The perceived barriers toward reading empirical articles among graduate students: A mixed methods investigation

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Aug 29, 2012
Keywords:
reading empirical research, barriers, reading ability, graduate students, higher education

Main Article Content

Hesborn O. Wao
University of South Florida
Oma Singh
University of South Florida
Valerie Rich
University of South Florida
Tina N. Hohlfeld
University of South Florida
Matthew Buckmaster
University of South Florida
Denise Passmore
University of South Florida
Christen Tonry
University of South Florida
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Sam Houston State University
Qun G. Jiao
Baruch College, City University of New York

Abstract

This mixed methods study identified doctoral students’ perceptions of barriers that prevent them from reading empirical articles. A secondary purpose was to examine the relationship between the students’ perceived barriers and their levels of reading vocabulary and comprehension. Participants were 148 doctoral students in education at a large metropolitan research extensive university. The students were enrolled in sections of a one-semester research design course offered over a 2-year period. A thematic analysis (qualitative phase) revealed the following six barriers that students perceived as preventing them from reading empirical articles: lack of time (76.4%), psychological physical factors (14.8%), lack of relevancy (10.8%), lack of statistical background (7.4%), language style (4.7%), and accessibility (2%). Lack of time was statistically significantly related to levels of reading ability (quantitative phase). Moreover, students with high levels of reading vocabulary were 3.4 times more likely than were their counterparts to perceive time as a barrier. Also, students with high levels of reading comprehension were 2.8 times more likely than were their counterparts to perceive time as a barrier. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Wao, H. O., Singh, O., Rich, V., Hohlfeld, T. N., Buckmaster, M., Passmore, D., Tonry, C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2012). The perceived barriers toward reading empirical articles among graduate students: A mixed methods investigation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(3), 70–86. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/2143
Issue
Volume 9, Number 3
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

References

Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 189-193.

Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14.

Alexander, P. A., and Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In P. D., Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285 – 311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., and Hanna, G. S. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Copyright 1993; Forms G and H. Riverside Publishing. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://www.riverpub.com/products/group/ndrt/home.html

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., and Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction (4th ed., pp. 264-268). Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2005). Category Definitions. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/CIHE2000/defNotes/Definitions.htm

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, K. M. T., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002, April). Relationship between reading ability and achievement in a graduate-level research methodology course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Collins, K. M. T., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002-2003). Reading ability and the performance of African-American graduate students in research methodology courses. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 31, 39-52.

Collins, K. M. T., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004, April). Reading ability as a predictor of technical writing proficiency among African-American graduate students. Invited paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Jiao, Q. G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation and Research in Education, 19, 83-101.

Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 267-294.

Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.

Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., and Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1-11.

Francis, M. A., and Simpson, M. L. (2003). Using theory, our intuitions, and a research study to enhance students' vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 66-78.

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., and Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.

Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Gaesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jiao, Q. G., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Reading ability as a predictor of library anxiety. Library Review, 52, 159-169.

Johnson, R. B., and Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, R. B., and Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A ConstructionIntegration Model. Psychological Review, 93, 163-182.

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCombs, B. L., and Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51-69.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Modeling statistics achievement among graduate students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 1020-1038.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Collins, K. M. T. (2002). Reading comprehension among graduate students. Psychological Reports, 90, 879-882.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12, 281-316.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Johnson, R. B. (2004). Mixed method and mixed model research. In R. B. Johnson and L. B. Christensen, Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (pp. 408-431). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9, 770-792.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Mayes, E., Arthur, L., Johnson, J., Robinson, V., Ashe, A., Elbedour, S., and Collins, K. M. T. (2004). Reading comprehension among African American graduate students. Journal of Negro Education, 73, 443-457.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., and Schwartz, R. A. (2001). The role of study skills in graduatelevel educational research courses. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 238-246.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Otero, J. C., and Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-235.

Paris, S. G., and Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101.

Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30, 207-212.

Ravid, R., and Leon, M. R. (1995, April). Students’ perceptions of the research component in Master’s level teacher education programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

SAS Institute Inc. (2002). SAS/STAT User's Guide (Version 9) [Computer software]. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walpole, M., Burton, N. W., and Kanyi, K. (2002). Selecting successful graduate students: Indepth interviews with gre® users. GRE Board Report No. 99-11R, Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://ftp.ets.org/pub/gre/RR_02_08_Walpole.pdf

Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187.

Winne, P. H. (1996). A meta-cognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327-353.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17.