Tags: Research Papers Of Mechanical EngineeringPersuasive Essay About School ProblemsMake Your Own Writing PaperCritical Thinking ChecklistProfessional Writing Services UkIll Treatment Of Girl Child Essay
Here is a really good example of a scholary research critique written by a student in EDRS 6301.
However, due to the nonrandom nature of the sample, the results would not generalizable beyond the 162 participants in the study. In order to reduce threats to internal validity, the participants were asked to respond honestly and confidentiality was stressed so that the coaches might feel more at ease in responding. The researchers mention that the scales were given in a variety of settings.
This could present a threat to the internal validity in that participants might not have been entirely focused on completing the scale, but instead on coordinating practice, completing paperwork, etc.
There were significant differences between the three levels.
When breaking down the six behaviors and examining them individually, an ANOVA was used to analyze the data.
High school coaches scored much higher than college level coaches in democratic behavior.
Junior high coaches were significantly lower in training and instruction than either high school or college coaches.
The scale uses 60 statements, which were preceded by In coaching, I: A Likert scale was then given for each statement: 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; and 5 = always. Scales were administered in a number of environmental settings: classrooms, gymnasiums, practice fields, and offices.
The internal consistency for each section was calculated: 0.84 for training and instruction; 0.66 for democratic; 0.70 for autocratic; 0.52 for social support; 0.78 for positive feedback; and 0.69 for situational consideration.
In previous classes we spent more time talking about statistics than the literature review. The sample was nonrandom, including 162 coaches that were chosen on a volunteer basis.
That's why you'll see some fairly complex explanations in this paper on the data analysis but no information on the literature review. Within the sample, 118 (0.73) of the coaches were male, while 44 (0.27) were female.