Summary
The authors of both articles conducted a descriptive research study by adopting a longitudinal data collection method among the participants for 10-12 months. However, the instruments of data collection differed. The review of the Iranian study (Papi & Abdollahzadeh, 2012) shows that the authors collected data using the observation technique in data collection, while in the Korean study (Tae-Young, 2009), the author adopted structured-interviews as the data collection method. Comparatively, both research designs are quasi-experimental research studies. Additionally, the problem statement in both studies focused on the absence of adequate and accurate information on factors influencing the learning of a foreign language.
In establishing the background knowledge on the need for the study, the authors used secondary sources in data collection from previous research work. Comparatively, the researchers adopted the organization of this information by topic while chronologically profiling the achievements of earlier researchers in establishing the justification of the research and design utilized and in advancing the knowledge of critical variables affecting second language learning.
Further, in determining the research framework and avoiding a possible misunderstanding, both authors evidently elaborated the change and defined the meaning of specific terms that could affect the interpretation of data and the primary variables of interest in the study, which helped enhance the accuracy of the results.
In the Iranian study, the author employed a snowball sampling process in selecting 26 participant schools from different education districts in the country, while in the Korean study, the researcher utilized a purposive sampling process in selecting four participants who included less than a month old visa-holding immigrant students. In the Iranian study, data collection instruments involved standardized tools that included classroom observation schemes, teacher evaluations, and questionnaires.
However, the author of the Korean study employed a structured-interview questionnaire while adopting a related question approach with audio-recordings availed to participants for correction, which enhanced data validity and reliability. Comparatively, in the Iranian study, the researcher employed a piloting observation scheme, while in the Korean study, the researcher employed semi-structured questionnaire piloting.
The Iranian study scored data using a classroom observation scheme, analyzed the data using SPSS, and tabulated the results. In contrast, the Korean study employed thematic paragraph unit data coding and then analyzed using NVivo and presented the results in figures. The findings of the Iranian study indicated the existence of the association between teacher motivation practices and student-motivated learning behavior. In the Korean study, the results indicated that ideal-self and ought-to-self are essential concepts that significantly contribute to success in second language learning and motivation. The authors concluded that teacher motivation and motives internalization substantially influence the learning of a foreign language.
Introduction
The authors of both studies managed to state the purpose of the studies. The introduction section of a research paper helps in establishing the conceptual foundation that facilitates the understanding of research work. Besides, the authors provided clear sub-problems of the study by indicating the confounding variables and terms previously used. Significantly, the researchers provided an adequate justification for further research in the learning of a foreign language.
The scope of the problem in both studies was sufficiently localized for efficient and accurate measurement of variables. Additionally, the research hypotheses for both studies facilitated a testable relationship between variables that agreed with the facts from previous studies and existing theories. As such, the author of the Iranian research indicated both hypotheses and research objectives, while the author of the Korean study listed the objectives of the survey with unclear hypotheses.
With regard to school participants, the author provided elaborate statements regarding assumed factors that affected senior grade students. On the contrary, the researcher on student immigrants failed to offer statements of assumption. However, in both studies, the authors did define relevant terms that significantly influenced the research.
Literature Review
In the student immigrant participant research, the author provided a literature review section and cited several past studies in support of the existing information and the need to further the study. The literature review is essential in enhancing thoughtful critique, provision well-articulated goals and relevant information for the research work. Therefore, the authors have critically discussed previous research information to help further the understanding of the need for more studies.
However, the author of the school participant research failed to provide a literature review section but adequately cited previous research work in the introduction section, supporting the need for further research. This background knowledge sufficiently provided a review of previous studies that utilized the same research procedures, data analysis, and the same variables.
Moreover, the authors of both research work used secondary sources with less current information. In line with this, the review summary identified the problems, strengths, and weaknesses of these studies. In addition, the researchers organized their background information under different topics with relevant theories and data, providing an adequate understanding of the facts. In general, the authors included a literature review that essentially and sufficiently provided tangible data and facts for furthering research on the learning of a foreign language.
Research Procedures
In this section, the authors of both articles have provided a full description of the population, sample, and sample size under study. In the Korean study, the population was composed of less than one-month Visa-holding Canadian immigrants and students. The sample size in this study was relatively small and contained four individuals. In the Iranian study, the sample was composed of student and teacher populations from across the country, with a sample size of 741 participants.
Also, the authors explained the reasons and processes involved in the selection of these participants. In the case of student immigrant participants, the author appropriately specified the factors used in limiting the selection of the participants, whereas in the sampling of school participants, the author just identified the method of participant inclusion but not exclusion.
Of essence in the two studies is that the findings in the Korean study cannot be generalized to both the population from which samples were taken and any other population due to the small sample size. However, in the Iranian study, the proportion of the sample size and the location of sampling participants from the population is adequate to represent the entire population. Boddy (2016) argues that proper population sampling and appropriate participant sample size enhance the applicability of the result findings to the entire population.
Therefore, a proper sampling process is essential in ensuring that an appropriate sample, which cuts across the whole population, is selected. Furthermore, the sampling procedures in the student immigrants led to possible bias because of the purposive sampling technique that limited data collection to telecommunications, while sampling procedures for school participants appropriately avoided any bias.
Consequently, the authors provided sufficient explanation of the methods and instruments used in data collection in both studies. Nevertheless, even though both provided valid data, the reliability of these results varied consistently with the instruments used. The research design is described in detail for both studies. However, the design used in student immigrant participants is not appropriate for the study done as it relies on participant-reported information.
The tools used in data collection significantly influence the credibility of data in qualitative research (Mohamad, Sulaiman, Sern, & Salleh, 2015). Nonetheless, in the study with school participants, the research design used is appropriate and provides relevant data to test hypotheses. Overall, in both studies, the authors offered sufficient explanation of the groups involved, instruments used, and practical research design to further the investigations.
Presentation, Analysis, and Discussion of Data
In this section, the authors of both articles cited literature of past research works and theories to justify and outline methods of data analysis. In the two studies, the statistical tests were appropriate and satisfied the assumptions of their use. Data analyses show that the authors used appropriate data presentation forms in discussing the results. Choosing a suitable tool for data presentation makes it easier to understand and communicate information on complex data through comparison and relative display (In & Lee, 2017).
Thus, the use of tables and graphs in a presentation makes data much easier to understand while promoting accurate communication. In the student immigrant participant study, the author used figures to discuss and clarify the results precisely. On the other hand, in the school participant study, the author used tables in explaining his findings. However, both authors correctly interpreted the results. Also, the authors provided a well-related association of the results with the hypotheses and objectives without omission of any detail.
However, the relevance of generalization of the information in both studies varies due to inaccuracies in data analysis. In the student immigrant analysis, the author relied on a non-standardized coding process instead of utilizing standard data coding tools leading to inaccuracies. Connelly, Gayle, and Lambert (2016) argue that the use of established standards of measurement significantly promotes generalization and relevance of sharing research information.
In presenting results, the authors of both articles interpreted and discussed the findings in detail, hence providing meaningful information of the stated results that are consistent with the data. However, the authors failed to discuss the independent factors that may have influenced the results and did not focus their discussion on weaknesses of the data collected. Hence, both articles related the new research findings to existing research literature.
Summary and Conclusions
In the summary and conclusion sections of the two studies, the authors summed up the main details of the overall information presented in earlier sections without introducing any new information. The authors precisely stated the summary of the overall study underlining problem statements and hypotheses concerning the outcome. The conclusion section of a research paper connects the overall concepts and purpose of the research.
Based on the presented data, the authors’ conclusions on the relationships between the variables are justifiable. The researchers have, however, discussed the weaknesses and limitations of their research and how they believe they have impacted the results. Besides, the authors suggested corrective measures to these limitations and weaknesses that will help in furthering the enhancement of research. Consequently, both articles have identified new problems and questions significant in guiding future investigations. Both authors have, however, failed to highlight any implication that the studies conducted may have in the development of success in the learning of a foreign language.
Overall Format and Style
Overall, in both articles, the authors have maintained approved standards of subheadings, grammar, bibliography, and footnotes. In the appendix section, both articles contain questionnaires. However, the two articles lack test forms and raw data, which are important for sharing and data management. In both studies, the use of captions has been consistent and identical in figures and tables for Korean student immigrant and Iranian public school studies, respectively.
References
Boddy, C. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research: Qualitative Market Research. An International Journal, 19(4), 426-432. Web.
Connelly, R., Gayle, V., & Lambert, P. (2016). A review of educational attainment measures for social survey research. Methodological Innovations, 9(1), 1-11. Web.
In, J., & Lee, S. (2017). Statistical data presentation. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 70(3), 267-276. Web.
Mohamad, M., Sulaiman, N., Sern, L., & Salleh, K. (2015). Measuring the validity and reliability of research instruments. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204(1), 164-171. Web.
Papi, M., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2012). Teacher motivation practice, student motivation, and possible L2 selves: An examination in the Iranian EFL context. Journal of Research in Language Studies, 62(2), 571-594. Web.
Tae-Young, K. (2009). The dynamics of L2 self and L2 learning motivation: A qualitative case study of Korean ESL students. English teaching, 64(3), 133-154.