In this paper, I will be measuring A Survey of Correlation between Computer Games and Adolescent Behavioral Problems by Solmaz Shokouhi-Moqhaddam MSc, Norshiravan Khezri-Moghadam PhD, Zeinab Javanmard MSc, Hassan Sarmadi-Ansar MSc, Mehran Aminaee, Majid Shokouhi-Moqhaddam and Mahmoud Zivari-Rahman. In the research, the research workers attempted to happen a relationship between the clip spent on playing computing machine games and the adolescent’s behavior job. Overall, the survey was nicely executed but there were many irrelevant information and misunderstandings of the consequences they collected.
Summary of the Study
Methology and Design: To find whether computing machine games have an consequence on the behavior of adolescences, the research workers sampled a sum of “ 384 randomly chosen male counsel school students” in Kerman, Iran for this survey. A researcher-made questionnaire for computing machine games and Achebach’s Youth Self-Report ( YSR ) were used to mensurate the type and clip spent on utilizing computing machine games and the student’s behavior. The YSR consists of a sum of 105 inquiries mensurating the student’s behavioral jobs that were to be answered in 15 proceedingss ; the YSR had a dependability coefficient of 0. 82. The researcher-made computing machine game questionnaire consists of a sum of “ 8 inquiries measuring the type and rate of utilizing computing machine games.”
“ The trial topics were asked to reply the researcher’s questionnaire about computing machine games and Achenbach’s Youth Self-Report” and the questionnaires were collected one time they were answered.
Consequences and Decision: After analysing the questionnaires, the research workers suggested that there was a positive correlativity between the sum of clip spent on computing machine games and the adolescent’s behavioral jobs such as “ withdrawn/depression, bodily ailments, depression/anxiety, societal jobs, believing jobs, attending jobs rule interrupting jobs, and aggressive behaviors.”
The research workers besides pointed out that they besides found out that “ students populating in rich parts of metropolis spent more clip playing games” and “ there was a important difference between the sum of computing machine game use and the employment of their mothers.”
Finally, the research workers concluded that “ computer games lead to anxiety, depression, backdown, rule-breaking behaviour, aggression, and societal jobs in adolescents.”
There were many jobs in this research paper. For illustration, the research workers misinterpreted the consequences, included unneeded information in its “ results” subdivision, failed to advert or see some critical constituents in planing a survey, and worded some things in a manner that may hold equivocal readings
In the paper, the research workers claimed that they randomly sampled a sum of 383 pupils ; nevertheless, they failed to advert any background informations of the pupils that were sampled such as their age, gender or race, as the subject’s behavior job and clip spent on playing computing machine games may be dependent on his or her age, gender or race. The research workers besides failed to observe the dependability coefficient of the researcher-made questionnaire for computing machine games nor did they show the 8 inquiries in the questionnaire anyplace in the paper to do certain that it wouldn’t produce any response prejudice. ( For illustration, the research workers may inquire “ Do you think youwastethe bulk of your free clip on playing computing machine games? ” ) . The research workers besides generalized the tem “ games, ” runing it from rational and mind games to action and violent games ; they attempted to propose that all games in general ( even rational games ) have a negative consequence on the behavior of the striplings. The research workers besides claimed that 31 of the surveyed pupils did non response to the type of game they play, which may ensue in a non-response prejudice.
The paper besides presented an inaccurate tabular arraies and misinterpreted consequences. Table 1 ( shown below ) displayed the hours each pupils spent on playing computing machine games per twenty-four hours. If the tabular array was non analyzed carefully, the reader may be deceived by the informations presented. In the in-between subdivision, frequence, it claimed that there was a sum of 384 pupils being surveyed ; nevertheless, if you were to all up all the Numberss in the column, you will happen that it doesn’t add up to 384 but 292. The per centum column contains some mistakes as good. For illustration, each figure in the per centum column is frequency/384, which we know is wrong because 384 is non the entire figure of pupils. Other than that, in the row “ half an hr to 1 hour” you can see that the per centum is 84 % , which suggested that there is decidedly something incorrect with this tabular array. If the research workers were to utilize this information to make statistical analysis and illations, so there would decidedly be some mistakes in their consequences.
Assuming that the research workers used the right informations in calculating the bivariate additive arrested development line, there were still misdirecting informations presented in this paper. For illustration, the research workers suggested that “ Given the important degree ( P & A ; lt ; 0. 050 ) , the rate of utilizing computing machine games had a important correlativity with withdrawn/depression, depression/anxiety, societal jobs, rule-breaking jobs, and aggressive behaviors.” Readers who do non cognize much about bivariate additive arrested development may presume that computing machine games will ensue in bad behavior jobs because the research workers merely reported the P value but non the R value. In table 3 ( shown below ) on the paper, some of the behavioral jobs had a laughably low correlativity ( r value ) with the clip spent on playing computing machine games and all of the behavior jobs had a weak positive correlativity ( R & A ; lt ; 0. 50 ) with behavioral jobs. The researched besides assumed that correlativities meant causing as they said in the decision ( in abstract ) that “ computer gameleadsto anxiousness, depression, backdown, rule-breaking behaviour, aggression, and societal jobs in adolescents.”
Apart from non giving adequate information about the sample and deceptive graphs and tabular arraies, the paper besides included irrelevant information that may confound the reader. For illustration, in the “ results” subdivision, the research workers suggested that the use of computing machine depends on the residential country of the pupils or the business of their female parent. In the debut, it was clearly stated that the intent of this survey was to find whether or non if there is any correlativity between the clip spent on computing machine games and the behavior jobs on striplings ; nevertheless, the research workers decided to include such irrelevant information in their paper which may confound the reader on what precisely this survey is approximately.
Finally, they worded some of the things that may be interpreted in many different ways. For illustration, in table 2 ( shown supra ) , table 3 ( demo below ) and table 5 ( shown below ) , the research workers used the words “ rate of utilizing computing machine games” and “ amount of utilizing computing machine games.” The research workers did non clearly specify what a “ rate of utilizing computing machine games” nor “ amount of utilizing computing machine games” meant, as they may be interpreted in clip spent in playing computing machine games in hours, proceedingss, seconds, yearss or hebdomads. There besides isn’t any account for table 5 explicating what do the “ number, ” “ mean, ” and “ SD” meant. Is it the average clip the clip spent of playing games per twenty-four hours? Per hebdomad? Or per month? And what does “ number” intend in this context?
All in all, though the survey was good planned, there were many jobs with how the research workers presented and worded their findings, either deliberately or accidentally. The research worker besides merely looked at the P value but non the R value of the bivariate additive arrested development to misdirect the readers into believing that there is a strong correlativity between clip spent on computing machine games and behavioral jobs. Finally, the research workers suggested that correlativity meant causing.
Research article from:
Solmaz Shokouhi-Moqhaddam, Noshiravan Khezri-Moghadamm, Zeinab Javanmard, Hassan Sarmadi-Ansar, Mehran Aminaee, Majid Shokouhi-Moqhaddam, Mahmoud Zivari Rahman “ A Study of the Correlation between Computer Games and Adolescent Behavioral Problems” Oct. 31 st 2012 Web. May 19 Thursday 2014 mentions & A ; lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905568/pdf/AHJ-05-043. pdf & A ; gt ;
All images and quotation marks were from the research article
Please scroll down for the 2nd review paper
Critique Paper # 2
In this paper, I will be measuring Effectss of Learning-Style Based Homework Prescriptions on Achievement and Attitudes of Middle School Students by Jennifer Lauria Minotti. In the research, the research worker compared the traditional instruction and analyzing schemes to learning-style based prep prescriptions on in-between school pupils. Overall, this was a good conducted experiment but contained several defects and included deceptive informations.
Summary of the Experiment
Methology and Design: To compare the effectivity of traditional instruction and analyzing schemes to learning-style based prep prescriptions, the research worker sampled a sum of “ 181 pupils in classs 6-8” from “ an urban, parochial simple school in New York City.” The “ Learning Manner: The Clue to You ( LS: CY ) , ” “ The Semantic Differential Scale ( SDS ) , ” and achievement trials were used to “ measure the student’s attitude towards prep and acquisition and linguistic communication humanistic disciplines, math, scientific discipline, and societal studies’ trial scores” before and after the experiment.
The sample was first indiscriminately divided into two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The research worker made certain that there was a similar sum of male and female in each group to avoid prejudice. The research worker foremost “ measured the students’ attitudes toward larning manners, ” “ attitudes toward analyzing and finishing prep assignments, ” and the students’ academic tonss on “ language humanistic disciplines, math, scientific discipline and societal studies.” Throughout the following two hebdomads, the experimental group was taught “ via an animated, computerized, skid show followed by a group discussion” while the control group “ received a brochure for tips and analyzing and finishing prep assignments.”
During the two hebdomads, “ all pupils were required to describe what they did otherwise based on the suggestions outlined in either the Homework Tips brochure for the control group or the learning- based prep prescriptions for the experimental group.” Each participant was besides “ given a survey log and a particular pen to utilize for entering this information each dark after analyzing and finishing the prep assignments.” “ The participants’ parents were asked to subscribe off on their child’s entry each dark and to supply exposure, if possible, of their kids analyzing and making prep assignments.”
After two hebdomads, the participants so recapture the trial to mensurate the students’ and “ attitudes toward analyzing and finishing prep assignments.” Results were collected, analyzed and compared.
Consequences and Decision: After analysing the consequences collected, the research worker compared the consequences of the pupils in the experimental group to that of the control group. The research worker suggested that both the experimental group and control group’s “ attitudes toward analyzing and finishing prep assignments, ” and the students’ academic tonss on “ language humanistic disciplines, math, scientific discipline and societal studies” increased after the two hebdomad intervention, but experimental group increased at a “ significantly higher rate.”
There were many jobs in this research paper. For illustration, the research worker displayed deceptive graphs and failed to advert or see some critical constituents in planing and experiment.
In the paper, the research worker ne’er claim whether or non his survey is unsighted experiment or non. In the experiment, the pupil knew that they were given a certain intervention, as it was said that “ All 181 pupils in classs 6-8 were selected to take part in this probe ; 167 consented.” If a pupil is able to reject to take part in the experiment, so the pupils who were being treated must be informed that they were take parting in this experiment. Based on what intervention they were given, the participants could rapidly place if they were in a control group or experimental group, and if a pupil in the control group dislikes the traditional prep and survey schemes, he or she may purposefully make ill on the trials so that it would convey the mean of the control group down. Besides, non-response prejudice was besides introduced into this survey. What if all the pupils who did non take part in this experiment were all smart pupils who uses the traditional method of larning? If they were to be included into this experiment, the tonss of the control group may be higher that it was. Besides, since the pupils knew that they were in an experiment, they may analyze more in the two hebdomad period than they used so they will hit good on the academic trial and no embarrass themselves with their low tonss.
Finally, there were some deceptive graphs introduced in this research paper. Figure 3, figure 4, figure 5 and figure 6 ( all shown below ) , compared the academic trial tonss of the experimental group and control groups utilizing a graph to give the readers a ocular representation of the consequence of learning-style based prep prescription and traditional prep and survey schemes. The research worker tried to demo that there is a “ significant pre- and posttest difference in reading, mathematics, scientific discipline and societal surveies achievement-tests.” If one were to analyze the graph without looking at the Y axis, one may believe that the control group had more than 10 % addition in their tonss and the experimental group had more than 70 % addition in their tonss ( figure 3 ) ; nevertheless, in world, the control group merely improved their tonss by about 0. 007 % and the experimental group improved their tonss by 9. 312 % ( reading accomplishment ( figure 3 ) ) .
All in all, though the experiment was good designed, there were many jobs with how the research worker presented their findings, either deliberately or accidentally. The research worker besides failed to observe any possible prejudice from this experiment such as the non-response prejudice or the fact that pupils may move different ( work harder ) when they know that they’re being experimented on.
Research article from:
Jennifer Lauria Minotti “ Effects of Learning-Style Based Homework Prescriptions on the Achievement and Attitudes of Middle School Students” Mar. 1 st 2005 Web. May 19 Thursday 2014
mention & A ; lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905568/pdf/AHJ-05-043. pdf & A ; gt ;
All images and quotation marks were from the research article