Criticism of the paper devoted to the problem of personalized mathematics as an effective method of improving student performance

The paper ” The Problem of Personalized Mathematics as an Effective Method of Improving Student Performance” is a perfect example of a research proposal on mathematics. The Introduction seems to be the literature review, the background, and the problem statement. The introduction started with a very strong statement, which is commendable. Nevertheless, the author stated that the major cause of the difficulties is the inability to understand the structure of the problem. The author should have gone further and stated what experiment of analysis was done in order to arrive at the statement. This means there should be additional information to support this statement. The author did not also cite where he got the information regarding the other major obstacle for students in learning mathematics, which is the inability to convert the problem into the correct operation and solution. In his introduction, which also seems to be the literature review, the authors put their focus on only one method of institutional strategy to address the challenges of mathematics expressions and problems. The author should have had at least two statements from which he would make comparisons during analysis.  Literature Review
The literature review implies that the focus was on the personalized mathematics problem as an effective method of improving the performance of the students. Nonetheless, the authors talked of applying the method of group personalized paper-based mathematics instructions in their previous studies, which included comparing computer-based instructions. This section does not correlate to the literature review that addressed the issues of the challenges that the students have in mathematics. This means that the literature review was not consistent with the purpose of the study. The authors should have written the literature review to expound what other researchers have done in line with their hypothesis.

Under methodology, the authors did not stipulate how they got their sample size number and the criteria they used to select their subject. This did not allow the author to make a standard conclusion from the analysis they did, thus it was not reliable or vividly reflective. In his literature review, he had not addressed the issue of ethnicity concerning challenges in the mathematics word problem. The authors did not explain clearly the purpose of the favorite survey and at the same time, he did not explain how the respondents answered it to make a comprehensive conclusion. At one point, the author says, “…and so forth”. The reader lacks knowledge of what happened thus he or she does not make reliable findings after reading the section.

Under the results section, the authors concluded that a personalized method of instruction strategy did not have as much impact on the students. From the methodology, the procedure was not sufficient to make such a conclusion. In addition, the time span that the students used to study was minimal to make a comprehensive deduction on the same. They also used the parametric method when analyzing yet their procedure of identifying their sample size was favorable for non-parametric methods. This means that the results are neither reliable nor consistent.

In the discussion, the author talked of the middle school students yet in the methodology, he did not select the students according to the status of schools, which is evident due to inconsistency. The author also talked of “ entering knowledge students”, which is a grammatical error and at the same time not addressed in the literature review. The author also talked of the personalized subject, which is very different from the literature review and problem statement. There is too much literature in the discussion section that appears to be very strange to the whole study. The author did not build his conclusion from what he had found out in the analysis. This means that the discussion was vague. The author should have developed their discussion from what they had found in their results.

To sum up, this study is poorly done and does not meet the standards of quality research work. The authors did not follow the rules used in doing research. There were very many cases of inconsistency from the start of the study to the end.