Category: Uncategorized

A student writes a literature review where each paragraph summarizes one article separately without connecting findings across studies. What is the biggest problem with this approach?

A graduate student uses an AI research tool to generate summaries of 38 journal articles for their literature review. The tool provides one-paragraph summaries stating “key findings” and “study implications.” The student incorporates these summaries into their literature review without consulting original articles. During thesis defense, a committee member questions a claim that “research shows first-generation students benefit most from peer mentoring compared to faculty mentoring.” The student cites an article via the AI summary. Checking the original article, the committee member finds: The article actually compared peer mentoring to no mentoring, not to faculty mentoring The article’s conclusion was specifically about a particular population (STEM majors at selective institutions) but the AI summary generalized broadly The article examined mentoring satisfaction, not actual student outcomes The original title was “Perceived Benefits of Peer Mentoring in STEM”—the AI summary had dropped the word “perceived” The student responds: “The AI tool is reliable for summarizing research. Reading all articles would be inefficient. This is a reasonable use of technology in research.” The fundamental problem with the student’s approach is:

A researcher is interested in studying mentoring programs for first-generation college students. In the literature review, the researcher summarizes 15 articles describing mentoring program outcomes, including retention rates, GPA improvements, and program satisfaction. However, all of the studies focus on measurable outcomes and program effectiveness. None examine how first-generation students personally experience mentoring or how mentoring influences their sense of belonging. The researcher decides to conduct interviews with students to explore their mentoring experiences. What is the strongest justification for this qualitative study?

A researcher proposes studying belonging among first-generation students with this belief statement: “Belonging is both a measurable psychological variable and a deeply constructed personal meaning that varies by individual interpretation. Students’ sense of belonging emerges from objective institutional structures (program access, faculty diversity, peer demographics) and from subjective meaning-making processes (how they interpret belonging, what experiences signify acceptance). Comprehensive understanding requires measuring belonging patterns across students and exploring how individuals construct meaning from their experiences.” Proposed methodological design: Administer belonging survey to 380 students; analyze and measure relationships with retention, GPA, help-seeking behavior Conduct 24 interviews with students selected to represent high/low survey scores and different demographic groups Use qualitative findings to explain why quantitative relationships exist, identify contexts where belonging operates differently, and explore alternative explanations Synthesize both data sources into integrated conceptual understanding This research design and the researcher’s orientation to knowledge is best characterized as:

A postpositivist researcher “fails to reject” rather than proves hypotheses because:

A researcher collects survey data measuring student satisfaction and conducts interviews with students during the same time period. The researcher then compares and integrates both sets of results to develop a more complete understanding. Which mixed methods design is this?

A researcher analyzes interview transcripts from 20 first-generation students. The researcher’s initial codes include: “navigating multiple identities,” “experiencing discrimination,” “managing financial stress,” “uncertain belonging,” “seeking support,” “family expectations,” “demonstrating resilience.” After two coding rounds, these organize into three themes: Identity Negotiation: Students actively reconciling multiple identities (first-gen, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, academic) in tension with institutional cultures Institutional Barriers and Agency: Students encountering systemic obstacles while exercising strategic agency and adaptation Relational Anchors: Specific individuals providing emotional, informational, or practical support The researcher reflects: “As a first-generation student myself, I notice I coded ‘resilience’ frequently. I wonder if I’m over-interpreting students’ adaptive responses as strength rather than considering them as necessary survival strategies in an unsupportive system. My own positive narrative about overcoming disadvantage may be shaping how I interpret student experiences.” This researcher is primarily demonstrating:

A researcher creates a survey to measure academic motivation, but the items focus only on attendance and homework completion and do not assess students’ interest, goals, or effort. Which type of validity is most threatened?

A researcher believes reality exists independently but can only be imperfectly measured. This reflects:

Show each customer’s ID and credit limit. SELECT