Critical analysis in academic research and practice

¶ … Reshaping RTI: Building a Better Triangle" by Rama Ramaswami (2010) concerns an important educational issue; how to assess young children for potential learning difficulties, and how to retain their involvement in the main classroom. The author begins with an anecdote about researcher and creator Virginia Buysse and her system, called "R&R." The author follows this by an explanation of how the system was derived from the existing RTI program, in addition to its potential benefits for the classroom. This is followed by examples of similar derivations of the RTI system, adapted to suit the needs of the specific schools where they are implemented.

The title is relatively well done, focusing exclusively on the R&R and MRI systems. I am not sure that this is entirely accurate, since a very large proportion of the article, as it progresses, also considers other derivations of MRI. The article never returns to R&R, and I feel that it could be a little misleading and confusing.

Although there is no heading that specifically focuses on the "problem," there are inherent statements that very clearly make statements regarding the problem being addressed. Ramaswami (2010), for example, clearly states that shortcomings of MRI and the reasons why the R&R system was developed to address these. Furthermore, the problem is highly significant in the world of education today. The problem of helping children with learning difficulties has always been an extreme challenge for educators. The R&R system is designed to address this. The hypothesis and assumptions are assumed, but not really stated as such, while there are not really specific key terms to define apart from the relatively obvious MRI and R&R terms. I'm not seeing much by way of explicating the limitations of the study, beyond the fact that R&R is a new system and may therefore be somewhat difficult for some to accept.

I'm finding the literature review section of the paper a little weak. Ramaswami does not make any specific references to previous research or existing literature. She focuses exclusively on the RTI system, its merits, and the way in which R&R was derived from this. To be fair, this appears to be the original purpose of the work. She also includes examples of what is being done in other schools, which relates to the basic premise of R&R. This relationship, however, could be made clearer. While it always provides good balance to the argument to include the opposite viewpoint, I am not sure that the way in which this was done in Ramaswami's article is entirely effective. She does not directly refute the opposition, nor does she relate her own ideas to those of RTI proponents.

As for the procedure, it appears that Ramaswami is really more concerned with describing general modifications to the existing RTI system than a specific procedure to implement R&R. The latter was briefly tested and described only in vague terms. I do not, therefore believe, that this section was adequate from an academic viewpoint.

At best, the data analysis is weak, with the author stating only that the findings in favor of the R&R were "statistically significant." There are some statistics to describe the general feeling about the system, but no clear description of how data were analyzed.

The summary and conclusion are probably the weakest part of the article. There is not return to the original premise, nor is there an overview of the basic points made. The article ends with a focus on a completely different system, and the reader is left wondering what happened to R&R and its merits. In general, I am therefore also not extremely impressed with the article's form and style. The information is not logically organized. The tone and bias tend towards the anecdotal rather than the scientific, and the clarity of the report is somewhat defeated by the lack of clear organization.

In general, the article begins very well, with a premise that is highly relevant to the world of education. It is therefore a pity that it reduces to a mere anecdotal report about various derivations from the RTI system. It would have been much stronger if it retained its focus on the original premise.

Reference

Ramaswami, R. (2010, Sept. 1). Reshaping RTI: Building a Better Triangle. THE Journal. Retrieved from: http://thejournal.com/Articles/2010/09/01/Reshaping-RTI-Building-a-Better-Triangle.aspx?Page=1

Suggested Scale:

5-Excellent (A model of good practice.) 4-Good (A few minor defects.) 3-Mediocre (Not good, not bad.)

2- Poor (Some serious defects.) 1-Completely incompetent (A horrible example).

3 Is Title well related to content of article?

Problem

_5_ Is problem clearly stated?

_4__ Are hypotheses clearly stated?

_5__ Is problem significant?

_4__ Are assumptions clearly stated?