Among the most important findings produced in the results of the research, Langer conjectures that "the results of this research suggest that non-traditional adult students can find it difficult to understand what is meant by reflection and how it applies to their practical goals of changing careers. These students do not have a natural or traditional association with the journal process itself, as has been suggested, more or less, in much of the literature on learning journals." (p. 349-350) Strengths & Weaknesses:

Perhaps the greatest strength of the research conducted by Langer is its selected subject matter. The learning journal is indeed a compelling notion, particularly insofar as it appears to provide a practical contrast to the use of grading as the only tool for student assessment. In this regard, the research is to be commended for seeking to add to the discussion another set of findings justifying the use of alternative evaluation instruments and methodologies in certain educational settings.

Also of value in the research is Langer's decision to examine traditional and non-traditional students in a comparative fashion. This offers an opportunity to draw some conclusions about the different responses generated by the learning journal amongst students of different academic experiences.

Beyond this, however, Langer's research is disrupted by a number of flaws which call into question the scientific value of his findings. Key among them, it bears noting that the research lacks a true experimental framework for several reasons. First and foremost is the absence of randomization in the selected population samples. These students have been selected from specific classrooms without experimental protection against such factors as course...

By failing to randomize its sample populations, the research here produces a set of findings which my be instructive for a broad discussion on the subject but which do not lend any empirical insight into distilled population differences.
Additionally, Langer's research is based on a decidedly small sample of 10 non-traditional and 10 traditional students. To the credit of the study, it does establish some measure of reliability by conducted the trial three separate times. However, the sample population remains critically small in the research process, with Langer justifying this scale by extrapolating a sum of 300 journal entries to be assessed. But this does not mitigate the need for a broader and more experimentally sound research approach.

Reflection:

My response to the article is one of skepticism. Though the learning journal instrument does seem a useful way of supplementing the traditional evaluation of learning outcomes, the research conducted here falls short in a number of ways at proving the literature findings. Key among them, the findings reveal, may be a failure of proper journal usage instruction and, even more critical, the attempt to insert this approach into a discipline where its usage may not be appropriate. Thus, I am inclined to believe that the area of research breached here by Langer is extremely valuable and warrants greater research investigation but that his particular approach and findings leave us with little empirical basis to proceed in said research.

Works Cited:

Langer, a.M. (2002). Reflecting on practice: Using learning journals in higher and continuing education. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 337-351.