Electronic Teacher: Parental Regulation, Self-Regulation and the Role of Technology - Assignment Example

Article Analysis: “Electronic Tether: Parental Regulation, Self-Regulation and the Role of Technology in College Transitions” Institution Course Date Article Analysis: “Electronic Tether: Parental Regulation, Self-Regulation and the Role of Technology in College Transitions” Introduction Until recently, when students left home to join college upon completing high school, their contact with their parents was reduced significantly. As young adults, they now had to make increasingly more decisions on their own without the involvement of their parents (Hofer, 2008). Then came information and communication technologies – cell phones, email, instant messaging services, and Skype among others. These technologies now make it possible for college students to stay connected to their parents in spite of the distance between them. This paper analyzes the above article by Barbara Hofer with the view of assessing its strengths and weaknesses. The analysis while be conducted as per the headings into which it is organized. Research Problem While it is not stated expressly, one can deduce the research problem. One of the primary goals of the development stages of late adolescence through early adulthood is for the individual to become independent in thought and actions and to develop self-control. All this must happen while the young adult remains connected to their parents. Achievements in information and communication technologies (ICTs) have made it possible for college students to stay in with their parents, the distance notwithstanding. According to Barbara, however, very little is known of the frequency of the communication between young college students and their parents, its content and its impact on the development of the student. Hofer’s statement of the research problem falls short on many grounds. First, Hofer does not explain why they think their research problem is important(May & Meerwald, 2013). In other words, it is not clear how the knowledge obtained from the research will be put to use. Secondly, Hofer does not justify the urgency of their problem that is, why they think the problem calls for immediate research and action. Thirdly, the researcher has failed to explain how their research will help address the problem they have identified. Fourth, Hofer does not explain what aspects of the problem they intend to examine and the expected outcomes of such examination. Literature Review Literature review serves two purposes in scientific research. First, it sets the stage for the research by giving background information on the research subject and topic. Secondly, it the foundation on which the research is based(Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2011). By this is meant that the literature review informs the research problem, research questions, research objectives and the methodology employed in the research. In a bid to give their research a theoretical framework, Hofer delves into the works of scholars who have written on the development stages of late adolescence and early adulthood. For instance, Hofer quotes a number of authors who claim that the goal of these stages is to develop independence while retaining contact with parents. In their literature review, Hofer fails to recognize other scholars who have held similar research before. It is unlikely that this subject has never attracted the interest and attention of other scholars before and elsewhere. Even if this were the case, Hofer should have made a statement to that effect. They have not done this. Instead, they report that they, in collaboration with other scholars have conducted similar studies before. It would have been more credible had Hofer cited scholars other than themselves. Procedure/Methods Hofer’s study involved 407 students at a college of liberal arts(Hofer, 2008). Of these, 215 were in their first year of study while the remaining 192 were in their second year of study. 59% of first-year students were female while 64% of second-year students were female. 98% of the participants ranged between the ages of 18 and 20 years, with the average age being 18.74 years. In terms of ethnic background, 79% of the respondents were white, 18% were Asian American, 5% were African American, 2% were Mexican American or Latino while the remaining 5% represented students of other ethnic backgrounds. The study also involved a total of 73 parents, 35 being parents of first-years while the remaining 38 were sophomore students. In terms of procedure, the target respondents were links to the web-based survey one week to the end of the semester(Hofer, 2008). In order to encourage them to participate, participants were entered into a raffle where they stood to win certificates. Participating students were also sent links that they forwarded to their parents. Participating parents were also entered into a raffle where they stood chances to win gift certificates. On measures, Hofer used both open- and close-ended questions. These were drawn from existing measures as those developed specifically for the study(Hofer, 2008). They used Snap Survey software to make the surveys that they then downloaded into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The student survey included such components as parent-student contact, academic self-regulation, procrastination, academic regulation by the parent, regulation of behaviour by the parent, autonomy, the student’s level of engagement and the satisfaction they derived from their schoolwork, the degree to with the student was satisfied with their relationship with their parents, academic achievement and questions specifically designed for sophomore students. Overall, Hofer’s methodology is sound. For instance, their sample population cuts across the racial divide, even though whites dominate. However, we are not told the total first-year and sophomore population. Knowing the total population would help us judge the representativeness of the sample size of 407(The Economic and Social Research council, 2001). Secondly, the sample population of the parents who took part in the survey is rather too small relative to the student sample population. One would expect that the parent of every student who participated in the survey would be approached to participate also. We are not informed whether or not this was the case. Moreover, Hofer is silent on why their sample population was predominantly female. It is uncertain whether this was deliberate or incidental and whether it had any influence on the outcome of the survey. Data Analysis Other than mentioning, under the procedure section, that the online survey was downloaded into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)(Hofer , 2008), Hofer does not delve into the fine details of how the data was analyzed. Instead, they go into presenting the findings of the survey. In presenting their findings, Hofer has done due diligence to report all the components of the survey. In fact, they have reported their findings in satisfactory detail. One component will illustrate the thoroughness with which Hofer reported their findings. With respect to frequency of communication, Hofer reports that on average, both first-years and sophomores communicated with their parents thirteen times a day. With 98% of the respondents owning a mobile phone, this device was the main means via which the respondents stayed in touch with their parents. Hofer presents their findings in tables. In total they have used seven tables, each one of them reporting the findings of a component of the survey. Tables are great tools for summarizing information. In quantitative research findings are best presented in graphs and pie charts(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). These give a better visual impression. In addition, they make it easier to compare variables at a glance. Hofer did not employ these tools for presenting information, instead stopping at the tables. Even so, they n must be credited for keeping the tables simple and easy to interpret. Discussion, Summary and Conclusion The essence of conducting a survey, which is a form of scientific research, is to generalize the findings based on the sample used to the entire population out of which the sample was taken(Latimer, Ginis, & Perrier, 2011).Hofer acknowledges some of the limitations of their study. First, it focused only on first- and second-year students. Secondly, it was held at a small college of liberal arts. Hence, there is a need also to survey third- and forth-year students and to conduct similar surveys in larger institutions. These shortcomings notwithstanding, Hofer goes ahead to claim that their findings are generalizable to larger populations. This remark should be taken with a lot of caution. For instance, Hofer did not even tell as the total population of the college on the basis of which one can estimate the generalizability of the findings to the entire college, let alone other larger institutions. Good scientific research must result in practical applications(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Taking cognizance of this fact, Hofer posits that the understanding of the relationship between parent-student contact and independence and self-discipline during college years may be useful in informing orientation programs for first years. The knowledge could also be used in designing counselling programs throughout college years. College administrators could use the knowledge to educate parents on the development needs of students during their college year and how parents could help nurture that stage of development. Thus, on the front of applicability of research findings, Hofer scores favourably. Conclusion Overall, the article under review, which reports, the findings of a study, scores favourably. This statement is true in spite of the various shortcomings highlighted throughout the analysis. Hofer’s thoughts and argument flow logically. Moreover, they have demonstrated that their study is not just an academic exercise: it has real practical value, which parents and college administrators can use to support college students as they transition from late adolescence into early adulthood. For a scholar conducting a similar study in the future, this article would be a good starting point. References Hagger, M., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2011). Never the twain shall meet? Quantitative psychological researchers’ perspectives on qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3(3) 266-277. Hofer , B. (2008). The Electronic Tether: Parental Regulation, self-Regulation and the Role of Technology in College Transitions. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 20(2) 9-24. Latimer, A., Ginis, K. M., & Perrier, M.-J. (2011). The story behind the numbers: a tale of three quantitative researchers’ foray into qualitative research territory. Qualitative Research in sport, Exercise and Health, 3(3) 278-284. May , A., & Meerwald, L. (2013). Researcher | Researched: repositioning research paradigms. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(1) 43-55. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5) 375-387. The Economic and Social Research council. (2001). A New Research Programme on Information and Communication Technologies. The E-Society: Understanding the Restructuring of Practices and Institutions in the Digital Age. Prometheus, 19(3) 253-260. Read More