Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The research article published by Lewis et Al (Fogelgarn & Lewis, 2015)seeks to establish
why some school students decide to behave responsibly of their own volition, as opposed to
external sanctions. They posit that obedience imposed by authority, or a desire for social
approval, is different to obedience based on a student’s moral reasoning derived from their
moral development. They name this as ‘pro-social behaviour’. The research approach is
qualitative with the results being obtained by interviewing 125 students from 10 primary
schools. This critique will principally discuss the ‘Methods, Results and the Conclusions’,
along with analysing how well the research question was answered, and whether it meets
Prior to analysing the methods used it is important to clearly understand the research
question. The introduction sets the question in the context of the Melbourne Declaration on
("www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Go
intentions to act responsibly. It should be noted that the authors referenced their previous
quantitative research (Lewis, Montuoro, & McCann, 2013), however they did not refer to
the fact that they had foreshadowed the current research, nor that there were potential
limitations in their previous results that might invalidate those results (p289), due to their
relying on the Theory of Applied Planned Behaviour; which whilst it supported the
proposition that externally imposed measures influenced prosocial behaviour, it might not
apply for unconscious prosocial decision making. They state (the research question) that
their current research “sought to explore what other factors might be associated with
convenience sample, and unsystematic, as stated in the ‘Limitations’ section, and was
achieved by random selection of classes and students. Kervin et al (Kervin, 2016) points out
that whilst convenience samples are the most common approach, they are particularly
prone to bias (p92). No evidence was presented that gender, ethnicity (with all its cultural
norms), and age distribution had been considered in the selection, although some, but not
all of these deficiencies were acknowledged in the section dealing with the ‘Limitations’. The
factors following a much bigger (300 schools) professional development activity (PD). No
details of the PD activity, the types of school, ethnic make-up, and their catchment’s Social
Economic Status (SES) status were given. Such omissions give rise to the possibility of bias in
the sample. Whilst it was reported that schools, parents and students gave permission for
relation to the ethics oversight. The interviews were generally short (10minutes), which
raises issues regarding the reliability and validity of the answers given by the students and is
contrary to McMillan (McMillan, 2004) who states that “it cannot be done in 20 minutes”
cultures respect for adults would lead a student to give the response he thought the adult
wanted/expected. Although it was stated that they were challenged until they held their
position, this could have been discomforting for the students. This issue could have been
addressed by increased cultural awareness or increasing the sample size, and/or reporting
for separate ethnicities. It is not stated what training the interviewers were given or
and(Ullman, Gall, Gall, Borg, & University of Western, 2015) (p160). Kervin et Al (p94)
recommends the use of 3 types of questions, global, visualisation and promoting questions.
The actual questions used didn’t follow these recommendations, which raises questions
The results of the interviews were de-identified and thematically coded and yielded 8
distinct motives, 4 of which were deemed to be derived from personal interest and the
remaining 4 motives were judged to be derived from social awareness. The results of several
interviews were included to provide examples of the distinct motives, along with some
explanatory commentary for each motive. This lends credence and support to the allocation
of that interview to the quoted motive. No mention was made of an independent audit of
the thematic grouping as suggested by Kervin et Al (p106) thus leaving open the possibly of
bias in the coding. Bryman (Bryman, 2004) (p 401-404) might identify this as ‘grounded
research’ which didn’t proceed with further data gathering and iterations.
The Conclusion section of the article amounted to little more than a short summary of the
research and the proposed further research. The more meaningful material was developed
in the Discussion and Implications sections. There was extensive discussion and, in effect,
(p169) and Kervin et Al all suggest that triangulation with other theories can also be
undertaken to establish whether the research is consistent with those theories. However
qualitative research. In this case there was no evidence of triangulation with other data
sources. Lewis et Al (p289) also explore the possible impacts on teacher’s pedagogy, and
claims that if prosocial learning was promulgated more, then the need for external
constraints such as punishment, and the like, would diminish with time in order to maintain
appropriate behaviour. No evidence was presented to support the claim that the prosocial
behaviours identified were due to specific teacher pedagogical initiatives. The researchers
claim that the data demonstrates children progress with age towards higher levels of social
awareness which motivates their compliance. However, the reported results were not
grouped according to age, and as such this assertion, while almost certainly true, had no
evidence to support it. The researchers appear to accept the reliability of their data because
the students maintained the final position they arrived at during the interview. There could
be multiple reasons as to why the students arrived at a point where they were unwilling to
change their position. Lewis et Al (p289) imply, quite plausibly, that “student well-being is
In summary, this critique has identified significant deficiencies in the research, which give
rise to doubts about the sampling procedure and resultant bias, design and conduct of the
interviews, reliability and validity of the results, absence of triangulation, along with claims
that are not supported by the published results. Despite these deficiencies the researchers
did answer the research question they posed, but not to the quality and rigour that might
Bryman, A. a. (2004). Social research methods (4th edition. ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford ; New
York : Oxford University Press.
Fogelgarn, R. K., & Lewis, R. (2015). ‘Are you being your best?’ Why students behave responsibly.
Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 278-292. doi:10.1177/0004944115602974
Kervin, L. a. (2016). Research for educators (2nd edition. ed.): South Melbourne, Victoria Cengage
Learning, 2016.
Lewis, R., Montuoro, P., & McCann, P. (2013). Self-predicted classroom behaviour without external
controls: Imagining a ‘Lord of the Flies’ scenario. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 270-
291. doi:10.1177/0004944113496175
McMillan, J. H. (2004). Educational research : fundamentals for the consumer (6th ed. ed.). Boston:
Boston : Pearson.
Shank, G. D. a. (2014). Understanding education research : a guide to critical reading: Boulder, CO
Paradigm Publishers, 2014.
Ullman, J. c., Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & University of Western, S. (2015). Applying
educational research : how to read, do, and use research to solve problems of practice
(Custom edition. ed.): Sydney, N.S.W. : Pearson, 2015.
National Declaration on the Educational Goals for Young Australians, Retrieved March 31st frrom,
www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals
_for_Young_Australians.pdf.