Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Running head: MODULE THREE 1

Module Three Tasks

Kayla Lumowah

California State University, San Bernardino

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kayla Lumowah, Department of

Special Education, Rehabilitation, & Counseling, California State University, San Bernardino,

San Bernardino, CA 92407. Contact: 004985561@coyote.csusb.edu


MODULE THREE 2

Module Three Tasks

Title

The title of the chosen manuscript is “Improving Interactions: The Effects of

Implementing the Fight-Free Schools Violence Prevention Program” (Fahsl & Luce, 2012).

According to the text, manuscript titles should give a brief but effective overview of the content

of the research (Heppner, Wampold, Owen, Thompson & Wang, 2016). In the case of this

particular article, the authors seemed to have effectively produced a title that abides by the

guidelines mentioned. The title gives clear indication of the research topic, hints at the variables

used, and indicates an explanation of “improving interactions” for the study (Fahsl & Luce,

2012).

Abstract

Wampold et al. suggests that the abstract is one of the most frequently read pieces of a

manuscript (2016). As such, the authors detail that the abstract should be short and succinct,

should briefly summarize each section of the article, and should not be dependent on any other

piece of the article for clarity (Wampold et al., 2016). The abstract featured Fahsl and Luce’s

study of aggression is very much in line with those standards. The abstract presents clear and

informative one to two sentence statements detailing each section of the manuscript (Fahsl &

Luce, 2012). Not only that, but the details provided are relevant and substantial enough to give

readers the full beginning, middle, and end result of the violence prevention program conducted

in the schools (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). Thus, this particular abstract serves as an effective summary

of the full contents of the manuscript.


MODULE THREE 3

Introduction

The introduction section of a manuscript is meant to communicate the foundations behind

the research being presented (Wampold et al., 2016). A few key features of an introduction, as

proposed by Wampold et al., are an orientation to the research problem, information regarding

the theoretical frameworks behind the study, and a clear statement of the research question and

proposed hypotheses (2016). The introduction for the article chosen features these three points

very distinctly. The authors begin the introduction by orienting the reader to the problem of

increasing rates of violence in schools (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). Relevant studies and statistics are

presented in order to point toward the growing issues revolving around violence among children

in educational settings (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). Next, it is evident that the authors begin the

process of establishing their theoretical framework and honing in on the route their research will

take in response to this issue of violence (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). Research highlighting early

intervention strategies is presented first, followed by more specific information about the

particular early intervention strategies that the authors are targeting in their research (Fahsl &

Luce, 2012). Finally, the introduction is concluded with a clear statement of purpose for the

research (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). Although the hypothesis is not explicitly mentioned, the overall

structure and substance of this introduction section very closely lines up with the standards

offered by Wampold et al. (2016).

Methods

The methods section for this article deviates slightly from the format proposed in the text.

While Wampold et al. (2016) offered five different subsections to be included in a manuscript,

this article only had a “participants,” “procedures,” and “data collection and analysis” section.

Regardless of this divergence, the methods section of this article still served the same purposes
MODULE THREE 4

and succinctly provided a detailed but understandable and reproducible description of how the

study was conducted. In terms of participant information, the authors clearly stated the ages of

students who participated, how they were recruited, and the demographic makeup of both the

students and teachers involved (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). Measures, materials, and information

regarding the longitudinal study design were woven throughout the procedures subsection (Fahsl

& Luce, 2012). Information in this subsection was punctuated with a visual example of the

referral form used for the study as well as descriptions of trainings that teachers were asked to

attend (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). Overall, the methods section of this article is fairly structured in the

same way offered by the text, and the information provided gives the reader an descriptive and

easy to follow recap of the study.

Results

According to Wampold et al. (2016), the results section of a manuscript should give a

summary and overview of the study’s findings, sans any interpretation or analysis. Fashl and

Luce (2012) presented results in a way similar to that presented in the text, with a direct

statement of the overall findings followed by statistical numbers and percentages gathered from

the data. Additionally, the results section included a figure illustrating the number of aggressive

acts from year one to year two in an easily comprehensible bar graph. Wampold et al. (2016)

suggests that tables and figures are important aspects of the results section that can make data

reading easier and more efficient for readers. In this way, the results section of this study does,

for the most part, align with the standards described in the text. It should be noted that this article

lacked a report on effect sizes, which Wampold et al. suggests are an important statistic that

should be included in the results section (2016).


MODULE THREE 5

Discussion

Most of the main points described in the text as being staples for discussion sections are

present in the discussion for the chosen article. The authors begin by re-visiting some of the

previous research surrounding the topic of violence in schools (Fahsl & Luce, 2012). This falls in

line with Wampold et al.’s statement that most discussions feature key information from the

introduction section (2016). Additionally, a large portion of the discussion in Fahsl and Luce

(2012) is dedicated to identifying and analyzing limitations to the research. This is an important

aspect of a discussion section noted in the text. Overall, Fashl and Luce (2016) hit the key points

of discussing how the results of the study added to the body of knowledge surrounding violence

prevention in schools, what limitations of the study were, and where future violence prevention

research should go in light of the findings from the current study.


MODULE THREE 6

References

Fahsl, A.J., & Luce, A. E. (2012). Improving interactions: The effects of implementing the fight-

free schools violence prevention program. Preventing School Failure, 56(4), 214-218.

Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., Owen, J., Thompson, M. N. & Wang, K. (2016). Research

Design in Counseling (4th Edn.). New York, NY: Cengage.