Category: values and academic standards

A 'peer-reviewed' study claims to improve academic performance by purifying the souls of students suffering from hallucinations

Keith S. Taber

I received an email from an open-access journal called the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, with the subject heading 'Publish Fast and Pay Less' which immediately triggered the thought "another predatory journal?" Predatory journals publish submissions for a fee, but do not offer the editorial and production standards expected of serious research journals. In particular, they publish material which clearly falls short of rigorous research despite usually claiming to engage in peer review.

A peer reviewed journal?

Checking out the website I found the usual assurances that the journal used rigorous peer review as:

"The process of reviewing is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. The review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general.

We use a double-blind system for peer-reviewing; both reviewers and authors' identities remain anonymous to each other. The paper will be peer-reviewed by two or three experts; one is an editorial staff and the other two are external reviewers."

https://www.ej-edu.org/index.php/ejedu/about

Peer review is critical to the scientific process. Work is only published in (serious) research journals when it has been scrutinised by experts in the relevant field, and any issues raised responded to in terms of revisions sufficient to satisfy the editor.

I could not find who the editor(-in-chief) was, but the 'editorial team' of European Journal of Education and Pedagogy were listed as

• Bea Tomsic Amon, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
• Chunfang Zhou, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
• Gabriel Julien, University of Sheffield, UK
• Intakhab Khan, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
• Mustafa Kayıhan Erbaş, Aksaray University, Turkey
• Panagiotis J. Stamatis, University of the Aegean, Greece

I decided to look up the editor based in England where I am also based but could not find a web presence for him at the University of Sheffield. Using the ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) provided on the journal website I found his ORCID biography places him at the University of the West Indies and makes no mention of Sheffield.

If the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy is organised like a serious research journal, then each submission is handled by one of this editorial team. However the reference to "editorial staff" might well imply that, like some other predatory journals I have been approached by (e.g., Are you still with us, Doctor Wu?), the editorial work is actually carried out by office staff, not qualified experts in the field.

That would certainly help explain the publication, in this 'peer-reviewed research journal', of the first paper that piqued my interest enough to motivate me to access and read the text.

The Effects of Using the Tazkiyatun Nafs Module on the Academic Achievement of Students with Hallucinations

The paper initially attracted my attention because it seemed to about treatment of a medical condition, so I wondered was doing in an education journal. Yet, the paper seemed to also be about an intervention to improve academic performance. As I read the paper, I found a number of flaws and issues (some very obvious, some quite serious) that should have been spotted by any qualified reviewer or editor, and which should have indicated that possible publication should have been be deferred until these matters were satisfactorily addressed.

This is especially worrying as this paper makes claims relating to the effective treatment of a symptom of potentially serious, even critical, medical conditions through religious education ("a  spiritual  approach", p.50): claims that might encourage sufferers to defer seeking medical diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, these are claims that are not supported by any evidence presented in this paper that the editor of the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy decided was suitable for publication.

Limitations of peer review

Peer review is not a perfect process: it relies on busy human beings spending time on additional (unpaid) work, and it is only effective if suitable experts can be found that fit with, and are prepared to review, a submission. It is also generally more challenging in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. ¹

That said, one sometimes finds papers published in predatory journals where one would expect any intelligent person with a basic education to notice problems without needing any specialist knowledge at all. The study I discuss here is a case in point.

Purpose of the study

Under the heading 'research objectives', the reader is told,

"In general, this journal [article?] attempts to review the construction and testing of Tazkiyatun Nafs [a Soul Purification intervention] to overcome the problem of hallucinatory disorders in student learning in secondary schools. The general objective of this study is to identify the symptoms of hallucinations caused by subtle beings such as jinn and devils among students who are the cause of disruption in learning as well as find solutions to these problems.

Meanwhile, the specific objective of this study is to determine the effect of the use of Tazkiyatun Nafs module on the academic achievement of students with hallucinations.

To achieve the aims and objectives of the study, the researcher will get answers to the following research questions [sic]:

Is it possible to determine the effect of the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module on the academic achievement of students with hallucinations?"

Awang, 2022, p.42

I think I can save readers a lot of time regarding the research question by suggesting that, in this study, at least, the answer is no – if only because the research design is completely inadequate to answer the research question. (I should point that the author comes to the opposite conclusion: e.g., "the approach taken in this study using the Tazkiyatun Nafs module is very suitable for overcoming the problem of this hallucinatory disorder", p.49.)

Indeed, the whole paper is confused in terms of what it is setting out to do, what it actually reports, and what might be concluded. As one example, the general objective of identifying "the symptoms of hallucinations caused by subtle beings such as jinn and devils" (but surely, the hallucinations are the symptoms here?) seems to have been forgotten, or, at least, does not seem to be addressed in the paper. ²

Methodology

So, this seems to be an intervention study.

• Some students suffer from hallucinations.
• This is detrimental to their education.
• It is hypothesised that the hallucinations are caused by supernatural spirits ("subtle beings that lead to hallucinations"), so, a soul purification module might counter this detriment;
• if so, sufferers engaging with the soul purification module should improve their academic performance;
• and so the effect of the module is being tested in the study.

Thus we have a kind of experimental study?

No, not according to the author. Indeed, the study only reports data from a small number of unrepresentative individuals with no controls,

"The study design is a case study design that is a qualitative study in nature. This study uses a case study design that is a study that will apply treatment to the study subject to determine the effectiveness of the use of the planned modules and study variables measured many times to obtain accurate and original study results. This study was conducted on hallucination disorders [students suffering from hallucination disorders?] to determine the effectiveness of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module in terms of aspects of student academic achievement."

Awang, 2022, p.42

Case study?

So, the author sees this as a case study. Research methodologies are better understood as clusters of similar approaches rather than unitary categories – but case study is generally seen as naturalistic, rather than involving an intervention by an external researcher. So, case study seems incongruous here. Case study involves the detailed exploration of an instance (of something of interest – a lesson, a school, a course of tudy, a textbook, …) reported with 'thick description'.

Read about the characteristics of case study research

The case is usually a complex phenomena which is embedded within a context from which is cannot readily be untangled (for example, a lesson always takes place within a wider context of a teacher working over time with a class on a course of study, within a curricular, and institutional, and wider cultural, context, all of which influence the nature of the specific lesson). So, due to the complex and embedded nature of cases, they are all unique.

"a case study is a study that is full of thoroughness and complex to know and understand an issue or case studied…this case study is used to gain a deep understanding of an issue or situation in depth and to understand the situation of the people who experience it"

Awang, 2022, p.42

A case is usually selected either because that case is of special importance to the researcher (an intrinsic case study – e.g., I studied this school because it is the one I was working in) or because we hope this (unique) case can tell us something about similar (but certainly not identical) other (also unique) cases. In the latter case [sic], an instrumental case study, we are always limited by the extent we might expect to be able to generalise beyond the case.

This limited generalisation might suggest we should not work with a single case, but rather look for a suitably representative sample of all cases: but we sometimes choose case study because the complexity of the phenomena suggests we need to use extensive, detailed data collection and analyses to understand the complexity and subtlety of any case. That is (i.e., the compromise we choose is), we decide we will look at one case in depth because that will at least give us insight into the case, whereas a survey of many cases will inevitably be too superficial to offer any useful insights.

So how does Awang select the case for this case study?

"This study is a case study of hallucinatory disorders. Therefore, the technique of purposive sampling (purposive sampling [sic]) is chosen so that the selection of the sample can really give a true picture of the information to be explored ….

Among the important steps in a research study is the identification of populations and samples. The large group in which the sample is selected is termed the population. A sample is a small number of the population identified and made the respondents of the study. A case or sample of n = 1 was once used to define a patient with a disease, an object or concept, a jury decision, a community, or a country, a case study involves the collection of data from only one research participant…

Awang, 2022, p.42

Of course, a case study of "a community, or a country" – or of a school, or a lesson, or a professional development programme, or a school leadership team, or a homework policy, or an enrichnment activity, or … – would almost certainly be inadequate if it was limited to "the collection of data from only one research participant"!

I do not think this study actually is "a case study of hallucinatory disorders [sic]". Leading aside the shift from singular ("a case study") to plural ("disorders"), the research does not investigate a/some hallucinatory disorders, but the effect of a soul purification module on academic performance. (Actually, spoiler alert  😉, it does not actually investigate the effect of a soul purification module on academic performance either, but the author seems to think it does.)

If this is a case study, there should be the selection of a case, not a sample. Sometimes we do sample within a case in case study, but only from those identified as part of the case. (For example, if the case was a year group in a school, we may not have resources to interact in depth with several hundred different students). Perhaps this is pedantry as the reader likely knows what Awang meant by 'sample' in the paper – but semantics is important in research writing: a sample is chosen to represent a population, whereas the choice of case study is an acknowledgement that generalisation back to a population is not being claimed).

However, if "among the important steps in a research study is the identification of populations" then it is odd that nowhere in the paper is the population of interest actually specified!

Things slip our minds. Perhaps Awang intended to define the population, forgot, and then missed this when checking the text – buy, hey, that is just the kind of thing the reviewers and editor are meant to notice! Otherwise this looks very like including material from standard research texts to play lip-service to the idea that research-design needs to be principled, but without really appreciating what the phrases used actually mean. This impression is also given by the descriptions of how data (for example, from interviews) were analysed – but which are not reflected at all in the results section of the paper. (I am not accusing Awang of this, but because of the poor standard of peer review not raising the question, the author is left vulnerable to such an evaluation.)

The only one research participant?

So, what do we know about the "case or sample of n = 1 ", the "only one research participant" in this study?

The actual respondents in this case study related to hallucinatory disorders were five high school students. The supportive respondents in the case study related to hallucination disorders were five counseling teachers and five parents or guardians of students who were the actual respondents."

Awang, 2022, p.42

It is certainly not impossible that a case could comprise a group of five people – as long as those five make up a naturally bounded group – that is a group that a reasonable person would recognise as existing as a coherent entiy as they clearly had something in common (they were in the same school class, for example; they were attending the same group therapy session, perhaps; they were a friendship group; they were members of the same extended family diagnosed with hallucinatory disorders…something!) There is no indication here of how these five make up a case.

The identification of the participants as a case might have made sense had the participants collectively undertaken the module as a group, but the reader is told: "This study is in the form of a case study. Each practice and activity in the module are done individually" (p.50). Another justification could have been if the module had been offered in one school, and these five participants were the students enrolled in the programme at that time but as "analysis of  the  respondents'  academic  performance  was conducted  after  the  academic  data  of  all  respondents  were obtained  from  the  respective  respondent's  school" (p.45) it seems they did not attend a single school.

The results tables and reports in the text refer to "respondent 1" to "respondent 4". In case study, an approach which recognises the individuality and inherent value of the particular case, we would usually assign assumed names to research participants, not numbers. But if we are going to use numbers, should there not be a respondent 5?

The other one research participant?

It seems that these is something odd here.

Both the passage above, and the abstract refer to five respondents. The results report on four. So what is going on? No explanation of the discrepancy is provided. Perhaps:

• There only ever were four participants, and the author made a mistake in counting.
• There only ever were four participants, and the author made a typographical mistake (well, strictly, six typographical mistakes) in drafting the paper, and then missed this in checking the manuscript.
• There were five respondents and the author forgot to include data on respondent 5 purely by accident.
• There were five respondents, but the author decided not to report on the fifth deliberately for a reason that is not revealed (perhaps the results did not fit with the desired outcome?)

The significant point is not that there is an inconsistency but that this error was missed by peer reviewers and the editor – if there ever was any genuine peer review. This is the kind of mistake that a school child could spot – so, how is it possible that 'expert reviewers' and 'editorial staff' either did not notice it, or did not think it important enough to query?

Research instruments

Another section of the paper reports the instrumentation used in the paper.

"The research instruments for this study were Takziyatun Nafs modules, interview questions, and academic document analysis. All these instruments were prepared by the researcher and tested for validity and reliability before being administered to the selected study sample [sic, case?]."

Awang, 2022, p.42

Of course, it is important to test instruments for validity and reliability (or perhaps authenticity and trustworthiness when collecting qualitative data). But it is also important

• to tell the reader how you did this
• to report the outcomes

which seems to be missing (apart from in regard to part of the implemented module – see below). That is, the reader of a research study wants evidence not simply promises. Simply telling readers you did this is a bit like meeting a stranger who tells you that you can trust them because they (i.e., say that they) are honest.

Later the reader is told that

"Semi- structured interview questions will be [sic, not 'were'?] developed and validated for the purpose of identifying the causes and effects of hallucinations among these secondary school students…

…this interview process will be [sic, not 'was'] conducted continuously [sic!] with respondents to get a clear and specific picture of the problem of hallucinations and to find the best solution to overcome this disorder using Islamic medical approaches that have been planned in this study

Awang, 2022, pp.43-44

At the very least, this seems to confuse the plan for the research with a report of what was done. (But again, apparently, the reviewers and editorial staff did not think this needed addressing.) This is also confusing as it is not clear how this aspect of the study relates to the intervention. Were the interviews carried out before the intervention to help inform the design of the modules (presumably not as they had already been "tested for validity and reliability before being administered to the selected study sample"). Perhaps there are clear and simple answers to such questions – but the reader will not know because the reviewers and editor did not seem to feel they needed to be posed.

If "Interviews are the main research instrument in this study" (p.43), then one would expect to see examples of the interview schedules – but these are not presented. The paper reports a complex process for analysing interview data, but this is not reflected in the findings reported. The readers is told that the six stage process leads to the identifications and refinement of main and sub-categories. Yet, these categories are not reported in the paper. (But, again, peer reviewers and the editor did not apparently raise this as something to be corrected.) More generally "data  analysis  used  thematic  analysis  methods" (p.44), so why is there no analysis presented in terms of themes? The results of this analysis are simply not reported.

The reader is told that

"This  interview  method…aims to determine the respondents' perspectives, as well as look  at  the  respondents'  thoughts  on  their  views  on  the issues studied in this study."

Awang, 2022, p.44

But there is no discussion of participants perspectives and views in the findings of the study. ² Did the peer reviewers and editor not think this needed addressing before publication?

Even more significantly, in a qualitative study where interviews are supposedly the main research instrument, one would expect to see extracts from the interviews presented as part of the findings to support and exemplify claims being made: yet, there are none. (Did this not strike the peer reviewers and editor as odd: presumably they are familiar with the norms of qualitative research?)

The only quotation from the qualitative data (in this 'qualitative' study) I can find appears in the implications section of the paper:

"Are you aware of the importance of education to you? Realize. Is that lesson really important? Important. The success of the student depends on the lessons in school right or not? That's right"

Respondent 3: Awang, 2022, p.49

This seems a little bizarre, if we accept this is, as reported, an utterance from one of the students, Respondent 3. It becomes more sensible if this is actually condensed dialogue:

"Are you aware of the importance of education to you?"

"Realize."

"Is that lesson really important?"

"Important."

"The success of the student depends on the lessons in school right or not?"

"That's right"

It seems the peer review process did not lead to suggesting that the material should be formatted according to the norms for presenting dialogue in scholarly texts by indicating turns. In any case, if that is typical of the 'interview' technique used in the study then it is highly inadequate, as clearly the interviewer is leading the respondent, and this is more an example of indoctrination than open-ended enquiry.

Random sampling of data

Completely incongruous with the description of the purposeful selection of the participants for a case study is the account of how the assessment data was selected for analysis:

"The  process  of  analysis  of  student  achievement documents is carried out randomly by taking the results of current  examinations  that  have  passed  such  as the  initial examination of the current year or the year before which is closest  to  the  time  of  the  study."

Awang, 2022, p.44

Did the peer reviewers or editor not question the use of the term random here? It is unclear what is meant to by 'random' here, but clearly if the analysis was based on randomly selected data that would undermine the results.

Validating the soul purification module

There is also a conceptual problem here. The Takziyatun Nafs modules are the intervention materials (part of what is being studied) – so they cannot also be research instruments (used to study them). Surely, if the Takziyatun Nafs modules had been shown to be valid and reliable before carrying out the reported study, as suggested here, then the study would not be needed to evaluate their effectiveness. But, presumably, expert peer reviewers (if there really were any) did not see an issue here.

The reliability of the intervention module

The Takziyatun Nafs modules had three components, and the author reports the second of the three was subjected to tests of validity and reliability. It seems that Awang thinks that this demonstrates the validity and reliability of the complete intervention,

"The second part of this module will go through [sic] the process of obtaining the validity and reliability of the module. Proses [sic] to obtain this validity, a questionnaire was constructed to test the validity of this module. The appointed specialists are psychologists, modern physicians (psychiatrists), religious specialists, and alternative medicine specialists. The validity of the module is identified from the aspects of content, sessions, and activities of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module. While to obtain the value of the reliability coefficient, Cronbach's alpha coefficient method was used. To obtain this Cronbach's alpha coefficient, a pilot test was conducted on 50 students who were randomly selected to test the reliability of this module to be conducted."

Awang, 2022, pp.43-44

Now to unpack this, it may be helpful to briefly outline what the intervention involved (as as the paper is open access anyone can access and read the full details in the report).

The description does not start off very helpfully ("The introduction of the module will elaborate on the introduction, rationale, and objectives of this module introduced" (p.43) put me in mind of the Marx brothers: "The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part"), but some key points are,

"the Tazkiyatun Nafs module was constructed to purify the heart of each respondent leading to the healing of hallucinatory disorders. This liver purification process is done in stages…

"the process of cleansing the patient's soul will be done …all the subtle beings in the patient will be expelled and cleaned and the remnants of the subtle beings in the patient will be removed and washed…

The second process is the process of strengthening and the process of purification of the soul or heart of the patient …All the mazmumah (evil qualities) that are in the heart must be discarded…

The third process is the process of enrichment and the process of distillation of the heart and the practices performed. In this process, there will be an evaluation of the practices performed by the patient as well as the process to ensure that the patient is always clean from all the disturbances and disturbances [sic] of subtle beings to ensure that students will always be healthy and clean from such disturbances…

Awang, 2022, p.45, p.43

Quite how this process of exorcising and distilling and cleansing will occur is not entirely clear (and if the soul is equated with the heart, how is the liver involved?), but it seems to involve reflection and prayer and contemplation of scripture – certainly a very personal and therapeutic process.

And yet its validity and reliability was tested by giving a questionnaire to 50 students randomly selected (from the unspecified population, presumably)? No information is given on how a random section was made (Taber, 2013) – which allows a reader to be very sceptical that this actually was a random sample from the (un?)identified population, and not just an arbitrary sample of 50 students. (So, that is twice the word 'random' is used in the paper when it seems inappropriate.)

It hardly matters here, as clearly neither the validity nor the reliability of a spiritual therapy can be judged from a questionnaire (especially when administered to people who have never undertaken the therapy). In any case, the "reliability coefficient" obtained from an administration of a questionnaire ONLY applies to that sample on that occasion. So, the statistic could not apply to the four participants in the study. And, in any case, the result is not reported, so the reader has no idea what the value of Cronbach's alpha was (but then, this was described as a qualitative study!)

Moreover, Cronbach's alpha only indicates the internal coherence of the items on a scale (Taber, 2019): so, it only indicates whether the set of questions included in the questionnaire seem to be accessing the same underlying construct in motivating the responses of those surveyed across the set of items. It gives no information about the reliability of the instrument (i.e., whether it would give the same results on another occasion).

This approach to testing validity and reliability is then completely inappropriate and unhelpful. So, even if the outcomes of the testing had been reported (and they are not) they would not offer any relevant evidence. Yet it seems that peer reviewers and editor did not think to question why this section was included in the paper.

Ethical issues

A study of this kind raises ethical issues. It may well be that the research was carried out in an entirely proper and ethical manner, but it is usual in studies with human participants ('human subjects') to make this clear in the published report (Taber, 2014b). A standard issue is whether the participants gave voluntary, informed, consent. This would mean that they were given sufficient information about the study at the outset to be able to decide if they wished to participate, and were under no undue pressure to do so. The 'respondents' were school students: if they were considered minors in the research context (and oddly for a 'case study' such basic details as age and gender are not reported) then parental permission would also be needed, again subject to sufficient briefing and no duress.

However, in this specific research there are also further issues due to the nature of the study. The participants were subject to medical disorders, so how did the researcher obtain information about, and access to, the students without medical confidentiality being broken? Who were the 'gatekeepers' who provided access to the children and their personal data? The researcher also obtained assessment data "from  the  class  teacher  or  from  the  Student Affairs section of the student's school" (p.44), so it is important to know that students (and parents/guardians) consented to this. Again, peer review does not seem to have identified this as an issue to address before publication.

There is also the major underlying question about the ethics of a study when recognising that these students were (or could be, as details are not provided) suffering from serious medical conditions, but employing religious education as a treatment ("This method of treatment is to help respondents who suffer from hallucinations caused by demons or subtle beings", p.44). Part of the theoretical framework underpinning the study is the assumption that what is being addressed is"the problem of hallucinations caused by the presence of ethereal beings…" (p.43) yet it is also acknowledged that,

"Hallucinatory disorders in learning that will be emphasized in this study are due to several problems that have been identified in several schools in Malaysia. Such disorders are psychological, environmental, cultural, and sociological disorders. Psychological disorders such as hallucinatory disorders can lead to a more critical effect of bringing a person prone to Schizophrenia. Psychological disorders such as emotional disorders and psychiatric disorders. …Among the causes of emotional disorders among students are the school environment, events in the family, family influence, peer influence, teacher actions, and others."

Awang, 2022, p.41

There seem to be three ways of understanding this apparent discrepancy, which I might gloss:

1. there are many causes of conditions that involve hallucinations, including, but not only, possession by evil or mischievousness spirits;
2. the conditions that lead to young people having hallucinations may be understood at two complementary levels, at a spiritual level in terms of a need for inner cleansing and exorcising of subtle beings, and in terms of organic disease or conditions triggered by, for example, social and psychological factors;
3. in the introduction the author has relied on various academic sources to discuss the nature of the phenomenon of students having hallucinations, but he actually has a working assumption that is completely different: hallucinations are due to the presence of jinn or other spirits.

I do not think it is clear which of these positions is being taken by the study's author.

1. In the first case it would be necessary to identify which causes are present in potential respondents and only recruit those suffering possession for this study (which does not seem to have been done);
2. In the second case, spiritual treatment would need to complement medical intervention (which would completely undermine the validity of the study as medical treatments for the underlying causes of hallucinations are likely to be the cause of hallucinations ceasing, not the tested intervention);
3. The third position is clearly problematic in terms of academic scholarship as it is either completely incompetent or deliberately disregards academic norms that require the design of a study to reflect the conceptual framework set out to motivate it.

So, was this tested intervention implemented instead of or alongside formal medical intervention?

• If it was alongside medical treatment, then that raises a major confound for the study.
• Yet it would clearly be unacceptable to deny sufferers indicated medical treatment in order to test an educational intervention that is in effect a form of exorcism.

Again, it may be there are simple and adequate responses to these questions (although here I really cannot see what they might be), but unfortunately it seems the journal referees and editor did not think to ask for them.  

Findings

The key findings presented concern academic performance at school. Core results are presented in tables I and II. Unfortunately these tables are not consistent as they report contradictory results for the academic performance of students before and during periods when they had hallucinations.

They can be made consistent if the reader assumes that two of the columns in table II are mislabelled. If the reader assumes that the column labelled 'before disruption' actually reports the performance 'during disruption' and that the column actually labelled 'during disruption' is something else, then they become consistent. For the results to tell a coherent story and agree with the author's interpretation this 'something else' presumably should be 'after disruption'.

This is a very unfortunate error – and moreover one that is obvious to any careful reader. (So, why was it not obvious to the referees and editor?)

As well as looking at these overall scores, other assessment data is presented separately for each of respondent 1 – respondent 4. Theses sections comprise presentations of information about grades and class positions, mixed with claims about the effects of the intervention. These claims are not based on any evidence and in many cases are conclusions about 'respondents' in general although they are placed in sections considering the academic assessment data of individual respondents. So,there are a number of problems with these claims:

• they are of the nature of conclusions, but appear in the section presenting the findings;
• they are about the specific effects of the intervention that the author assumes has influenced academic performance, not the data analysed in these sections;
• they are completely unsubstantiated as no data or analysis is offered to support them;
• often they make claims about 'respondents' in general, although as part of the consideration of data from individual learners.

Despite this, the paper passed peer-review and editorial scrutiny.

Rhetorical research?

This paper seems to be an example of a kind of 'rhetorical research' where a researcher is so convinced about their pre-existant theoretical commitments that they simply assume they have demonstrated them. Here the assumption seem to be:

1. Recovering from suffering hallucinations will increase student performance
2. Hallucinations are caused by jinn and devils
3. A spiritual intervention will expel jinn and devils
4. So, a spiritual intervention will cure hallucinations
5. So, a spiritual intervention will increase student performance

The researcher provided a spiritual intervention, and the student performance increased, so it is assumed that the scheme is demonstrated. The data presented is certainly consistent with the assumption, but does not in itself support this scheme without evidence. Awang provides evidence that student performance improved in four individuals after they had received the intervention – but there is no evidence offered to demonstrate the assumed mechanism.

A gardener might think that complimenting seedlings will cause them to grow. Perhaps she praises her seedlings every day, and they do indeed grow. Are we persuaded about the efficacy of her method, or might we suspect another cause at work? Would the peer-reveiewers and editor of the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy be persuaded this demonstrated that compliments cause plant growth? On the evidence of this paper, perhaps they would.

This is what Awang tells readers about the analysis undertaken:

Each student  respondent  involved  in  this  study  [sic, presumably not, rather the researcher] will  use  the analysis  of  the  respondent's  performance  to  determine the effect of hallucination disorders on student achievement in secondary school is accurate.

The elements compared in this analysis are as follows: a) difference in mean percentage of achievement by subject, b) difference in grade achievement by subject and c) difference in the grade of overall student achievement. All academic results of the respondents will be analyzed as well as get the mean of the difference between the  performance  before, during, and after the  respondents experience  hallucinations. 

These  results  will  be  used  as research material to determine the accuracy of the use of the Tazkiyatun  Nafs  Module  in  solving  the  problem  of hallucinations   in   school   and   can   improve   student achievement in academic school."

Awang, 2022, p.45

There is clearly a large jump between the analysis outlined in the second paragraph here, and testing the study hypotheses as set out in the final paragraph. But the author does not seem to notice this (and more worryingly, nor do the journal's reviewers and editor).

So interleaved into the account of findings discussing "mean percentage of achievement by subject…difference in grade achievement by subject…difference in the grade of overall student achievement" are totally unsupported claims. Here is an example for Respondent 1:

"Based on the findings of the respondent's achievement in the  grade  for  Respondent  1  while  facing  the  problem  of hallucinations  shows  that  there  is  not  much  decrease  or deterioration  of  the  respondent's  grade.  There  were  only  4 subjects who experienced a decline in grade between before and  during  hallucination  disorder.  The  subjects  that experienced  decline  were  English,  Geography,  CBC, and Civics.  Yet  there  is  one  subject  that  shows  a  very  critical grade change the Civics subject. The decline occurred from grade A to grade E. This shows that Civics education needs to be given serious attention in overcoming this problem of decline. Subjects experiencing this grade drop were subjects involving  emotion,  language,  as  well  as  psychomotor fitness.  In  the  context  of  psychology,  unstable  emotional development  leads  to  a  decline  in the psychomotor  and emotional development of respondents.

After  the  use  of  the  Tazkiyatun  Nafs  module  in overcoming  this  problem,  hallucinatory  disorders  can  be overcome.  This  situation  indicates  the  development  of  the respondents  during  and  after  experiencing  hallucinations after  practicing  the  Tazkiyatun  Nafs  module.  The  process that takes place in the Tzkiyatun Nafs module can help the respondent  to  stabilize  his  emotions  and  psyche  for  the better. From the above findings there were 5 subjects who experienced excellent improvement in grades. The increase occurred in English, Malay, Geography, and Civics subjects. The best improvement is in the subject of Civic education from grade E to grade B. The improvement in this language subject  shows  that  the  respondents'  emotions  have stabilized.  This  situation  is  very  positive  and  needs  to  be continued for other subjects so that respondents continue to excel in academic achievement in school.""

Awang, 2022, p.45 (emphasis added)

The material which I show here as underlined is interjected completely gratuitously. It does not logically fit in the sequence. It is not part of the analysis of school performance. It is not based on any evidence presented in this section. Indeed, nor is it based on any evidence presented anywhere else in the paper!

This pattern is repeated in discussing other aspects of respondents' school performance. Although there is mention of other factors which seem especially pertinent to the dip in school grades ("this was due to the absence of the  respondents  to  school  during  the  day  the  test  was conducted", p.46; "it was an increase from before with no marks due to non-attendance at school", p.46) the discussion of grades is interspersed with (repetitive) claims about the effects of the intervention for which no evidence is offered.

Awang summarises what he claims the analysis of 'differences in respondents' grade achievement by subject' shows:

"The use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module in this study helped the students improve their respective achievement grades. Therefore, this soul purification module should be practiced by every student to help them in stabilizing their soul and emotions and stay away from all the disturbances of the subtle beings that lead to hallucinations"

Awang, 2022, p.46

And, on the next page, Awang summarises what he claims the analysis of 'differences in respondent grades according to overall academic achievement' shows:

"The use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module in this study helped the students improve their respective overall academic achievement. Therefore, this soul purification module should be practiced by every student to help them in stabilizing the soul and emotions as well as to stay away from all the disturbances of the subtle beings that lead to hallucination disorder."

Awang, 2022, p.47

So, the analysis of grades is said to demonstrate the value of the intervention, and indeed Awang considers this is reason to extend the intervention beyond the four participants, not just to others suffering hallucinations, but to "every student". The peer review process seems not to have raised queries about

• the unsupported claims,
• the confusion of recommendations with findings (it is normal to keep to results in a findings section), nor
• the unwarranted generalisation from four hallucination suffers to all students whether healthy or not.

Interpreting the results

There seem to be two stories that can be told about the results:

Now narrative 1 relies on a very substantial implied assumption – which is that the numbers presented as school performance are comparable over time. So, a control would be useful: such as what happened to the performance scores of other students in the same classes over the same time period. It seems likely they would not have shown the same dip – unless the dip was related to something other than hallucinations – such as the well-recognised dip after long school holidays, or some cultural distraction (a major sports tournament; fasting during Ramadan; political unrest; a pandemic…). Without such a control the evidence is suggestive (after all, being ill, and missing school as a result, is likely to lead to a dip in school performance, so the findings are not surprising), but inconclusive.

Intriguingly, the author tells readers that "student  achievement  statistics  from  the  beginning  of  the year to the middle of the current [sic, published in 2022] year in secondary schools in Northern Peninsular Malaysia that have been surveyed by researchers show a decline (Sabri, 2015 [sic])" (p.42), but this is not considered in relation to the findings of the study.

Clearly narrative 2 suffers from the same limitation as narrative 1. However, it also demands an extra step in making an inference. I could re-write this narrative:

That is, even if we accept narrative 1 as likely, to accept narrative 2 we would also need to be convinced that:

• a) sufferers from medical conditions leading to hallucinations do not suffer periodic attacks with periods of remission in between; or
• b) episodes of hallucinations cannot be due to one-off events (emotional trauma, T.I.A. {transient ischaemic attack or mini-strokes},…) that resolve naturally in time; or
• c) sufferers from medical conditions leading to hallucinations do not find they resolve due to maturation; or
• d) the four participants in this study did not undertaken any change in life-style (getting more sleep, ceasing eating strange fungi found in the woods) unrelated to the intervention that might have influenced the onset of hallucinations; or
• e) the four participants in this study did not receive any medical treatment independent of the intervention (e.g., prescribed medication to treat migraine episodes) that might have influenced the onset of hallucinations

Despite this study being supposedly a case study (where the expectation is there should be 'thick description' of the case and its context), there is no information to help us exclude such options. We do not know the medical diagnoses of the conditions causing the participants' hallucinations, or anything about their lives or any medical treatment that may have been administered. Without such information, the analysis that is provided is useless for answering the research question.

In effect, regardless of all the other issues raised, the key problem is that the research design is simply inadequate to test the research question. But it seems the referees and editor did not notice this shortcoming.

Alleged implications of the research

After presenting his results Awang draws various implications, and makes a number of claims about what had been found in the study:

• "After the students went through the treatment session by using the Tazkiayatun Nafsmodule to treat hallucinations, it showed a positive effect on the student respondents. All this was certified by the expert, the student's parents as well as the  counselor's  teacher." (p.48)
• "Based on these findings, shows that hallucinations are very disturbing to humans and the appropriate method for now to solve this problem is to use the Tazkiyatun Nafs Module." (p.48)
• "…the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module while the  respondent  is  suffering  from  hallucination  disorder  is very  appropriate…is very helpful to the respondents in restoring their minds and psyche to be calmer and healthier. These changes allow  students  to  focus  on  their  studies  as  well  as  allow them to improve their academic performance better." (p.48)
• "The use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs Module in this study has led to very positive changes there are attitudes and traits of students  who  face  hallucinations  before.  All  the  negative traits  like  irritability, loneliness,  depression,etc.  can  be overcome  completely." (p.49)
• "The personality development of students is getting better and perfect with the implementation of the Tazkiaytun Nafs module in their lives." (p.49)
• "Results  indicate that  students  who  suffer  from  this hallucination  disorder are in  a  state  of  high  depression, inactivity, fatigue, weakness and pain,and insufficient sleep." (p.49)
• "According  to  the  findings  of  this study,  the  history  of  this  hallucination  disorder  started in primary  school  and  when  a  person  is  in  adolescence,  then this  disorder  becomes  stronger  and  can  cause  various diseases  and  have  various  effects  on  a  person who  is disturbed." (p.50)

Given the range of interview data that Awang claims to have collected and analysed, at least some of the claims here are possibly supported by the data. However, none of this data and analysis is available to the reader. ² These claims are not supported by any evidence presented in the paper. Yet peer reviewers and the editor who read the manuscript seem to feel it is entirely acceptable to publish such claims in a research paper, and not present any evidence whatsoever.

Summing up

In summary: as far as these four students were concerned (but not perhaps the fifth participant?), there did seem to be a relationship between periods of experiencing hallucinations and lower school performance (perhaps explained by such factors as "absenteeism to school during the day the test was conducted" p.46) ,

"the performance shown by students who face chronic hallucinations is also declining and  declining.  This  is  all  due  to  the  actions  of  students leaving the teacher's learning and teaching sessions as well as  not  attending  school  when  this  hallucinatory  disorder strikes.  This  illness or  disorder  comes  to  the  student suddenly  and  periodically.  Each  time  this  hallucination  disease strikes the student causes the student to have to take school  holidays  for  a  few  days  due  to  pain  or  depression"

Awang, 2022, p.42

However,

• these four students do not represent any wider population;
• there is no information about the specific nature, frequency, intensity, etcetera, of the hallucinations or diagnoses in these individuals;
• there was no statistical test of significance of changes; and
• there was no control condition to see if performance dips were experienced by others not experiencing hallucinations at the same time.

Once they had recovered from the hallucinations (and it is not clear on what basis that judgement was made) their scores improved.

The author would like us to believe that the relief from the hallucinations was due to the intervention, but this seems to be (quite literally) an act of faith ³ as no actual research evidence is offered to show that the soul purification module actually had any effect. It is of course possible the module did have an effect (whether for the conjectured or other reasons – such as simply offering troubled children some extra study time in a calm and safe environment and special attention – or because of an expectancy effect if the students were told by trusted authority figures that the intervention would lead to the purification of their hearts and the healing of their hallucinatory disorder) but the study, as reported, offers no strong grounds to assume it did have such an effect.

An irresponsible journal

As hallucinations are often symptoms of organic disease affecting blood supply to the brain, there is a major question of whether treating the condition by religious instruction is ethically sound. For example, hallucinations may indicate a tumour growing in the brain. Yet, if the module was only a complement to proper medical attention, a reader may prefer to suspect that any improvement in the condition (and consequent increased engagement in academic work) may have been entirely unrelated to the module being evaluated.

Indeed, a published research study that claims that soul purification is a suitable treatment for medical conditions presenting with hallucinations is potentially dangerous as it could lead to serious organic disease going untreated. If Awang's recommendations were widely taken up in Malaysia such that students with serious organic conditions were only treated for their hallucinations by soul purification rather than with medication or by surgery it would likely lead to preventable deaths. For a research journal to publish a paper with such a conclusion, where any qualified reviewer or editor could easily see the conclusion is not warranted, is irresponsible.

As the journal website points out,

So, why did the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy not subject this submission to meaningful review to help the author of this study meet the standards of the discipline, and of science in general?

Work cited:

• Awang, S. B. (2022). Hallucination Disorders: The Effects of Using the Tazkiyatun Nafs Module on the Academic Achievement of Students with Hallucinations. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 41-51.
• Taber, K. S. (2013). Non-random thoughts about research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 359-362. doi: 10.1039/c3rp90009f. [Free access]
• Taber, K. S. (2014). Methodological issues in science education research: a perspective from the philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 1839-1893): Springer Netherlands.) (Download the author's manuscript version of the chapter.)
• Taber, K. S. (2014b). Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving "human subjects". Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 109-113. [Free access]
• Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach's Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 [Open access]

Notes:

¹ In mature fields in the natural sciences there are recognised traditions ('paradigms', 'disciplinary matrices') in any active field at any time. In general (and of course, there will be exceptions):

• at any historical time, there is a common theoretical perspective underpinning work in a research programme, aligned with specific ontological and epistemological commitments;
• at any historical time, there is a strong alignment between the active theories in a research programme and the acceptable instrumentation, methodology and analytical conventions.

Put more succinctly, in a mature research field, there is generally broad agreement on how a phenomenon is to be understood; and how to go about investigating it, and how to interpret data as research evidence.

This is generally not the case in educational research – which is in part at least due to the complexity and, so, multi-layered nature, of the phenomena studied (Taber, 2014a): phenomena such as classroom teaching. So, in reviewing educational papers, it is sometimes necessary to find different experts to look at the theoretical and the methodological aspects of the same submission.

² The paper is very strange in that the introductory sections and the conclusions and implications sections have a very broad scope, but the actual research results are restricted to a very limited focus: analysis of school test scores and grades.

It is as if as (and could well be that) a dissertation with a number of evidential strands has been reduced to a paper drawing upon only one aspect of the research evidence, but with material from other sections of the dissertation being unchanged from the original broader study.

³ Readers are told that

"All  these  acts depend on the sincerity of the medical researcher or fortune-teller seeking the help of Allah S.W.T to ensure that these methods and means are successful. All success is obtained by the permission of Allah alone"

Awang, 2022, p.43