1. Introduction

The primary purpose of this study is to bring forth a comparative study and a critical analysis of two distinct but related in topic articles that have been published in the educational field. This paper is mainly conducted for instructional purposes. Students at universities in Kurdistan and many others around the world have little information about the way and procedure of conducting effective research papers which is why this paper has been conducted. In this part of the study, the two articles shall briefly be introduced and a rationale will be provided for their choice.

The first article is written by R. A. Brown, (2004) (henceforth article X). It is about the effects of social anxiety on English language learners in Japan. This article focuses on social anxiety and its effects on students’ performance and their attitudes towards using English language in public. The second article (henceforth article Y) is written by Ornprapat and Saovapa. It primarily discusses the impact of cooperative learning on anxiety and proficiency in an EFL class in Bangkok University in Thailand. This article concentrates on the effect of group working and the way it promotes language learning and proficiency.

The rationale for choosing these two articles is because they are different in terms of the research strategy and the utilization of different methods of data collection. Therefore, this will help the reader better foster their research practices and develop their awareness about the way of conducting research papers. Moreover, evaluating the research papers published in the educational field could be very significant in both local and national contexts. On a local context, very few studies have been conducted on evaluating research papers from a research prospective in Kurdistan region. Therefore, this study could be decisive in that it tries to highlight the weak and strong points of the chosen articles published in the educational field. On a national context, very few researches have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of conducting research papers from a methodological prospective. Thus, this work could be regarded as something unique and significant because it contributes something new to both the local and national contexts.

The current paper falls into four sections. The first section is the overview of the two articles. The second section is devoted to discuss the literature review related to the topic of both articles. Section three evaluates the methodology followed in both articles. Finally, section four introduces the conclusions reached out of evaluating the two articles.

2. Overview of the Two Articles

In this section of the study, a brief overview of the two articles listed below will be explained. The two articles are as follows:

Article X: Brown, R. A. (2004) ‘The Effects of Social Anxiety on English Language Learning in Japan’: The Effects of Anxiety on Cognitive Processing in English Language Learning. 3, (2) pp. 199-209.

Article Y: Ornprapat, S. and Saovapa, W. (2010) ‘The Impacts of Cooperative Learning on Anxiety and Proficiency in an EFL Class’: Journal of Teaching and Learning. 7, (11), pp. 51-56.

2.1. Article X

This article is generally about the students’ anxiety in learning English as a foreign language in Japan and using it in public. This is obvious from the title as the author has not given any abstract or a clear introduction stating the main focus of his paper. This immediately tells us that the author has a very little experience in carrying out researches because according to (Bem, 2003) the introduction or abstract is a very essential part of any piece of academic writing. This article was carried out in 2004 on first year students in a college in Japan, which its name is not mentioned in the article, but rather the hint ‘more fully described in Brown 2003b’ is given. 210 students, which the author considers as not an extensive sample, took part in the study and only one method was used in collecting the data. The quantitative method was used in gathering the data for the study. The Likert type scale was utilized to analyse the data collected from the questionnaire used. Previous research results were introduced which the author might have used as a support to show how valid his study is to previous ones. It was obvious that the author did not use any qualitative data instead guesses were used to show students feelings about using English publicly (see article X, p. 7).

There are several solutions to the finding which the author has suggested to reduce the level of anxiety in the students. Unfortunately, the layout of this article is very poorly constructed in that the researcher has not used any heading and sub-heading to make it clear for the reader which part is which. This might reflect a poor academic and research background of the researcher as he failed to apply an appropriate framework for carrying out his research.

2.2. Article Y

This article, on the other hand, is about the effectiveness of cooperative learning and its impact on reducing foreign language anxiety and improving language proficiency of 40 college students in their second year through implementing a cooperative learning method. These students are enrolled in EN 211 course at Bangkok University. The researchers collected their data in a mixed way of both quantitative and qualitative methods. Three instruments were used; the standardized Foreign Language Anxiety Classroom Scale (henceforth FLACS), two proficiency tests, and a semi-structured interview. Students were first given questionnaire (FLACS), and then they were tested to check their proficiency level as a pre-evaluation of their level of anxiety and proficiency. Next, they were given classes for 14 weeks. Each class lasted for three hours, during this time three types of cooperative activities were used as a technique to help improve students’ proficiency level.

At the end of fourteen weeks, they were tested, given the questionnaire and interviewed again. The results were compared and analysed to see if students’ level of proficiency has improved and to see if students’ anxiety has become low. The results were striking and very supportive to the cooperative learning method being used. It is worth mentioning that the style of writing and the layout of the article were very effective, clear and easy to follow. This work shows that the researchers are very qualified and professionals in carrying out researches.

3. Literature Review

This section of the study will give an overview of the literature that has been discussed in both articles in a broad sense. The focus will be on anxiety and its effects on the process of learning and students’ proficiency levels.

With regards to article X, many researchers agree that personality has a great impact on our learning styles and is a huge influence on the success in language learning (Lightbown and Spada, 1993 cited in Mercer and Candlin, 2001). Anxiety is one of the important factors that play a great role in the learning field. According to (Troike, 2006), it has gained the attention of most researchers as it has its own impact on learners. The lower the learners’ anxiety, the higher the level of success in second language (henceforth L2) learning and vice versa as it does block the input from accessing the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) which is considered the storage of language learning inside our brain (Krashen, 1982). Dulay et al (1982) suggest that learners who are self-confident do not worry about rejection than those who have a high level of anxiety; therefore they are seen and proved to be more successful learners. Such learners are put into less turmoil situations in which they never care for the mistakes they make than others who care a lot about their mistakes.

Social anxiety could be described as a state which is related to the personality of the person which makes him/her very anxious when interacting and/or dealing with people in a social context. Research has proved that some students have been hugely impacted by this kind of disorder to the extent that they have become very worried when interacting in an educational situation (social anxiety disorder, (2008) cited in Cowden, (2009). Ellis, (1994) defines trait anxiety as a continuous state of suffering from a particular condition which makes individuals feel anxious.

According to Duke and Mullins (2004), in social situations, social interactions create a kind of phobic in the individuals which leads them to convey a picture to their minds in the way they think are seen by the social partner. They further sate that, it creates two kinds of beliefs in them; the way they are perceived by this social partner and the partner’s expectations of them, and thus they deduce that they are incapable of achieving the partner’s expectations which in turn creates a kind of social anxiety in them.

As for the topic of article Y, due to the effective researching and trustworthy results, there has been a huge interest in the cooperative way of learning. Evidence suggest that, cooperative learning activities have contributed a lot in promoting learners’ abilities and interests in learning languages (Ornprapat and Saovapa, 2010). In cooperative learning activities, students are put into groups usually of two to four to create a cooperative learning atmosphere for students to help each other and make use of each other’s’ ideas (Richards and Renandya, 2002). This helps students to participate effectively with the group, help them use the language in a freer way, makes students more independent and self-relied, and helps the teachers to work with individuals without affecting other groups (Harmer, 1998). However, these merits might not work with all teachers because as (Ur, 1996) purports, teachers might lose control over the class which leads it to become noisy and students might over use their mother tongue when discussing the activities.

On a proficiency level, proponents of cooperative leaning state that it exchanges ideas between students in the group and originates interests and provokes critical learning and thinking (Gokhale, 1995). Similarly, Jones (2007) asserts that cooperative learning leads students to promote their levels by learning from each other as it makes them feel more secure and less anxious. Moreover, this kind of learning style enables the students to become actively committed in the process of learning when such a chance is offered, because it helps them to understand the topic or activity in hand in a better way which in turn helps them to retain it in their long-term memory (Brown, 2008 cited in Nayan et al, 2010).

Na, 2009 (cites Vygotsky, 1978) who stated that cooperative working promotes the students’ learning abilities because they interact within each other’s ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978) said that (ZPD) is the learner’s ability of attaining something by himself and his capability of effectively achieving the preferred level with the aid of his colleagues (cited in Lantolf and Bechett, 2009). However, (Na, 2009) argues that the motivational theory is also very successful in promoting learners’ abilities for it derives the students to freely pose their ideas and support them.

In summary, therefore, anxiety seems to be a big problem for students who want to learn a language as it affects their educational levels and inhibits their learning processes. Attempts have been made by researchers and experts in this regard to illuminate it and reduce its effects in teaching languages. One of these attempts is the cooperative learning which, as we have seen reduced students’ level of anxiety and had a huge impact on promoting their proficiency levels (Ornprapat and Saovapa, 2010).

4. Methodology

Researchers need to know that the research methodology is different from the research methods. According to Dawson (2009), research methodology is the philosophy or the dogmata which will direct the research, while the research methods are the tools that are used in collecting data for the research such as interviews, questionnaires and so forth. The methodology section is an essential part of any research paper, as it is considered the roadmap of the research (Thomas and Brubaker, 2008). The primary focus of this part of the study is to critically evaluate the two chosen articles in regards to their research design, methods of data collection used, validity and reliability and the ethical considerations of both articles.

4.1. Analysis of the Research Design

This part explores some issues related to the research design of both articles. The aim of both articles, the research questions (whether fulfilled or not), the layout, and the way the researcher has carried out his/her research paper will be looked at.

Article X was about the effect of anxiety on learning English in Japan. It did not have a clear structure and objectives, however there was a statement at the end of the article which seemed to be the research aim but there was no clarity. Moreover, the last part of the article was vague in that it was neither a conclusion nor a literature review as it included some statistics and new information of previous research results. Throughout the title of this article, its aim was to investigate the effect of a particular type of anxiety (social anxiety) on Japanese students when learning English but the author has not given any hints as to the aim of his research. The researcher has not outlined his article effectively to be easy to follow, however evidence (Bickman and Rog, 1998) suggests that he has developed an understanding of the relevant problem, as it is the first step in designing a research.

According to Bickman and Rog (1998) the second step of writing a research framework is to demonstrate the study questions to make sure that the research has a target to reach. In this regard, there were not any research questions that the researcher has aimed to solve which implies that the research is poorly demonstrated. The study started by referring to a previous research results which was compared to the current one. 210 first year college students were given questionnaire to complete and the results were compared to a scale midpoint. By doing that, he might have derived his readers to read passively as he did not introduce the scale midpoint especially it include statistics which might be difficult for most people to decode and understand as Morse (1991) holds that, the methods (tools and instruments) used in collecting and analysing the data are utilised to enhance understanding. It is worth mentioning that Brown, the author of this article, has followed the interpretivistic approach in analysing the results of his study as he has left his touch on them. Denscombem (2003) states that, interpretivisim is when a researcher employs his understandings on the data he has collected and analysed and compares it to previous research results.

As for article Y, it is clear that the researchers were experienced as their article is very academically designed and their research objectives were very well stated. According to (Robson, 2002, p. 81), the components of a good research design are as follows:

- The purpose

- The theory

- The research questions

- The methods and

- The sampling strategy.

Based on these parts, the researchers have conspicuously framed their article starting with an abstract which included the purpose, aim, and a short summary of the way the article was carried out. Then, key words and a clear theory were introduced to show a good understanding of the current research topic. This was followed by the research objectives which were demonstrated to make it clear for the reader that the current study is aimed at finding answers to these objectives. A recognisable methodological approach was presented to show the plausible way of collecting, analysing and discussing the data for the research. As for the analysis of the research results, the two researchers have chosen the positivistic view in interpreting their results as they have completely depended on the facts (results) they have gained, hence drawn their conclusions on. Seale (1998, cited in Punch, 2009, p. 359) defines positivism as

‘‘an approach to social research that emphasizes the discovery of general laws, and separates facts from values; it often involves an empiricist commitment to naturalism and quantitative methods’’.

This study was carried out on a group of 40 students enrolled in an EN 211 course. There instruments were employed in this study. Students were tested and given questionnaire before and after the implementation of the cooperative teaching approach which was used to check if it is feasible and promoting learning and students’ proficiency. Then six students whose scores improved the most and the least were interviewed to give their attitudes as to the method used in teaching them. The results were very positive and students were very happy with the method used as it helped them to become less anxious and more cooperative with each other even though the period during which the method was implemented was somewhat short (3 hour lesson for 14 weeks).

Peer evaluation is said to develop and support the group working and also improve the learning outcomes by illuminating the free riding within the group which is considered a negative aspect of group working (DeVita, 2001; Goldfinch and Raeside, 1990; and Mello, 1993 cited in Fellenz, 2006). The other two types of activities seemed authentic too as they created an interesting and learnable atmosphere. However, in terms of referencing it was a little confusing, because of the numbering style that was used in this article. This is because I am familiar with the Harvard referencing style. However, as I began to carry out more in depth literature review, I realised that this system is used in many universities throughout the world.

In a nutshell, the layout and the research design of article Y is more academically presented than article X. In its design, the latter seemed to be unorganized as I was having much difficulty when trying to read specific parts of it. Article Y seemed to have all the positive features of a good and publishable article.

4.2. Methods of Data Collection

This part tackles the methods used in collecting the data for the research. The weaknesses and strengths of these methods will be discussed; triangulation and sampling issues that the researchers might have used in their study will also be covered in this section.

The only method employed in article X was the questionnaire. According to Koshy (2005), using questionnaire at the start of a study provides the researcher with basic information about the subject and the participants. Since questionnaires provide the researcher with only basic information about his/her intended subject, I could deduce that Brown has depended only on very basic information in carrying out his study which derives it to be invalid because according to (Brown and Dowling, 1998) the data has not been double checked using another method. Likert scale questionnaire was used in rating the responses sent out. Robson (2002), states this kind of questionnaire is very interesting and people usually enjoy completing it. However, it has its own disadvantages. May (2001) argues that it could be socially biased as respondents may not be honest in reporting themselves and it is difficult to judge whether it is valid or not. It is apparent from the discussion above that the researcher did not use a triangulation methodological strategy in gathering his data. Cohen et al (2007), define triangulation as the utilizing of more than one method of data collection to search into some aspects of human behaviour. Jick (1979, cited in Morse and Field, 1996) says that, it is the process of utilizing the qualitative and quantitative methods simultaneously in tackling the same problem. For this reason, the data used in this study could be considered as invalid and unreliable.

The sample size of this article is 210 first year college students. Trochim (2002) defines sampling as the procedure of choosing components from a desired group of so that by conducting a study on them we could generalise our findings and apply them on the rest of the society taken from. The author has not specified the college he meant to conduct his study on which exposes it to criticism, and so I might assume that he is addressing all Japanese first year college students. As students were already set to their sessions, I could deduce that the sampling type was a cluster sampling which is one of the probability sampling types in which as Robson (2002) argues such statistical generalizations must only be limited to the (schools, colleges etc..) they were obtained from. The way of conducting the questionnaire was not mentioned, so I could also deduce that it was either a postal survey or a web survey questionnaire which is mostly risky to use as many participants refuse to take part. In line with that, Gilbert (2008) states, the disadvantages of using such questionnaire is the low response in rate, hence, the intended sample might have been far more than only 210 students. In any survey, Sturgis, cited in Gilbert (2008), argues one must make clear the population he is intending to address as it is very important, besides an evident description of the population is important to the researcher as will always need a sampling frame.

In article Y, however, a triangulation approach was used to collect the data. This included the FLCAS questionnaire which consisted of 33 items that were used to assess the students’ anxiety level pertaining to three domains: 1) the communication apprehension, 2) test anxiety, and 3) fear of negative evaluation. The second method was English Proficiency Test. This was designed to evaluate the students’ proficiency level in reading and writing skills before and after the experiment. The third method of data collection used was the semi-structured interview which contained two questions: 1) How do you feel about working with your partner and with the members in your group, and 2) Do you feel anxious when you study in EN211 class? Why or why not?

Jupp and Sapsford (2006), Bell (2005), Oppenhein (1992), and Smith et al (2004) report that questionnaires are highly structured methods of data collection, cheap, provide a wide range of information in a short period of time, and are not biased as the participants are independently reporting their opinions and answers. In the light of these characteristics, many researchers use questionnaire at the very start of their study. The researchers, in this article, have not depended only on the results of the questionnaire in reporting their findings, but have double checked them using other methods to make it clear that their results are reliable and authentic. The type of the test used could be a non-parametric test because, as Cohen et al (2007) purport, it is designed for a specific population, does not give information about a wider population, and is less complicated in terms of computation of statistics. However, the question is; why did the researchers only test reading and writing skills when speaking could have much more effect on the students as (Behnke and Sawyer, 1998) argue, some people experience social trait anxiety before, during and after speaking.

The other instrument used in collecting data in this article was the semi-structured interview. According to Robson (2002) and Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2003) semi-structured interview is composed of predetermined questions but the interviewer can modify their order according to his understanding of what seems to be appropriate. Thomas and Fielding report that the interviewer, in this type of interviews, has the ability to manage the instrument to the participants’ level of comprehension and know how to deal with questions not yet asked and being already answered by the interviewees (cited in Gilbert, 2008). However, semi-structured interviews could have its own disadvantage too because as (Denscombe, 2007) argues, interviewees could pose non-standard responses while being interviewed.

The sampling size used in this article is 40. As Cohen et al (2007) purport, a sample size of thirty is said to be the minimum number for any research if the researcher wants to use statistical analysis. But they still urge researchers to use more to make their data more reliable. The 40 cases of this article are considered less than a merit size but valuable as they are only used to test a particular aspect.

The sampling type of their research is a cluster sampling as students were already set to their section. Robson (2002) argues in a cluster sampling type, the researcher can choose a school, a class or any group of people to carry out his research on. However, we must bear in mind that large classes, like the one chosen by the two researchers, are said to be difficult to manage, especially if teachers want to employ the cooperative learning style, and this might affect negatively on the students’ level of proficiency unless it is managed by more than one teacher for specific purposes. Cohen, et al (2007) state that cluster sampling is widely used in small-scale research and is said to represent a wider population. Therefore, the researcher needs to highlight the generalisation of his findings. However, the researcher should be careful in choosing his sample as there might be some similarities within the sample which might not help to represent a wider population (May, 2001).

4.3. Validity and Reliability of the Two Articles

This part will shed light on the validity and reliability of the methods used, and the results that the researchers aimed to reach at.

Clancy (2001) says that, gathering data throughout the usage of multiple methods to answer research questions helps the researcher to ensure the credibility of the results if only one data source was utilized (cited in Hendricks, 2006). Brown, in article X, seemed to have only depended on the results of the questionnaire he conducted in gathering his data. Since the method used is questionnaire and students had to fill it in independently, there has not been any force affecting the variables of the results of the questionnaire. Haller and Kleine (2001, p: 102) state, ‘internal validity refers to the extent to which the treatment variable can be claimed to be causing the changes in outcome variables of the study’. Therefore, the questionnaire could be internally valid as the data was collected without any interventions from the researcher.

Bracht and Glass (1968) distinguish three types of external validity; population, personological and ecological validity (cited in Haller and Kleine, 2001). The one that I will focus on is the population validity as it might have relationship with those who have not participated in the study. It is mainly concerned with the generalization of the results of a research conducted on a specific number of participants back to the population from which this sample was drawn (Haller and Kleine, 2001). Even though Brown has not explicitly generalized his findings, he has discussed the general issues of the Japanese students such as: attendance and modesty which might be because of his research findings (article X, page 8). In other words, his findings might have given him the push to discuss over the general features of the Japanese students.

Cohen et al (2007) purport that, in a quantitative study, the research could show same results if it was to be conducted on the same participants in the same situation. The results of this research, generally, match the previous studies conducted which could be proved as valid and reliable. However, it is difficult to decide whether these results are reliable or not as there has not been a previous study conducted on the same group of the participants in the same context.

In any research, validity, as Bell (1999) defines, implies that the item used measures correctly the purpose it is used for. The methods used in article Y were the FLCAS questionnaire, English proficiency test and a semi-structured interview. The first item used to measure the students’ anxiety level in terms of (1) communicative apprehension, (2) test anxiety, and (3) fear of negative evaluation. According to (Horwitz, 1986) FLCAS questionnaire is reliable and valid as it measures the degree of anxiety by giving general and specific information about the students. As for the second method, Cohen et al (2007) argue, there are many factors affecting the reliability of tests such as the time, temperature, the formality of the test, students’ ratio of guessing, and the like. The content of the test, which was administered as pre-test and post-test, included three parts: 1) read a story and answer five questions, 2) read a story and write a summary in three to five sentences, and 3) write an essay in 100 words. It seemed to be valid as it was designed to test the students’ proficiency level in reading and writing. The last instrument was the semi-structured interview. This contained two questions as follows:

- How do you feel about working with your partner and the members of your group?

- Do you feel anxious when you study in EN211 class? Why or why not?

(Ornprapat and Saovapa, 2010, p: 53)

Cannell and Kahn (1968) cited in Cohen et al, (2007) assert that, in interviews, the questions normally used to measure what they are used for. According to Ornprapat and Saovapa, the answers, which were taken from six students, were used to test students feeling and attitudes as to the way they were used to be taught. One can argue that, the answers could be valid compared to the results of the two other methods used, because ‘The major means of validating accounts’ and ‘the use of several methods to explore an issue greatly increases the chances of accuracy’ (The Open University, 2001, p: 65).

The three activities used have shown very usefulness in promoting students’ proficiency level and illuminating their anxiety. These methods could be used in any English language course to help students better and quicker learn English. However, much effort and arrangements must be employed, as did Ornprapat and Saovapa in their study, to make it work, which could be very difficult for many schools to afford such facilities.

4.4. Ethical Implications

This part of the paper deals with the ethical issues of the two articles being analysed. It will state whether the researchers have abided by the code of ethical disciplines, as they were conducting their researches.

Wells (1994) cited in Anderson (2004) has defined ethics as a ‘code of behaviour in relation to the right of those who become the subject of you work or are affected by it’. Jupp and Sapsford (2006), purport that when the researcher comes to the process of conducting a research, the consent of participants should be gained and the purpose and aim of the research should be clearly and frankly explain to them to make them aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it. Brown, in article X mentioned that he has neither informed his participants of the purpose of his study nor deceived them because they were volunteers. Accordingly, Bell, (2010) state that the securing of participants, voluntary informed consent before research gets embarked on is considered the norm for the conduct of research.

Cohen, et al (2007) report that, voluntarism means that those who participate have freely chosen to take part, and thus they are responsible for any consequences happen during the research. Yet, according to Robson (2002) the research could be considered unethical due to the fact that the researcher has not informed his participants of the purposes of his research as one of the researcher’s tasks is to ensure that his participants are fully informed of the aims and way of doing the research.

Hopkins (2002) states that, there are lots of principles that the researcher must be aware of and take into consideration when conducting a research paper. One of which is asking for the permission of the participants and the organization they are enrolled in before taking any actions. This involves being upfront at all times in what the research is about. In this regard, Ornprapat and Saovapa, in article Y, are seemed not to have abided by the ethical issues and that they might have conducted their research even without the knowledge of the students because they have not mentioned anything related to the participants’ consent. This action could lead the researchers to have ethical dilemmas, because according to Cohen et al (2007), conducting a research without the knowledge of the participants is one of the factors causing dilemmas. However, since it is for the benefit of the participants, this might not be accounted as deception, because as Nachmias and Nachmias (1992) cited in Cohen et al (2007) argue, informed consent may not always be necessary as far as the case is justified as he has stated the reason in the last paragraph of the introduction (see Article Y, p. 52). Still, this research is considered unethical because gaining consent is essential in conducting any research project (Cohen et al (2007) and Dawson, 2009).

5. Conclusions

Brown, in article X, has followed the positivistic approach in analysing his data and findings as he has largely depended on quantitative materials. He has also drawn similar results to the studies which have been done in the past. Brown is also subjective in his research and the interpretation of his data as he did not draw his analysis on the basis of the questionnaire he has done, but rather opinions and guesses were used in interpreting the results reached. Unfortunately, the way Brown has designed his research was not easy to follow as he did not apply the appropriate style of framing which made it difficult to cope with. It is obvious that the layout of the research is important as it reflects an outstanding knowledge of the researcher.

As for the results that Brown achieved, they generally match the previous ones. However, it could be very risky for anyone to depend on as they have not been tested to be checked for their reliability. Moreover, Brown, in his article, stated that ‘the data do not directly address the reasons for these negative feelings’ which implies that he has employed the wrong methods in collecting his data. Brown could have used a qualitative approach of data collection (e.g. interviews) to further investigate the reasons for the negative feelings about using English language publicly. This might have accurately provided him with much broader variety of basic and direct materials. The researcher should also indicate a suitable outline and use headings and subheadings in his article. When a researcher writes his research, he/she might have to put himself/herself in his reader’s shoes to make sure they do not struggle in finding information and distinguishing the sections of the research.

With regards to ornprapat and saovapa's article, they have chosen the interpretivistic approach for analysing their data. The researchers have followed the scientific research approach in conducting their study as they have tested their case in its natural environment. The usage of both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection has given much creditability to their research as they have measured what they are supposed to measure. The researchers were also objective in interpreting their findings as they have reported what they have found in their research because the way of collecting the data, analysing them and also reporting the results were all clearly stated in their research design and procedure without any biasness. Due to the above features, this research is said to be outstanding, reliable, valid and also authentic. This article is well organised and the methods used seem to have been chosen carefully.