Select one applied research, action research, mixed methods, or program evaluation peer- reviewed research study published in an article related to your topic of interest. All articles must be of educ

MIXED-METHODS CRITIQUE 0

NOTE: This example is not perfect. It is provided to give you an idea of what the content may look like. It is set up with the required components and in APA format; however, the actual content will vary considerably based on the study reviewed. The mixed methods critique may run a page longer as it has double the information to cover.

Research Critique: Mixed-Methods

Liberty Student

School of Education, Liberty University

Author Note

Liberty Student

I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Liberty Student

Email: [email protected]

Research Critique: Mixed Methods

Bell et al. (2022), authors of "Digital Divide Issues Affecting Undergraduates at a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) during the Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Approach," studied digital inequities that were affecting underrepresented undergraduate college students. The technology available even for college students was not sufficient, especially for underrepresented groups. This critique provides a summary and critical analysis of the study.

Summary

Purpose

The purpose of the study conducted by Bell et al. (2022) was to evaluate technical difficulties connected to the pandemic and digital inequality with a vast number of first-generation and economically disadvantaged students. This study also sought to find out if its findings were the same as those reported through national and research-intensive (R1) research (Bell et al., 2022). Bell et al. (2022) also wanted to gain an understanding of how technology access issues for both coursework and remote learning came into play during the pandemic. Covid-19 caused unexpected changes to education throughout the United States, and these changes included transitioning from face-to-face to remote online learning, which in turn exposed the digital inequalities that existed (Howard, 2023).

Participants/Sample

There were 3,003 participants in the quantitative portion of the study, of which 2,543 were undergraduate students and 460 were graduates (Bell et al., 2022). There were 1,538 females and 648 males. From the responses, 26 undergraduate students were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. First-generation college students accounted for 34%, and Pell-eligible students accounted for 56% of the overall sample. The highest representation, 45%, came from the students who identified as Hispanic/Latino/Latina (Bell et al., 2022). Twenty-six students from the college were chosen by convenience sampling and engaged in semi-structured interviews all through the fall semester to supplement the quantitative responses (Bell et al., 2022).

Research Design

The quantitative portion was descriptive in nature, using a subsection of a campus-wide student survey conducted in December 2020 (Bell et al., 2022). The qualitative approach sought to enhance the quantitative results by enticing elaboration on answers. As such, the research design used an explanatory sequential mixed-method approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2022).

Method of Data Collection

According to Bell et al. (2022), the data was collected via an online survey and semi-structured interviews. A close-ended online survey was sent to all enrolled students earlier in the school year outside of the research. There were three sections to this survey (1) contentment with campus reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and problems concerning housing and financial aid, (2) problems with technological devices as well as working from home, and (3) student educational achievements and academic preparedness for the impending spring semester (Bell et al., 2022). The interview questions were similar to the survey questions, but participants were prompted to elaborate on their answers. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Method of Analysis

For the quantitative data, descriptive statistics and frequencies were computed. Chi-squared tests were also calculated to identify potential disparities in pivotal study parameters that may have occurred between predictors (Bell et al., 2022). Qualitative data were coded for themes. Individual quotes from the interviews were used to support the quantitative findings as well.

Results

Bell et al. (2022) also explored the manner in which particular demographic elements impacted the underserved and understudied populations' technology challenges. Their analysis included race, ethnicity, gender, age, the status of students' enrollment and whether they were first-generation students, eligibility for Pell Grants, which represented low-income students, and low-income and first-generation students' risk for academic success. The results for access to technology were that most students had access to technology to complete assignments (Bell et al., 2022). Over half (58%) of the students had challenges related to lectures, whether conducted on Zoom or live; almost half had issues talking with teachers and classmates (42%), and around a third had issues watching videos (29%) or completing assignments (27%). Around 20% had difficulty using the college's learning management system (LMS), and 14% had trouble with the mandatory reading assignments (Bell et al., 2022). Results for challenges working at home consisted of 72% having an issue with random noise, 52% did not have enough workspace, 31% facing challenges with childcare or family responsibilities, and 18% reported not having any challenges working from home (Bell et al., 2022).

Qualitative findings indicated that there were issues with the technology devices that students had, particularly those related to insufficient hardware or software needed to complete a course. Additionally, these issues were further exacerbated by the fact that there were limited opportunities to get support from university resources due to the shutdowns. Also, many students had issues with internet speed and quality. This affected access to course lectures and assignments. Many had old devices that could not keep up. Even when technology was not the specific issue, things at home like noise, distractions (things and people), and other household responsibilities hindered students' ability to concentrate and produce quality work. One thing captured in the qualitative data that was not in the quantitative data was that students found it difficult to separate home and school when it was all happening in the same space (Bell et al., 2022).

Critical Analysis

Further Research

Further research is needed to dive deeper into the causes of the digital inequities identified in this study. Additionally, it is important to include more graduate and doctoral students, as many of these programs are completely online. More research should also be conducted to determine how the "optimal" combination of digital resources provides better outcomes and why certain populations do not have this combination. Finally, although 21st-century tools and training are readily included in training while in school, it might be beneficial to train the students how to stay up-to-date on changes in technology so that when needed, they know how to update.

Threats to Validity/Undocumented Bias

The threat is that during the qualitative and quantitative methods, the participants were different. They should be the same participants to minimize the threat. The limitations found in the Bell et al. (2022) study were that the researchers were not able to conclude how technology access, coursework-specific technology, and attending school at home changed over a specific period. Because neither technology nor education is static, longitudinal studies are needed.

Original Insight/Criticism

It was enlightening to see how the findings compared nationwide and particularly with R1 universities. Those with means and resources will always fair better, but if students are trained to always be looking out for how they can overcome obstacles, they will fair better. Having a positive mindset is not a cure, but it can help clear a student's mind and reduce stress (Mayo Clinic, n.d.) so that they can figure out a workaround when it comes to technology.

Implications of Findings

The findings revealed that access to the internet and quality has been unequal for quite some time (Bell et al., 2022). Because of their lower socioeconomic status and ethnic background, students of color disparately faced more difficulties. They also had to rely on laptops that did not function well, which was associated with lower grade point averages (Bell et al., 2022). These findings could help universities be proactive and improve technological access and internet quality for students who are economically disadvantaged and assist teachers with developing innovative ways to aid their students in an online environment (Howard, 2023).

Discussion

Digital inequities continue to pique my interest because of their prevalence throughout our educational world. For me as an educator, experiencing the digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic closedowns was challenging, especially with the student population I taught. We should not have the disparities that exist today, especially with the resources that are available. I believe all students should have equal educational opportunities, whether online or in person. Having to grow up without access to educational resources was not easy. Because I will be studying the impact of digital inequities, this confirms that the divide continues beyond K-12. As we work to close the digital divide gap, we must remember the less fortunate and continue to help them. Galatians 2:10 says, "They asked only that we would remember the poor, which I made every effort to do" (Holman Christian Standard Bible, 2015). We must make every effort to do as Paul did, make every effort to remember and help those who are less fortunate.

References

Bell, T., Aubele, J. W., & Perruso, C. (2022). Digital divide issues affecting undergraduates at a Hispanic-serving institution during the pandemic: A mixed-methods approach. Education Sciences, 12(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020115

Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE.

Holman Christian Standard Bible. (2015). Holman Bible Publishers. (Original work published 1999).

Howard, J. R. (2023). Empathic approaches for supporting Black students during remote learning. Urban Education, 00420859231153416. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859231153416

Mayo Clinic. (n.d.). Positive thinking: Stop negative self-talk to reduce stress. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950