For chapter 5 I chose an article on gamification and student motivation by Patrick Buckley and Elaine Doyle (2014). Although at first thought many would think that examining intrinsic and extrinsic motivation would be qualitative research, this is actually a quantitative study.

As I went through the exercises of finding the characteristics of quantitative vs qualitative , I looked for key words as I read. There were times when it was super easy to identify the characteristics when things like hypotheses were stated and the t-sample group etc.  When looking at experimental vs non-experimental, I had to look deeper into the sample that was selected and whether or not there were more than one group that would get different treatments. This group study was non-experimental.

As I continued to examine the article and the different questions I found that I had to read some parts of the study multiple times to really understand what happened in the study, especially when it came to the types of instruments that were used. My lack of knowledge in the instruments probably plays into that difficulty. The sample was for students that were already participating in a particular game, but there were pre and post surveys that then were correlated. If both weren't completed then the data wasn't used. 

Overall, I found the article was a well done quantitative research study that allowed me to see the major parts of a quantitative study vs a qualitative study. The researcher used quality instruments and then reflected on their work by examining their process and even concluding that another study in a qualitative format would provide beneficial information about the topic.

Buckley, P. & Doyle, E. (2016) Gamification and student motivation, Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162-1175, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2014.964263 

Activities from Chapters 3 & 4

Chapter 3

1. Become familiar with the databases in your field
   1. Ebsco, Proquest, ERIC, etc
2. Search a simple phrase that describes your areas of interest. How many citations for the literature did the search produce?
   1. Student engagement - 10,586 in Ebsco
3. Retrieve two or three records from your search and locate the lists of descriptors.

Improving Student Engagement with Technology Tools.
Student engagement; Internet in education; Student participation

You Can Lead Students to Water, but You Can't Make Them Think: An Assessment of Student Engagement and Learning through Student-Centered Teaching.Student-centered learning; Student engagement; Learning; Team learning approach in education; Flipped classrooms; Teaching methods; Criminology students

Compare the list and note the areas of commonality as well as differences.

1. Write down the exact wording of three descriptors that relate to your intended topic. Choose descriptors that reflect your personal interest in the topic.

Student participation, Student-centered learning, student motivation

1. Compared to the simple phrase you used when you started, do you think these descriptors are more specific or more general? Why

In think two of them is about the same, student participation and student motivation. I think student-centered learning is more specific.
Now use the descriptors you just located to modify the search.

1. First modify the search to select more records

Student engagement OR student centered learning=14,197

1. Then modify the search to select fewer records

Student engagement AND student centered learning=187
Student engagement AND student participation AND student motivation = 87

1. 1. If you used the connector AND, did it result in more or fewer sources? Why do you think this happened? AND limits the search because it requires both descriptors to be met
   2. If you used the connector OR, did it result in more or fewer sources? Why do you think this happened? OR widens the search because it can find both or each individually.
2. If necessary, narrow the search further until you have between 50 - 150 sources, and print out the search results.
   1. Carefully scan the printed list to identify several possible subcategories.

Possible subcategories
Student engagement
Student participation
Student motivation
Students’ attitudes
At-Risk students
Student-centered learning

1. Compare the new categories to your original topic.

I had not thought of student centered learning until it was a descriptor for some of my original searches. The other categories to me are just synonyms to the overall subject.

1. Redefine your topic more narrowly, and identify the articles that pertain to your new topic. Prepare a list of the references for these articles.

Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change, 43(1), pp. 38-43. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.533096

Bradford, J.,Mowder, D., and Bohte, J. (2016). You can lead students to water but you can’t make them think: An assessment of student engagement and learning through student-centered teaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(4) pp. 33-43. doi:10.14434/josotl.v16i4.20106.

Dykstra Steinbrenner, J. R., and Watson, L. R. (2015). Student engagement in the classroom: The impact of classroom, teacher and student factors. Journal for Autism Development Disorders. 45 pp 2392-2410. Doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2406-9

Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review. 31(3) pp. 328-349.

Nicholson, L. J. and Putwain, D. W. (2015). Facilitating re-engagement in learning: A disengaged student perspective. Psychology of Education Review 39(2) pp. 37-41.

O’Connor, K. J. (2013). Class participation: Promoting in-class student engagement. Education 133(3) pp. 340-344.

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: the concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, pp. 579–595.

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, pp. 700–712.

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychology, 50, pp. 1–13.

Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities.

Chapter 4

Refer to the printed list of sources you developed in Activity 5 at the end of Chapter 3.

1. Obtain copies of two articles from this list, and look over each of the articles.
   
   1. Did the authors include a summary of the contents of the literature review at or near the beginning? If so, highlight or mark this summary for future reference.
      

Yes, in both articles the literature was just after the introduction to the article.

1. Did the authors use subheadings?
   

Yes, one used the actual subheading of Literature Review and then the topics within the review, the other used the topics within the review.

1. Scan the paragraph(s) immediately preceding the heading “Method.” Did the authors describe their hypotheses, research questions, or research purposes?
   

Yes, their hypotheses were stated in both articles.

1. Without rereading any of the text of the article, write a brief statement describing what each article is about.
   

The article entitled “I’m not learning” was about low achieving high school students and how the authors showed if the students felt the material was relevant to their lives, they were intrinsically motivated to be engaged in their learning.
In the second article “You can lead students to water but you can’t make them think” is about college level students that were in a criminal justice class. The researcher reviewed different pedagogical methods to see which lead the the best student engagement.

1. Based on your overview of all the articles on your list, make predictions of some of the likely categories and subcategories for your review. Reread the printed list of sources and try to group them by these categories and subcategories. Then, using these categories and subcategories, create an outline for describing your topic.
   

Categories: student motivation; student engagement; relevancy, intrinsic motivation, pedagogical techniques, academic achievement, student centered learning.

• Student Engagement
• Student Motivation
• Intrinsic motivation
• Student Centered learning
• Pedagogical techniques
• Academic Achievement
• Relevancy

1. Carefully review your outline and select the articles you will read first. Within each category, start with the most recent studies. You now have your initial reading list.

Read the first sample literature review (Review A) near the end of this book and respond to the following questions. Note that you will want to read this review again after you have learned more about the process of writing a literature review. The questions below ask only for your first, general impressions. Later, you will be able to critique the review in more detail.

• Have the reviewers clearly identified the topic of the review? Have they indicated its delimitations? (For instance, is it limited to a certain type of individual or certain period of time? Does it deal only with certain aspects of the problem?)

Yes, the topic of review was cyberbulling. Their particular area of study is for cyberbullying among college students in the United States, but they reviewed all types of bullying and all age ranges of adolescents, not just college students, 

• Have the reviewers written a cohesive essay that guides you through the literature from subtopic to subtopic? Explain.

The reviewers did a nice job of starting the review with the emotional hook of suicides resulting from bullying, then discussing the differences from traditional bullying to cyberbulling.  From there they began to review the statics of how widespread cyberbullying is. This section looked at cyberbullying among adolescents of all ages and all studies available, not just those in the United States. 

• Have the reviewers interpreted and critiqued the literature, or have they merely summarized it?

  In the article, the reviewers looked at several different studies and gave the statistics that were found in each study, but then critiqued them showing their weaknesses like the lack of the target sample "more research utilizing a college-age sample is necessary to better understand the prevalence rate among this population" (Schenk, A. M., & Remouw, W. J., 2012, p. 126). 

• Overall, do you think the reviewers make an important contribution to knowledge through their synthesis of the literature? Explain.

Yes, overall this is a good review of the literature on cyberbullying, with a focus on college age students. The gap in the literature is shown as numerous studies from a variety of countries and age ranges were reviewed, but showed there were few studies specifically focusing on college students in the United States. I did have a little trouble following exactly the college focus for a while that was in the title of the article, but I believe there point was to show the lack of research in that area. The other confusing aspect to me were the sections about the Impact of Cyberbully victimization and the methods for coping with cyberbullying. I was having trouble following the prevalence then the other sections seemed a little out of place. 

Galvan, J. L. (2013). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.