Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

Stephen Lerch
ETEC 500 65a
UBC
Dr. Sunah Cho
March 16th, 2014

Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

Part 1: Descriptive Analysis and Critique

Brief description of the (Hamre & Pianta, 2005) study
Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First-Grade Classroom Make a
Difference for Children at Risk of School Failure? by Hamre and Pianta (2005) is a
quantitative study that investigates the effects of supportive classroom environments on
children identified as at-risk. Their hypothesis is that at-risk children, who typically
perform low on achievement scores and a Student-Teacher Relationship Scale, will
perform better if placed in classrooms that provide strong instructional and emotional
support. They found that at-risk children typically perform worse than low-risk children
in all situations, but they perform significantly better in highly supportive classrooms
than less supportive ones. The researchers concluded that both instructional and
emotional supports offered by first-grade teachers are important in helping at-risk
children succeed.
Participant selection
The researchers used proportional stratified sampling to ensure economic,
educational and ethnic diversity for a group of 1,364 children. This group was condensed
to 910 children by excluding participants who did not have complete data. The sample
was approximately twice as large as is considered adequate (Gay, Mills, & Airasian.
2012) but it reduced the chances of attrition, increased generalizability, reduced sampling
bias, and allowed the researchers to apply random sampling, improving the internal and
external validity of the study.
After choosing their sample, Hamre and Pianta (2005) grouped the participants
into high and low risk groups based on maternal education and functional indicators

Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

assessed in kindergarten. The functional indicators included measures of childrens

attention, externalizing behavior, social skills, and academic competence. (Hamre &
Pianta, 2005, p. 954) They used these measurements to group the children in order to
legitimately identify a significant difference in the groups.
Data collection
Data collection took place on participants from birth to the end of grade one. Trained
observers rated the quality of emotional and instructional support in the classrooms as
either high, medium or low support. They assessed student achievement with the
Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational battery and student-teacher relationships by
having teachers complete a Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Methods were well
validated through the use of these established tests, and measuring techniques which gave
the study high repeatability (Hamre & Pianta, 2005).
Data Analysis
The researchers ensured that children with various levels of risk were evenly
distributed between the classrooms and that at-risk children actually performed worse
than their low-risk peers regardless of classroom. This established natural experiment
conditions and a control group so that they could claim a significant effect of the
independent variable (different levels of classroom support) on the dependent variable
(success of at-risk children). Finally, the researchers used an Analysis Of Covariance
(ANCOVA), a powerful tool that measures the statistical difference between multiple
variables (Gay, et al., 2012), to calculate their results. By using the best available and
most appropriate analysis tools, Hamre & Pianta (2005) have created a study that stands
up well to scrutiny.

Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

Brief description of the (Sleeter, 2009) study

Developing Teacher Epistemological Sophistication About Multicultural
Curriculum: A Case Study (Sleeter, 2009) is a qualitative study that investigates the
progression of a novice teachers learning to see how thinking about curriculum develops.
The author hypothesizes that a novice teachers thinking should develop, and increase in
complexity as he/she gains more experience. Sleeter (2009) concludes that the subjects
thinking did develop from a novice category to a developing category, as defined by the
author.
Participant selection
Sleeter (2009) picked one participant who met the required criteria of being
reflective, thoughtful and a good communicator (Gay, et al., 2012). Although qualitative
studies do not technically need more than one participant, the study would have had more
validity if there were. She could have picked participants that taught a varied range of
grades, and who were varied in age, giving Sleeter (2009) something to compare her case
against.
Data collection and analysis
Sleeter (2009) collected papers, a unit, a journal, notes on two observations, and
conducted one 40-minute interview of the participant. Her main analysis tool was a rubric
the author developed, in order to utilize data from previous studies. Sleeter (2009) might
have developed this rubric because she considered herself to be very experienced in the
topic and could not find anything relevant in the Tests in Print (TIP) database. The rubric
had high content validity, but low construct validity because it had never been used in
other studies and was not well established. The rubric was supposed to measure

Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

complexity of thinking, but such an abstract idea is hard to measure with a one-page long
assessment tool.
Comparison of the two studies
Hamre & Pianta (2005) did an excellent job of defining their research problem.
They clearly indicated a relevant, researchable problem. The conclusions from their study
are useful to a wide range of audiences from administrators to teachers. However, Sleeter
(2009) did not do as well in defining her research problem. Although she seemed to have
knowledge on the topic, her hypothesis was unclear and the information gained
insufficient to be generalizable and in fact may only be of use for teaching a specific
course in multicultural curriculum design.
Hamre & Pianta (2005) conducted an extensive, comprehensive literature review
sourcing 101 other studies relevant to their problem. Sleeters (2009) was not nearly as
comprehensive, providing a background to the theory and belief system but not citing
studies that investigated her specific topic. She only used 24 sources and wrote one and a
half pages of a review.
The selection and assignment of participants, data collection and analysis,
procedures and instruments for Hamre & Pianta (2005)s study was impressive. The
variables were well defined, the sample size was large with random sampling, every test
seemed relevant, comprehensive and appropriate, and the results were clear. Sleeter
(2009)s sample size was the smallest possible, she did not set any pre-conditions, and
there was only one measurable variable.
When reporting their conclusions, Hamre and Pianta (2005) discussed the
implications of their results and found them to be consistent with previous research. They

Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

also mentioned possible limitations of their study and made recommendations for future
research. Sleeter (2009) also discussed the implications of her study, but did not compare
them to the results of other studies or recommend how further research should be
conducted.
Part 2: Methodologies for My Future Research
There are certain advantages and disadvantages for each type of study. Qualitative
studies would be much less expensive, in terms of time and money when investigating
narrow topics or a phenomenon within a school or post-secondary department. This said,
researchers have to be careful when conducting a qualitative study because they cant
claim that their results apply to the general population. Sleeter s (2009) study shows how
a researcher needs to use caution because there might not be a test that measures a
variable, and creating an assessment tool lowers the validity of a study. Sleeter (2009)
should have also conducted a more extensive literature review to justify her study.
Hamre and Piantas (2005) study show that with planning, time and funding, a
researcher can create a study that has high validity, repeatability and generalizability. If a
researcher wants to conduct a quantitative study, they need to secure a lot of resources
and probably acquire partners to share the workload. With a higher commitment, come
better results; Hamre and Piantas (2005) study demonstrates that a quantitative study can
investigate issues from a broader perspective and with greater generalizability.
As a new educational researcher, I would say that a quantitative study appeals to
me much more than a qualitative study. I have read examples of both types of studies and
I believe the results of a quantitative study more. This is because quantitative studies are
more objective; they take a variable and manipulate it to produce a clear result.

Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

Qualitative studies often make claims that they cannot support; in general, the results are
the opinion of the researcher and are open to bias. Sleeter (2009) had no outside influence
to keep her opinions in check, no similar studies to compare to, and no tests that had been
used by other researchers to see if her results were accurate. If I got into a debate and
needed to use data to support my argument, I would feel more comfortable using
information from a quantitative study.

Running Head: ETEC 500 Article Critique 2

References
Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2012). Educational research: competencies for
analysis and application (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R.C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the firstgrade classroom make a difference for children at rick of school failure? Child
Development, 76, 949-967. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Sleeter, C. (2009). Developing epistemological sophistication about multicultural
curriculum: a case study. Action in Teacher Education, 31, 3-13. doi:
10.1080/01626620.2009.10463506