Name: Madeleine Clark Student Number: 18063631

Word Count: 1027

Critique: ‘Are you being your best?’ Why Students behave responsibly’ (2015) by

Fogelgarn and Lewis

In their case study, ‘Are you being your best?’ Why Students behave responsibly’

(2015), Fogelgarn and Lewis consider what encourages students to act according

to their school rules within the classroom environment. Fogelgarn and Lewis

outline the idea that students are “acting responsibly” (p. 279) due to rewards

and/or discipline programs as opposed to “becoming responsible” (p. 279). The

researchers explain that this project was involved with another research

endeavour whereby 300 schools participated. Ten of those schools have now

participated in this research investigating why kids behave responsibly. This

paper therefore considers the methodologies used, the results of the research

and subsequently the conclusions drawn. This approach will examine how well

Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015) answered their hypothesis by consulting a range of

research from other sources.

Methods

The methodology used in this article was strictly qualitative, through the use of

interview. McMillan (2012) states that in a good study, ‘the researcher should

use multiple methods of data collection’ (p. 307). The single research method

arguably limits the ways in which results could be measured and discussed as

affirmed by McMillan. Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015) used a ‘semi-structured

interview’ (Shank, Brown & Pringle, 2014, p. 21) to approach 125 random

students from random classrooms in what appears to be a non-invasive mode.

Furthermore, the researchers highlighted that there was an unequal distribution

of children from each grade interviewed as students in grade five accounted for

30% of the interviews (Fogelgarn & Lewis, 2015, p. 281). No reason was

supplied to justify this statistic. In conjunction, the researchers provided

statistics for the remainder of the year groups and this did not make an even

100% (p. 281), resulting in a reader considering the reliability of the evidence.

Through the interview methodology, the opportunity to “prioritize depth”

(Anyan, 2013, p. 1) should arise. In recognition of this fact, the 125 participants

were each asked six questions that were intended to ‘elicit deeper thinking’ (p.

281). However, the bearing of the interview questions ultimately presented

opportunity for the researchers to receive the answer they desired and

prevented a child’s self-directed answer.

Results

The results provided adequate data to support the research hypothesis yet the

use of one method means the discussion of the results is enormously limited.

Fogelgarn and Lewis have categorised the 125 interview responses into like

responses, sorted by eight relative criteria. Danby et al., (2011) argues that

‘open-ended questions increased the likelihood of narrative accounts’ (p. 75)

from children. In evaluating the results, some responses have an injected ‘….’ to

indicate that the child went onto provide detail distracted from the question in

focus. When reading the results, some almost appeared detached from the

question given the age of the child. One would argue that the results have been

edited in the paper to satisfy the hypothesis.

According to Qu and Dumay (2011) interviews ‘can be characterised by an

asymmetry of power in which the researcher is in charge of questioning

a…sometimes naïve interviewee’ (p. 239). The results section of this paper
definitely demonstrates this power, given the limited amount of the responses

that Fogelgarn and Lewis present. With a single perspective from the research,

the power recedes to the researchers because they have the ability to manipulate

and construe the data according to their hypothetical needs.

Report Conclusion

The conclusion is very succinct and does address the hypothesis. It would appear

however, much of the conclusion has been incorporated into the “Discussion”

section of the paper. The researchers make mention of theorists, Piaget and

Kohlberg (in Fogelgarn & Lewis, 2015, p. 290). Evidently, they rely heavily on

Kohlberg to support their research. Through the discussion, the grounds for this

link seem far-fetched considering the lack of research actually completed and the

lengths at which the researchers attempt to connect their study with Kohlberg’s

‘stages of moral development’ (p. 290). The inclusion seems disjunctive and

interrupts the focus of the study. Burnard (2004) offers that it is ‘tempting for

the researcher to speculate about the meaning’ (p. 177) of their findings. In the

conclusion of the paper, Burnard’s opinion arguably deems true because the

presentation of the findings in both the ‘methods’ and ‘results’ section represents

a speculation of the variables that force kids to be responsible, because the

research did not provide this information explicitly. It is important to note that

there is a short address of the limitations in the research right before the

conclusion. However, now that the paper has been read without these limitations

considered, the reader’s opinion may already be skewed to believe exactly what

the researchers have already stated. Arguably this is a real injustice to the
strength of the paper as it reduces the worth of the research and questions the

credibility of Fogelgarn and Lewis.

At this point in the paper, the integrity of the researchers and the presented

findings appears to be completely lost. Furthermore, they fail to present all sides

fairly. Data gained through interview can be affected by “social, cultural and

linguistic variables” (Kervin et al., 2016, p. 77). Fogelgarn and Lewis have not

addressed any of these variables, alternatively they created their own. If there

had been a fair selection, at some level there would have been responses that

challenged the opinions of Fogelgarn and Lewis. This side has not been

presented at all, thus suggesting to the reader that there is no investigative

challenge.

Conclusion

Fogelgarn and Lewis (2015) have answered their research question to a degree.

Yet as previously mentioned, they directed their line of questioning through the

methodology of interview to form the responses they sought. There did not seem

to be an opportunity for organic response from these interviewees from

Foundation to Year 6. The use of a single method approach to fulfilling the

research program means it is severely weakened. A dependence on interviews

not only limited the findings and the discussion but also prevented the article

from being treated as credible. Moreover, there are arguably a lot of factors left

unaddressed. There has been no mention of the schools characteristics that

could inform these opinions. Examples may include the proximity of the schools

to each other, the area in which the schools are located, the socio-economic
status of the school or the nature of the schools, public, private, religious

affiliation. This was a major downfall of the research report. Therefore,

Fogelgarn and Lewis have answered their research question to their own

satisfaction, reinforcing the opinion that the credibility of the report is

questionable.
 References

Anyan, F. (2013). The Influence of Power Shifts in Data Collection and Analysis
Stages: A Focus on Qualitative Research Interview. The Qualitative Report,
18 (36), 1-9. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1505321395?accountid=36155&rfr_id
=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Burnard, P. (2004). Writing a qualitative research report. Nurse Education Today,

24 (3), 174-179. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.11.005

Danby, S., Ewing, L., & Thorpe, K. (2011). The Novice Researcher: Interviewing
Young Children. Qualitative Inquiry, 17 (1), 74-84. DOI:
10.1177/1077800410389754

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., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J., & Okely, T. (2016). Research for
Educators (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning
Australia Pty Limited.

McMillan, J. (2012). Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumer, 6th Edition (pp.
306-313). Boston, MA: Pearson. Chapter 10

Qu, S.Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative
Research in Accounting & Management, 8 (3), 238-264. DOI:
10.1108/11766091111162070

Shank, G., Brown, L & Pringle, J. (2014). Understanding Education Research: A

Guide to Critical Reading. Boulder, United States of America: Paradigm
Publishers.