The title of the research is Classroom Misbehavior of Philippine Institute of Quezon City. The lack of specifications in the title caught our eyes first. The title of the research did not suffice the specifications needed. Not only it was incomplete but also the title was erroneous. According to RV Labaree (2009), an exploratory design is conducted about a research problem when there are few or no earlier studies to refer to or rely upon to predict an outcome. The focus is on gaining insights and familiarity for later investigation or undertaken when research problems are in a preliminary stage of investigation. The researchers should not entitle this as an exploratory study because there are many existing and accurate researches about classroom misbehavior. The writers of the study were Joe Sampaga and Nicole Tanya, both of them are currently Grade 12 students. They undertook the study to determine the effective ways by which classroom misbehavior can be prevented by the teachers. Initially, the purpose of this research may not look doable because people have different perspectives on how teachers can prevent them, a way for prevention of this student may not be effective for another student. In this case, the research may look inaccurate and may put out dubious answers to the problem. The researchers also recommended that teachers must use effective ways of preventing classroom misbehavior. Many teachers do not know how or fail to implement ways to avert classroom misbehavior. Hence, the paper may give them ideas on how to prevent classroom misbehavior.
The writers of this research wanted to let us know the ways on how to prevent classroom misbehavior. The students somehow disobey rules inside the classroom. The research stated that everyone has the capacity to justify the right and wrong. However, we would like to take account the cases of mentally disabled people on how they are able to discern what is right and wrong. Lower grades levels may not be thinking of justifying themselves, but they should have known what is right and what is wrong. On the other hand, the higher levels must be aware of these, because they are mature enough to discern between the right and proper actions and wrong ones. They should have been physically and mentally prepared for what misbehavior is. The researchers also stated that there were ways to prevent the classroom misbehavior, however, there were no specifications on the ways to prevent classroom misbehavior. Thus, we concluded that the researchers might have done this in a rush.
The methodology of the research was fine and it somehow supported the arguments. It would have been more appropriate if descriptive observational and survey methods were used since they were dealing with classroom misbehavior. The outputs could have been better if the researchers were to observe the students in the class rather than just asking them. Not all would answer honestly. The review of related literature is quite messy. Some related literatures are only about misbehavior and not misbehavior in the classroom itself. There were also some related literature that was quite irrelevant to the purpose of the study. The definition of terms was not sufficient for all of the vague words used in the research. Not all people have a wide set of vocabularies. Some concepts were hard to understand because of flowery words. The coherence of some parts of their research is poor. Some of the ideas of their study are not all connected to the problem that they wanted to solve. Their abstract said the respondents were Grade 7-12 students, but the introduction and others parts said they wanted senior high students. It could have been better if they were more consistent with their choices.
We find the research quite fine, there were many sources stated which somehow made the study more credible despite the errors they made. The research did not look like it was proofread and checked properly. This resulted to unusual grammatical errors, spaces and improper use of punctuation marks. They probably crammed when doing this research and there was no time for more proofreading. The research was hard to critique, because of these unusual errors. Lastly, we recommend that the researcher(s) should be specific in telling facts as this increases their credibility and formality of their research. Secondly, we would like to encourage proofreading as this can help them create a more professional look on their research. Lastly, the researchers should be sure on the topic as failure to answer the question they made would make the research a failure as well.