Among the most important results produced in the results from the research, Langer conjectures that “the outcomes of this exploration suggest that non-traditional adult college students can find hard to understand precisely what is meant simply by reflection and exactly how it relates to their useful goals of changing careers. These types of students might not have a natural or perhaps traditional connection with the diary process by itself, as have been suggested, basically, in most of the literature on learning journals. ” (p. 349-350)
Perhaps the greatest power of the research conducted by Langer is usually its selected subject matter. The learning journal is indeed a convincing notion, especially insofar as it appears to offer a practical contrast to the use of grading since the only device for student assessment. In this regard, the research shall be commended to get seeking to enhance the discussion one more set of studies justifying the usage of alternative analysis instruments and methodologies in a few educational configurations.
Also valuable in the studies Langer’s decision to examine classic and non-traditional students in a comparative style. This provides an opportunity to bring some a conclusion about the different responses produced by the learning journal between students of different academic activities.
Beyond this kind of, however , Langer’s research is interrupted by a range of flaws which in turn call in question the scientific worth of his findings. Key among them, this bears observing that the research lacks a real experimental structure for several causes. First and foremost is definitely the absence of randomization in the selected population samples. These college students have been chosen from certain classrooms devoid of experimental prevention of such factors as program curriculum, trainer or even the environmental qualities of the classroom by itself. By screwing up to randomize its sample populations, the study here produces a set of conclusions which my own be helpful for a wide-ranging discussion on the subject but that do not effectively lend virtually any empirical regarding distilled human population differences.
Additionally , Langer’s research is based on a decidedly tiny sample of 10 non-traditional and 12 traditional college students. To the credit of the research, it does set up some way of measuring reliability simply by conducted the trial three separate instances. However , the sample population remains seriously small inside the research method, with Langer justifying this scale simply by extrapolating a sum of 300 log entries to become assessed. But this does not mitigate the need for a broader plus more experimentally sound research way.
My personal response to this article is among skepticism. Though the learning diary instrument will seem a useful way of supplementing your the traditional analysis of learning outcomes, your research conducted in this article falls brief in a number of techniques at proving the literature findings. Important among them, the findings disclose, may be a failure of right journal consumption instruction and, even more essential, the attempt to insert this approach into a self-control where its usage may not be appropriate. Therefore, I was inclined to think that the area of research breached here simply by Langer is very valuable and warrants greater research research but that his particular approach and findings leave us with small empirical basis to proceed in explained research.
Langer, a. Meters. (2002). Showing on practice: Using learning journals