Thompson, C. And Sheckley, B.

¶ … Thompson, C. And Sheckley, B. (1997). Differences in classroom teaching preferences between traditional and adult BSN students. Journal of Nursing Education, 36(4), 163-170.

When a critique is presented on behalf of any research endeavor the reviewer must always assume a position of fairness and objectivity. To this end the research reported upon is evaluated and assessed from the standpoint of interest, interpretive accuracy, and the contribution being made to a scientific body of content knowledge. The professional article authored by Thompson and Sheckley will, therefore be evaluated on the merits of its research purpose, stated problem, scientific framework, and supportive literature.

Whenever a research investigator uses such descriptive labels as differences, effects, and/or relationships to describe a study the reader is immediately made aware that the investigation is empirical and scientific in purpose. As such the investigator is obligated, in keeping with proper research protocol, to not only state a purpose of study but present also a well defined research question and testable null hypothesis. Although the purpose of the study has been clearly defined by the authors they failed to immediately follow through with a stated research question and null hypothesis. The actual research question was not identified until reading the very last paragraph of the literature review. The authors could have avoided this research infraction simply by attaching to the research purpose statement a research question and null hypothesis similar to the following: Will there exists differences in classroom teaching preferences between traditional and adult BSN students? There will exist no statistically significant differences at the ?

Notwithstanding the academic importance of the subject being investigated the authors should have also identified early on in the presentation the nine variables being measured. Adhering to this research objective provides the reader with advanced information as to what to expect and look for when reading the results section. Again the authors failed to accomplish this objective. In addition, the review of literature was presented before well before the statement of purpose and research question. A literature review, in keeping with proper research investigative protocol is to support the need of a study, not result in a study. In addition the literature that was reviewed by the authors lacked significantly in timeliness. In fact all articles reported upon were nearly 10 years old - not a very commanding support system for the present study by Thompson and Sheckley.

The discussion on the merits of the article being reviewed with respect to purpose, theoretical framework, and support structure cannot be concluded without a comment on the author's investigative topic itself. Optimal patient healthcare is the primary goal of every healthcare practitioner and medical facility. Providing the medical consumer with premier service is not only costly but also deeply embedded in the training and education healthcare practitioners receive in order to sustain optimal healthcare delivery. To this end educating nurses is a high priority in any educational setting. Thompson and Skeckley not only stress the importance of education for nurses but also hone in on that which constitutes the most favorable milieu for teaching, namely that nurses learn best and retain more from those nursing instructors who integrate past experiences into the classroom or clinic environment. In tern the nursing student had a greater appreciation for a patient's quality of life over quantity of life. For this reviewer the situation becomes on of "shared governance" in the educational environment - a situation that needs to be strengthened is all aspect of healthcare wellness.

Critique #2. As states in the first sentence of Critique #1, when a research investigator uses the words difference, effect, and/or relationship the reading audience is being put on notice that the intended research investigation is experimental and scientific in design. As such the independent (treatment), dependent (measurement), or a combination thereof, variables are being assessed and evaluated in line with a proposed research question and stated null hypothesis. The authors' of the article being reviewed did not alert the reader as to the specific research design of the study and by not doing so the reader is left in the dark as to what exactly is to me measured, how it is to be measured, and the expected results. Further, without an appropriate presentation with respect to design the sampling procedure used by the authors is suspect as well. During a discussion of the sample method the authors simply informed the reader that they contacted various hospitals and administered questionnaires to 295 potential participants. Knowing that this represents a population and sample at the same time is acceptable for research purposes; however, there was no indication as to stratification within the group in terms of gender, age, level, clinical specialty, and years of service. All these compounding variables should have been accounted for in the research design as they can possibly add to the "differences" in learning that the researchers intended to uncover.