Gerald Grove-White, 191730

102096 Assignment 1 (2018) Word Count = 1090

“Are you being your best?” Why Students behave responsibly

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

the quality expectations for qualitative research.

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

Educational Goals for Young Australians

("www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Go

als_for_Young_Australians.pdf,"), and other research in the domain of self-reported

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

prosocial behaviour in the absence of control imposed by others”.

The method adopted to select the students to be interviewed was acknowledged to be a

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

10 schools had self-selected themselves by contacting the researchers to explore these

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

their participation, there is no mention of whether this qualified as informed consent in

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”

(p307) if the necessary depth of knowledge is to be gained. As an example, in certain

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

whether there was a formal interviewer guide, as recommended by Kervin et Al (p78)

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

around the reliability and validity of the results.

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,

triangulation with various of theories, developed by well-known researchers. Ullman et Al

(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

triangulation, with 2 or more credible and relevant sources, is strongly recommended

by(Shank, 2014) (p110) and Ullman et Al (169) in order enhance the validity of the

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

nurtured by a sense of self determination and moral agency”. However, no evidence is

offered in support of this claim.

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

have been expected.

 References

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.