Article review
Article 1
Blogs in
Language Learning: Maximizing Students' Collaborative Writing
by Zaini
Amir, Kemboja Ismail and Supyan Hussin
Title:
I think the title is okay, at least for me. They had put a clear title and by reading it, I know the direction of the paper. I know that they want to promote the use of blog for learning English.
I think the title is okay, at least for me. They had put a clear title and by reading it, I know the direction of the paper. I know that they want to promote the use of blog for learning English.
Abstract:
The researchers did a good abstract but it can be better. These are few
recommendations which can be improved:
- Include
the methodology part in the abstract. The reader can have more clearer
picture about the research when methodology part is there.
- Problem
of statement can be improved. Problem statement should be improvised to
make the abstract become more informative.
- The
sample should be mentioned. There is a good way to include the
participants in the abstract to help the reader aware who were involved in
that study.
Problem statement and the gap of study:
The researchers did not express the gap clearly.
Yes, they stated much advantages of using blog in learning English but they did
not express in a well manner why should they use blog in teaching English. The
issue was not mentioned. They just highlighted that there are many benefits of
using blog to improve English language.
Literature Review:
In literature review, the researchers did a great
job. They covered all the information why we need to use blog in teaching
English. They have come with strong evidences from previous researches such as
blog provide learning opportunities for learning English, blog improved
students’ writing skill and they also stated that teacher should learn how to
infuse technology in teaching. At least I can see their framework of this
study. At the end of this section, they highlighted their purpose of study.
Briefly, the variables were shown for the readers in this research.
Methodology:
- In
terms of methodology, I think the researchers did a great job by
separating the sub-chapter. The writers had explained well in terms of
research instrument. Someone who read this chapter obviously knew what
were the instruments being used in this study. Besides, they also stated
why they used those instruments and the objectives of using it. In
addition, the researchers also have stated the sample in an easy way (i
mean it is easy to understand the sample they being worked on). I think
they did not state how many males and females’ students who involved in
this study because it was not in their purpose to find the differences
between gender.
- This
was a mixed method research. They did a quantitative method on the level
of students’ involvement towards ICT application and a qualitative method
to collect data towards collaborative writing through blog. There were
four aspects which they measured; computer literacy, usage of computer,
purpose of using the internet and owing a weblog. The researchers put a
clear result which is the percentage for each aspect through table. So, by
go through the tables, me as the reader, knew how much was the level of their
sample in those aspects. On the other hand, the qualitative part revealed
that there were five themes which has been identified. Here, the
researchers stated to the reader they did content analysis to collect the
data through this question, “how blogging enhance their writing skills?”
Some of the result of qualitative data were listed in this study and it
help the readers to have added information about this study.
Recommendation and conclusion:
However, I can’t find any specific recommendation from this study. They
did state that through this study, blog can enhance and maximize students’
collaborative writing and also promotes self-learning. Perhaps those two points
were their recommendation for teachers to use blog in teaching session. Thus, i
guess the researchers wanted to recommend the usage of technology especially
blog in teaching session and teachers should be use that during the
class. But I think that their recommendation can be put up in a better
way. Perhaps they should voice out more clear and specific recommendation for
the readers to take the benefit from this study.
In overall, this research is good and I think it is worth to read as
additional information to us especially me as students in this education
field.
Article 2
Technology in Language Use, Language Teaching and Language Learning
By Dorothy Chun, Bryan Smith and Richard Kern
This review will be done in two parts. Part 1 will focus on several improvement which can be made by the writers holistically. Meanwhile in Part 2, the reviewer will try to tackle specific recommendation which should be included in this paper.
Part 1
Firstly, this paper need to have sections/headers for each passage. Header such as abstract, introduction, literature review and others need to be highlighted by writers. By doing so, it can help the readers to read with guidance because the sections are there. Besides, as I read this article, I believed that it is vague in terms of the flow of its content. This is because the aim of this paper can only be found clearly in the last section which is conclusion part. Of course they mentioned the aim of this paper in the first place but the aim and the content of this paper can be said as unsynchronized or nor clearly aligned. The content was good but represented by unclear presentation which can confuse the readers and make them ask,"What is this paper tries to tell us"? In addition, I can not found any clear method being used in this study. I think it was a meta-analysis approach but they do not mentioned how did they get the data and how did they analyse the data throughout the study. Thus, it would be better if they can highlight those elements which I mentioned earlier.
Part 2
Title
Regarding the title, as a novice article reviewer, I would like to suggest a better title for this paper. The title was too broad and general. It will be better if the writers be a little specific because it can help the readers to know the direction of the paper. To make it better, the writers perhaps can add the setting and other appropriate elements in the title.
Abstract
In the abstract, the writers did mentioned about the aim of this paper and I think it is the only valuable information there. They did mentioned about the paper consist of 2 parts but it contributed just a little information to the readers. They should mentioned such as the methodology and as well as the gap of the study in the abstract to let the readers know the content of the paper in a smooth way.
Introduction
In this section, I can see a clear problem statement from the writers. They included much evidences about their particular topic from previous studies in this part.
Content
As mentioned by the writers, this paper contain 2 parts. In part 1, they discussed much about the main point of the paper. Or I can call it as the literature review. I believed they did a good job because the literature from previous studies provide a picture about the technology in language use, teaching and learning. Apart from that, on the other part, they discussed their heuristic questions to propose teachers and researchers to take initiatives in improving the teaching and research of language by technology. Here, more literature were being discussed and there were some recommendation proposed by the writers to help teachers and researchers to improve themselves.
I would agree that this paper tried to recommend some ideas for teachers and researchers in terms of technology-language but I can sense a missing piece to relate the ideas. Perhaps they can add the data collection and data analysis to ensure the readers can understand more where are these recommendations came from.
Conclusion
I would give credit to the conclusion part because it revealed the whole idea of this paper. However, it would be perfect if they can add some guidance on furthering the study, so others can continue this study in the future.
With that reviews, I think, actually this paper is a good one but the way to present it need much improvement. Thank you.
Article 2
Technology in Language Use, Language Teaching and Language Learning
By Dorothy Chun, Bryan Smith and Richard Kern
This review will be done in two parts. Part 1 will focus on several improvement which can be made by the writers holistically. Meanwhile in Part 2, the reviewer will try to tackle specific recommendation which should be included in this paper.
Part 1
Firstly, this paper need to have sections/headers for each passage. Header such as abstract, introduction, literature review and others need to be highlighted by writers. By doing so, it can help the readers to read with guidance because the sections are there. Besides, as I read this article, I believed that it is vague in terms of the flow of its content. This is because the aim of this paper can only be found clearly in the last section which is conclusion part. Of course they mentioned the aim of this paper in the first place but the aim and the content of this paper can be said as unsynchronized or nor clearly aligned. The content was good but represented by unclear presentation which can confuse the readers and make them ask,"What is this paper tries to tell us"? In addition, I can not found any clear method being used in this study. I think it was a meta-analysis approach but they do not mentioned how did they get the data and how did they analyse the data throughout the study. Thus, it would be better if they can highlight those elements which I mentioned earlier.
Part 2
Title
Regarding the title, as a novice article reviewer, I would like to suggest a better title for this paper. The title was too broad and general. It will be better if the writers be a little specific because it can help the readers to know the direction of the paper. To make it better, the writers perhaps can add the setting and other appropriate elements in the title.
Abstract
In the abstract, the writers did mentioned about the aim of this paper and I think it is the only valuable information there. They did mentioned about the paper consist of 2 parts but it contributed just a little information to the readers. They should mentioned such as the methodology and as well as the gap of the study in the abstract to let the readers know the content of the paper in a smooth way.
Introduction
In this section, I can see a clear problem statement from the writers. They included much evidences about their particular topic from previous studies in this part.
Content
As mentioned by the writers, this paper contain 2 parts. In part 1, they discussed much about the main point of the paper. Or I can call it as the literature review. I believed they did a good job because the literature from previous studies provide a picture about the technology in language use, teaching and learning. Apart from that, on the other part, they discussed their heuristic questions to propose teachers and researchers to take initiatives in improving the teaching and research of language by technology. Here, more literature were being discussed and there were some recommendation proposed by the writers to help teachers and researchers to improve themselves.
I would agree that this paper tried to recommend some ideas for teachers and researchers in terms of technology-language but I can sense a missing piece to relate the ideas. Perhaps they can add the data collection and data analysis to ensure the readers can understand more where are these recommendations came from.
Conclusion
I would give credit to the conclusion part because it revealed the whole idea of this paper. However, it would be perfect if they can add some guidance on furthering the study, so others can continue this study in the future.
With that reviews, I think, actually this paper is a good one but the way to present it need much improvement. Thank you.
Good job. Marks: 9/10
ReplyDelete