This is a critique of the study, “The Extent of the Effect of Tardiness on Classroom Academic Performance of the Philippine Institute of Quezon City Grade 10 and 11 Students S.Y. 2016-2017”, done by researchers John David Perez, Mariah Katherine Yap, and Hizon Arthur Yao. This study is concerned with how much tardiness can affect a student’s academic performance—whether it can have a positive, negative, or no effect at all on a student’s academics. The researchers were able to identify three specific and practical problems, and were explicitly disclosed in the statement of the problem. Along with the multiple statements of the problem was a thorough discussion of the background of tardiness. The researchers made sure that there was a clear connection between tardiness and the classroom setting, which gives this topic great significance for the school, yet it is still easily investigable, as the population is present within a single building.
The literature review was comprehensive. All the literature was relevant to the research problem, and even included the causes, effects, and the possible remedies for tardiness as stated in other researchers. Along with this, the paper neither includes any secondary sources, nor were any of the used sources outdated, and the researchers were also able to synthesize their review at the end of the chapter.
With regards to the participants of the research, there were multiple typographical errors, including the total sample taken and the population size. Additionally, the population to be focused on was not in sync with what was identified in the introduction. Because of this, it was hard to tell if the margin of error is small or large. Assuming that they did not follow their total, then there will be a small, likely zero, margin of error in their research, and they would have gotten accurate data.
To survey their sample, the researchers used a descriptive-survey questionnaire, and all the questions written in the questionnaire were in relation to tardiness. The researchers made use of the 5-Point Likert Scale and assigned a specific value for each level on the scale.
The process of surveying was a common one— the survey questionnaires were handed out to the sample of the research and were left for them to answer. There is a limitation in this method. The validity of the answers may diminish, as the researchers were not always there to facilitate the answering of the questionnaires.
Following the methodology was a systematic analysis of the gathered data, which was written in a hierarchical order for organization. The researchers were able to break down their data and uncover concrete answers from the respondents in relation to their review of literature.
Overall, the results were in relation to the researchers’ hypotheses. The summary of findings were presented systematically, and the succeeding recommendations were consistent and tackled the research problems. They were also able to properly synthesize their major findings in their conclusion. The biggest problem in the paper was mainly that it is obvious this was not a one-man job. It was visible in the research that the ideas and outputs off different people were put together just to form a longer text. Generally, the researchers were able to present accurate results based on the answers of the participants, and the results complimented the review of literature.