Journal Evaluation Form

Journal Evaluation Form

Name:

Institution:

Journal Evaluation Form

1. Type of Study

The journal is a descriptive type of study that entails use of analytical methods based on research in terms of the differing learning styles between male and female college students. It describes the differential intake of knowledge based on the availed learning styles. The statements on the research study are good since minor defects are contained throughout.

2. Title

The title is well related to the content of the article especially in presenting the contents, aim and analysis of the study. It is clearly related to the research and its objectives from the beginning.

3. Problem and Purpose

The hypotheses of the study is not entirely stated as regards the problems of the study, rather, the objectives and purpose entailed in the analysis is defined clearly from the introduction of the journal. The research questions are articulated according to the relevance of each dimension. Important terms are used sparingly together with objectives and research questions. The latter is minimized as the content is strengthened on the objectives.

4. Review of Literature

The review is well organized in a systematic and logical basis except that the coverage does not provide feedback in the part of counter measures that can affect the responses of the students. Literature cited was relevant as it covered the scientific connection of the earning styles, the outcomes and explanations of the attributed results.

5. Methods

The sample population of the students from the Mid-Western University was appropriately described (Keri, 2003). The population was split according to both male and female gender for the study. The use of Canfield’s Learning Style inventory was described as well as the procedure followed. However, the systematic details were not articulated although the timeline was explained of the events.

6. Data Analysis

The results of the research are clearly presented with the relevant statistics. In addition, an appropriate table of the Chi-square distribution is enabled for clarity and understanding of the derived observations and conclusions (Keri, 2003. The narrative is not sufficient for explaining the results especially with the mathematical formulae used and distribution ranges.

7. Conclusions

Based on the evidence presented from the analysis and discussion, the conclusion is availed according to the appropriateness of the study. The conclusion is also supported by the implications attributed to the relevance of the findings as well as cognitive analysis. It is also confined to appropriate population, as it is not easy for a nonprofessional to grasp.

8. Recommendations

The recommendations are drawn from the defined practice; hence, if one has not followed the proceedings logically, they might seem strange and inappropriate. They are clearly and written well although not detailed as compared to the findings. Further research recommendations are provided at the end before availing of references.

9. Form and Style

The journal is clearly written with logical organization. The only difference contained is the non-distinction of the introductory bit from the discussion as the relevant background of the study is contained with the onset of the need for the research. It displays an unbiased attitude regarding the study while it does not editorialize.
10. Internal Validity Threats

The testing and maturation period was relatively shorter than expected. In addition, the diverse statistics were not used. The students had to answer on the survey questions enabled in a particular setting without attributing them to different disciplines. Assignment to groups was through division of the sample population into smaller units to enable validity of the data collected.

11. External Validity Threats

The sample collected contained a bias. There were more females than the male numbers. In addition, the subject of choices was seen to favor one group at a setting as compared to the entire sample population. There was no clear definition of the dependable and independent variables according to the procedure used. Prior treatments effect were not used since it was a straightforward use of sampling and Canfield’s Learning Style (Keri, 2003.

12. Research Design

The research design used was through statistical analysis of a sample population of college students. Using Canfield’s Learning Style and presentation of the findings on a chi-square, the distribution ranges according to the learning circumstances was availed on tables and the different ranges and percentages used for formation of hypotheses and conclusions. The implications in turn shaped the research objectives as the difference between learning styles in male and female college students.

13. Overall evaluation
14. Major Strengths

The major strength of the research procedure was in documentation of actual responses from ideal students in a learning environment. The level of statistical analysis and findings demonstrated a sample of the difference between male and female understanding. The second major strength was in use of scientific literature review on the analysis of different data observed according to the study carried out. It enhanced the credibility of the journal.

1. Major weaknesses

The major difficulty of the journal is analysis of the analysis of the study to a non-professional especially with the mathematical representation of the chi-square, derivation of the percentages and logical explanation. The introductory part gives a brief overview without deliberation of the expected outcome and challenges. Improvements need to be made on the sample acquisition to resonate with a general audience.

14. Any Other Comments

The journal is quite resourceful on different levels of gender learning styles while further research can be carried out to explain the disparities and their effect on overall education performances.

Reference:

Keri, G. (2003). Male and female college students’ learning styles differ: An opportunity for instructional diversification. College Students journal, 36, No. 3 1-10.