This is a very interesting study, well done! I published several refereed chapters on mindfulness by numerous scholars from Columbia University. It would be helpful if the authors shared with the readers the research questions and theoretical framework. A section on Buddhism and Confucianism would make the study more interesting. Here is an article for your reference.
A very interesting study for sure. My Ph.D. dissertation deals heavily with Bandura’s theory of Self-Efficacy - the validity of the construct and established instrument. I was very pleased to see this in this paper. Just a few minor recommendations and observations. Would like to see research question (s) and presentation of H and H0(s).
Also an objective reader may interpret this as a study of two separate groups. If these are two separate groups, then you could be looking at a causal comparative rather than a correlational study. It would be better to narrow to one (1) particular course over a series of months if correlational. Keep in mind that in a correlational analysis, all variables have equal status and focus should be on the variables within a single group of participants.
There is mention of correlational and then quasi-experimental in the next paragraph. This should be clarified...or corrected. Quasi-experimental is used to assess cause-and-effect relationship between variables. If, however, this is a correlational study then you are seeking to establish whether or not there is a relationship, and if there actually is a relationship, the strength of that relationship.
Overall I think Bandura’s theory of Self-Efficacy is presented well but would recommend a bit more robust presentation of this theory. Finally, I think the data is quite limited. It is a quantitative study but would probably be better served as a qualitative study. As such, future researchers could then build on the qualitative foundation of what is being laid here in future quantitative studies once enough subsequent research has been conducted.
I appreciate the opportunity of reading this as it can most certainly contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
Regards,
---------------- Mark Ellis, Ph.D. Doctoral Faculty | Senior Dissertation Chair College of Doctoral Studies Grand Canyon University
I would agree with Dr. Ellis that a qualitative study might gather data that might be useful. I would also wonder if there might be a limitation in the way the mindfulness interventions were delivered. If I read correctly, some of these were delivered in the weekly announcements. Do we know if each student read through the complete announcements to get the full value of the intervention? Even if the students did participate in weekly discussions on mindfulness, they may or may not have completed the full intervention.
I appreciate the opportunity to read the paper, and believe it can be used to add to existing literature. However, there may be some additions that could be expanded upon moving forward. Best of luck in future publications.
Thank you for sharing your research on the correlation between mindfulness intervention and self-efficacy in doctoral students. I appreciate the concise nature of your presentation, and the explanations of the limitations associated with the use of a Likert scale with formulated questions, rather than formulated student responses; and, the limitations of the size and residency of the test subjects when attempting to generalize the results to other populations.
One wording miscue stuck out as a read the article: Page 11, Paragraph 2, contains the following, ". . . these results are be generalized to other populations . . ." I make these types of mistakes consistently as I edit my thoughts, and am always thankful when someone points them out to me.
I was reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew 6:34, "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own" (NIV), as I read the explanation of the benefits associated with mindfulness intervention. I mention this because I think of two things that would enhance you study: 1) an explanation of the Buddhist practice of meditation which is the emptying of the mind rather than the focus of the mind, and 2) a correlation between the biblical text and the discipline of restrained reaction.
A third item that would enhance the study would be the inclusion of the mindfulness instructions / questions included in the study.
Again, I thank you for sharing your research and for the concise presentation!
Focus of the manuscript: “The purpose of this correlational quantitative research study was to examine the extent to which a relationship exists between the use mindfulness interventions and doctoral student self-efficacy in students enrolled within a doctoral program at a Christian university located within the southwest region of the United States” is important, timely, and relevant as the specific and clear gap justifies the need for the study.
However, the extremely small sample size of 19 doctoral students would be best suited for qualitative methodology that employs either a case study (on how student participants apply self-efficacy to overcome course work challenges) or phenomenological design (understanding student participants’ lived experiences of self-efficacious mindfulness interventions in doctoral course work).
A quantitative correlational study requires a much larger sample with results that would be generalizable to the general population of doctoral students. While the results are illuminating and have limitations; for a correlational study, valid and reliable results are needed, which should be sustained with a large sample size of students.
This is a great study! However, in the Methods section, the authors indicate that the "The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to determine if the relationship between mindfulness interventions and student self-efficacy in an online doctoral program." This should probably say "The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to determine if (a) relationship between mindfulness interventions and student self-efficacy in an online doctoral program (exists.)" That way, if the study determined there was a relationship, then the authors can pose the results of how this relationship impacted doctoral students.
The way the sentence in the Methods section reads now feels incomplete. My suggestion is to reword the sentence.
7 Comments
This is a very interesting study, well done! I published several refereed chapters on mindfulness by numerous scholars from Columbia University. It would be helpful if the authors shared with the readers the research questions and theoretical framework. A section on Buddhism and Confucianism would make the study more interesting. Here is an article for your reference.
Hello;
This is an interesting topic that is worth researching. However; because it is a quantitative study, I think the sample size is too small. Thank you
A very interesting study for sure. My Ph.D. dissertation deals heavily with Bandura’s theory of Self-Efficacy - the validity of the construct and established instrument. I was very pleased to see this in this paper. Just a few minor recommendations and observations. Would like to see research question (s) and presentation of H and H0(s).
Also an objective reader may interpret this as a study of two separate groups. If these are two separate groups, then you could be looking at a causal comparative rather than a correlational study. It would be better to narrow to one (1) particular course over a series of months if correlational. Keep in mind that in a correlational analysis, all variables have equal status and focus should be on the variables within a single group of participants.
There is mention of correlational and then quasi-experimental in the next paragraph. This should be clarified...or corrected. Quasi-experimental is used to assess cause-and-effect relationship between variables. If, however, this is a correlational study then you are seeking to establish whether or not there is a relationship, and if there actually is a relationship, the strength of that relationship.
Overall I think Bandura’s theory of Self-Efficacy is presented well but would recommend a bit more robust presentation of this theory. Finally, I think the data is quite limited. It is a quantitative study but would probably be better served as a qualitative study. As such, future researchers could then build on the qualitative foundation of what is being laid here in future quantitative studies once enough subsequent research has been conducted.
I appreciate the opportunity of reading this as it can most certainly contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
Regards,
----------------
Mark Ellis, Ph.D.
Doctoral Faculty | Senior Dissertation Chair
College of Doctoral Studies
Grand Canyon University
3300 West Camelback
Phoenix, AZ 85017
530 210 7036
http://drmarkellis.wordpress.com
[email protected]
I would agree with Dr. Ellis that a qualitative study might gather data that might be useful. I would also wonder if there might be a limitation in the way the mindfulness interventions were delivered. If I read correctly, some of these were delivered in the weekly announcements. Do we know if each student read through the complete announcements to get the full value of the intervention? Even if the students did participate in weekly discussions on mindfulness, they may or may not have completed the full intervention.
I appreciate the opportunity to read the paper, and believe it can be used to add to existing literature. However, there may be some additions that could be expanded upon moving forward. Best of luck in future publications.
Dr. Cranmore
Thank you for sharing your research on the correlation between mindfulness intervention and self-efficacy in doctoral students. I appreciate the concise nature of your presentation, and the explanations of the limitations associated with the use of a Likert scale with formulated questions, rather than formulated student responses; and, the limitations of the size and residency of the test subjects when attempting to generalize the results to other populations.
One wording miscue stuck out as a read the article: Page 11, Paragraph 2, contains the following, ". . . these results are be generalized to other populations . . ." I make these types of mistakes consistently as I edit my thoughts, and am always thankful when someone points them out to me.
I was reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew 6:34, "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own" (NIV), as I read the explanation of the benefits associated with mindfulness intervention. I mention this because I think of two things that would enhance you study: 1) an explanation of the Buddhist practice of meditation which is the emptying of the mind rather than the focus of the mind, and 2) a correlation between the biblical text and the discipline of restrained reaction.
A third item that would enhance the study would be the inclusion of the mindfulness instructions / questions included in the study.
Again, I thank you for sharing your research and for the concise presentation!
Have a blessed day,
Ron Steadman
Focus of the manuscript: “The purpose of this correlational quantitative research study was to examine the extent to which a relationship exists between the use mindfulness interventions and doctoral student self-efficacy in students enrolled within a doctoral program at a Christian university located within the southwest region of the United States” is important, timely, and relevant as the specific and clear gap justifies the need for the study.
However, the extremely small sample size of 19 doctoral students would be best suited for qualitative methodology that employs either a case study (on how student participants apply self-efficacy to overcome course work challenges) or phenomenological design (understanding student participants’ lived experiences of self-efficacious mindfulness interventions in doctoral course work).
A quantitative correlational study requires a much larger sample with results that would be generalizable to the general population of doctoral students. While the results are illuminating and have limitations; for a correlational study, valid and reliable results are needed, which should be sustained with a large sample size of students.
This is a great study! However, in the Methods section, the authors indicate that the "The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to determine if the relationship between mindfulness interventions and student self-efficacy in an online doctoral program." This should probably say "The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to determine if (a) relationship between mindfulness interventions and student self-efficacy in an online doctoral program (exists.)" That way, if the study determined there was a relationship, then the authors can pose the results of how this relationship impacted doctoral students.
The way the sentence in the Methods section reads now feels incomplete. My suggestion is to reword the sentence.
Very Respectfully,
Donald Leaver