Following up on last week’s discussion on abstracts, below is my mini (and I do mean mini) paper on comparing two abstracts. This week’s assignment was to compare similarities between the two and to discuss how they differed. Enjoy.
Felicia Laster-Curro; M.A. Ed.
“Only the educated are free.” – Epictetus
Week 3 Assignment: Comparing Elements of Research Articles
Both Alhammad and Ku (2016) and Mizrachi (2015) abstracts were well written. Both researchers explained the nature of their studies and what the study would cover. There were some deviations on the information presented in the studies. Mizrachi’s (2015) abstract suggested students were offered a choice between e-books and printed texts, while Alhammad and Ku’s (2016) abstract appeared to favor using electronic books and not printed books. Judging on abstracts alone, I would favor and recommend the Mizrachi’s (2015) abstract to explain the benefits of printed texts over electronic ones. The Alhammad and Ku’s (2016) study appeared to suggest that more graduate students prefer e-books and Mizrachi’s (2015) subjects felt that printed books work best for their needs.
Both studies focused on university students study methods and the types of books preferred. One researcher went about the study using a qualitative method and less than ten students, while the other favorite a quantitative approach with an excess of 400 students submitting responses. The methodology used for the Alhammad and Ku’s study (2016) the theories for “…social constructivism, information processing, and self-efficacy theories…” (Alhammad & Ku, 2016, p. 6). Mizrachi’s study focused on using a quantitative method with more students to better understand student book reading preferences.
The results of Alhammad and Ku’s study (2016) suggested e-books were the best way for graduate students to share books and information. Mizrachi (2015) study suggested that undergraduate students prefer to use printed text for their academic studies. Both studies focused on university students and e-books but Alhammad and Ku’s study (2016) only provided e-books as the media and Mizrachi (2015) study allowed the students to have a choice. For Alhammad and Ku’s study (2016), study, if more students were participating and printed texts were allowed, the results could be different. Perhaps the researchers would consider this in a future follow up study.
Alhammad, R., & Ku, H. Y. (2016). Graduate students’ experiences and attitudes toward using e-books for college-level courses. Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 5(2), 1-16. Retrieved from https://digscholarship.unco.edu/
Mizrachi, D. (2015). Undergraduates’ academic reading format preferences and behaviors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 301-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.009