who are actively involved in the classrooms as a continual support system and who provide informal skill building opportunities. Trainees examine the many types of technologies that are available and how they may be employed in the conception and implementation of educational programs in order to broaden students’ existing knowledge and learning (Mundy and Kupczynski, 2013). When asked about the integration of the TeachUp! technology enablement into the ongoing culture and administration of the education system, long-term systemic reform, and advances in educational performance, purposefully selected samples from two school districts provided their responses.
The research statement, the research question, the goals and objectives, and the research methodology are all important components for the purposes of the current study. Each of these components provides the authors with the opportunity to discuss what they want to accomplish with their research and to make a compelling argument for why they should go ahead and complete the whole investigation. Writing about the research gap or issue being addressed, the relevant background to the inquiry, and why the subject is of importance to the authors as well as the larger academic and professional communities in which they are published is one of the most important ways in which writers explain their work. In this regard, Mundy and Kupczynski (2013) have a very clear research aim that is to help teachers to change how they provide instructions and not just in the use of computers but the use of technologies in the teaching and learning exercises. However, the study lacks a clear research question and objective structure, yet the authors are able to make the reader aware of the need for research in the problem statement.
Methodological rationale is also an important feature in assessing the quality of a resource. For this paper, Mundy and Kupczynski (2013) offer a brief and succinct section on methodology that briefs the reader of the need to examine the TeachUp! Educational program as an effective means to attain the objectives of learner achievement. The use of a purposive sample for the methodology is clear. However, there is a problem with the explanation of why the sampling design was chosen. Additionally, the researchers fail to adequately mention how data collection was conducted through the interviews mentioned. Overall, the general picture is well presented and the rationale is somewhat convincing for the decisions made.
With the research design chosen, there is clear and notable alignment between the researcher/s ontological stance, the theoretical framework used, and the methods of data collection and analysis. While not clearly articulated, the researchers use a descriptive analysis to highlight the main themes emergent from the study. Given the framing of these elements, the methods employed are appropriate for the study.
Regarding transparency and trustworthiness, the authors clearly articulate and explain the processes used in the research. While the data collection presentation is somewhat lacking in rationale, the analysis provided is thorough and systematic. It includes coding of the main themes and a presentation of the main arguments that the participants offer. The findings are very well-presented including quotes from the respondents to make these findings trustworthy.
Regarding ethics, Mundy and Kupczynski (2013) fail to recognise and have not attempted to mitigate the ethical issues associated with the research. The research involves human respondents, yet the paper fails to mention how the authors conducted the entire process with ethical considerations. There is total lack of a discussion of ethics.
Lastly, the authors fail to recognise limitations. However, the knowledge claims made commensurate with the aims and methods employed. Failing to recognise the limitations of their research is a negative development for the study. But the authors make up and align their claims of significance and contribution accordingly through a sober and succinct presentation of findings.
Shadiev and Yang (2020)
An article on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching was reviewed by Shadiev and Yang (2020), who aimed to compile the content of research literature into a single summary that included the following categories: the amount of publications written by various journal articles and by period; the languages and abilities investigated; the innovation utilised; and the most viable technological advances. For this analysis, a total of 398 research papers were reviewed and analyzed. A slew of implications were drawn from Shadiev and Yang’s (2020) results, and they offered a slew of paths for additional study as a result of their findings. This review study has a broad scope and may be used as a guide for individuals in the teaching and research communities who wish to design language teaching and learning processes that are facilitated by technological advancements, according to the authors’ conclusions.
Clear and concise research questions are necessary for a multitude of reasons. As a starting point, they must be available in order for the author to perform a successful search for relevant material and to guide the study in terms of direction and breadth. When study goals and questions are well defined, they allow a researcher to develop precise targets and hypotheses that may be tested in additional research. These considerations will also ensure that the authors are in a position to choose the most appropriate research design for a study from among the available possibilities. In this context, Shadiev and Yang’s (2020) study has very clear research aim and questions, which are presented appropriately in the introductory section after the description and analysis of the research problem.
The methodological rationale for this study is appropriate. It combines a brief quantitative design that accounts for the numerical part of the study and a larger qualitative analysis of the articles under review. The authors successfully provide a convincing rationale for their methodological decisions, explaining a need to use the secondary information from previous records and literature to inform the themes in the discussion. In the same vein, the methodological alignment of the study reveals a clear alignment between the researchers’ epistemological stance, the conceptual and theoretical frameworks used, and the methods of data collection and analysis. As such, the methods employed are appropriate with regard to the framing of the aforementioned elements.
For a significant number of social scientists, research transparency and trustworthiness is a fundamental ethical imperative. Research openness can be defined as the requirement to make the data, analysis techniques, and interpretative decisions that underpin one’s conclusions available in a way that others may evaluate those conclusions. Even while most quantitative social scientists have some fundamental expectations for study openness, many qualitative and interpretive researchers are confused about what this means for their work, if anything at all. Others are concerned that increased transparency may undermine ethical subject protection, encourage invasive inquiries from journal editors, and unnecessarily increase their logistical burden. To demonstrate that the data analysis approach is transparent and trustworthy, several academics have argued for qualitative research. However, these procedures, particularly in inductive research, are sometimes shrouded in secrecy and mystery. Iterating between coding, verifying, and evaluating qualitative data is a crucial (if not the most important) element of qualitative research, and it is necessary to do so in order to effectively analyze the data. Shadiev and Yang’s (2020) clearly articulate and explain the processes used in the research. They achieve this in data collection and the analysis methods applied. The findings are presented in a descriptive manner that remains true to previous considerations. Overall, the findings are trustworthy.
Individual and group standards of behaviour are directed by a set of written and unwritten rules that are collectively referred to as ethical principles. These statements express clearly how and why individuals expect others to react in certain situations. When it comes to some ethical principles, there is broad agreement. When it comes to how these ideas should be put into action in practice and research, however, there is a great deal of debate. When it comes to research, ethical considerations are a collection of standards that serve to govern the design and execution of the research project in question. When gathering data from people, scientists and researchers must always adhere to a set of guidelines known as the Code of Conduct. Attempts to better understand real-life events, discover effective therapies, evaluate daily routines, and generally enhance people’s lives are common goals of human research. Important ethical issues play a role in the authors’ decisions regarding what to investigate and how to go about conducting their investigation. While acknowledging the existence of research-related ethical dilemmas, the authors of this publication make no effort to ameliorate these concerns. However, despite the fact that the study included human participants, there is no explanation in the publication as to how the authors conducted the whole procedure while keeping ethical considerations in mind.
The research succinctly mentions a major limitation within their inclusion and exclusion criteria for resources. The authors recognise that many papers written in non-published journals and those that are not peer-reviewed were not included, yet their findings would have been key to the study. While this does not discredit the research findings, it provides room for critique regarding the best inclusion criterion to apply.
Wohlfart, Trumler, and Wagner (2021)
An important goal of this research is to identify and investigate the characteristics that impact instructors’ adoption of digital technologies for conducting distant learning while dealing with the Covid-19 epidemic. Interviews involving 15 high school teachers from a variety of backgrounds and topic combinations were done using the factors of the acceptance and use of technology.
When doing a critical evaluation, it is crucial to be clear about the research intent. It is essential that the research questions, goals, and objectives be stated clearly and plainly if investigations are to be effective in their outcomes. The research proposal document, as well as the abstract and the study’s introductory and study research methods sections, are all built on four interconnected and significant elements for the context of a research: the overall study statement, the research questions, the goals and objectives, and the methodology of the study. Wohlfart, Trumler, and Wagner (2021) have a very clear research goal in this regard: the elements that affect teachers’ embrace of digital technologies for distant learning during the Covid-19 epidemic are being investigated. While there is a lack of a distinct research question, the objective framework in the study is able to convince the reader that research is necessary by including a problem statement that highlights the necessity for research.
Methodological rationale is also an important feature in assessing the quality of a resource. For this paper, Wohlfart, Trumler, and Wagner (2021) offer a detailed section on methodology that provides information to the reader regarding the methodological rationale, the instrumentation process, the participants, and the data analysis methods. The use of a purposeful sample based on previous literature is presented in a clear manner. Additionally, the researchers adequately mention how data collection was conducted through the 15 interviews conducted. Overall, the general picture is well presented and the rationale is convincing regarding the decisions made. With the research design chosen, there is clear and notable alignment between the researchers’ ontological stance, the theoretical framework used, and the methods of data collection and analysis. Given the framing of these elements, the methods employed are appropriate for the study.
Only under the ideal conditions can academic research yield data and insights that have the potential to maximize the impact and efficacy of government. When presented with a contradictory or unavailable research base, as well as competing demands, policymakers will find it difficult to make good use of available knowledge. The opposite is true when the research basis is clear and repeatable, since this results in more clarity about the evidence. As a result, policymakers are better equipped to make decisions based on evidence. Transparency guarantees that all study results on a given issue are available for academics, policymakers, and the general public to see and use. This gives a more fair and complete view of the present state of knowledge than the previous method. Regarding transparency and trustworthiness, the authors clearly articulate and explain the processes used in the research. The analysis provided is thorough and systematic. It includes a well-presented description of the methodology and the data analysis structure including the main themes and a presentation of the main arguments that the participants offer.
The ethical difficulties connected with the study are not recognized by Wohlfart, Trumler, and Wagner (2021), and they have not made any attempts to minimize these issues. Despite the fact that the study involved human participants, the publication fails to describe how the authors completed the whole procedure while keeping ethical issues in mind. There is a complete absence of discussion of ethical issues.
One of the most significant limitations of the study is that it has a small sample size and is conducted in a remote area, as the researchers simply acknowledge in their inclusion and exclusion criteria for resources. The authors acknowledge that their study and suggestions are insufficient to have an impact on policy orientations and that further research should be carried out. While this does not invalidate the conclusions of the study, it does open the door to more research and a broader scope.
Conclusion
While conducting research, critical evaluation is the act of carefully and purposefully analyzing data in order to determine their trustworthiness, utility, and relevance in a specific context. When designing a practice based on current research results, it is critical to do a thorough analysis of the studies in question. It is the word “critical review” or “critique” that is used in scientific research to refer to the process of evaluating the quality of a study to assess its validity and significance. As shown in this critical evaluation, when publications are exposed to thorough appraisal, they allow for a greater focus on relevant issues relating to the research topic and can reliably support or refute its statements with high-quality evidence.
References
Mundy, M. A., & Kupczynski, L. (2013). A qualitative study of technology integration into culture and sustainability in schools. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/967610
Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. Sustainability, 12(2), 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020524
Wohlfart, O., Trumler, T., & Wagner, I. (2021). The unique effects of Covid-19–A qualitative study of the factors that influence teachers’ acceptance and usage of digital tools. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7359-7379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10574-4
