通过深入的分析可以看出，文章的摘要传达了一个简短的总结整个研究非常精确和可理解的方式，使它很容易让读者了解第一眼所提供的信息由作者。同样在他的介绍部分，无论是在抽象的规定提出详细更多的解释和澄清，但作者并没有定义和解释行动学习，而有些读者可能面临全面理解概念的困难，他们可能乍一看失去兴趣。此外，研究的主要目的是模糊的，因为作者没有澄清，什么是主要的主题进行研究的重点，它将带来什么好处，学术界和读者。 此外，笔者使用了相关的二次数据有关的主题，但在非常有限的基础上，因为他只使用了一些源于以前的研究由其他学者进行的行动学习的主题。同样，他没有澄清的主要数据已经收集，我们不能确定哪些研究方法已被用于研究人员收集信息，而他的研究。此外，尽管作者没有单独提到他的研究的目的和目的，但从他的研究主题，他们可以很容易地识别。 同样，目前的研究表明，作者使用了，小学和中学的研究方法。他通过适当的引用证明了二次数据的正确性，但目前尚不清楚他是如何进行初级研究的，也没有证据证明和证明他研究中所使用的主要数据。此外，他的研究并没有明确表明他是否用定性或定量的研究方法和模式已经应用在他的调查，即调查问卷或访谈，那是否这样的原始数据被收集或使用在线服务，他遵循了传统手段。
By making an in-depth analysis it can be seen that the abstract of the article conveys a brief summary of the whole study in very precise and understandable manners and has made it very easy for the readers to understand at first glance the information provided by the author. Similarly in his introductory part whatever is stated in the abstract is presented in detail with more explanations and clarifications, but the author did not define and explain the term action learning, due to which some readers might face difficulties in fully understanding the concept and they might lose their interest at first glance. Moreover the main purpose of the research is ambiguous, as the author did not clarify that what is the main point of conducting research on the subject matter and that what benefits it will bring to the academia and the readers. Furthermore the author has used relevant secondary data relating to the subject matter but on very limited bases, as he has used only a few sources from previous studies conducted by other scholars on the subject of Action Learning. Likewise he did not clarify about primary data that has been gathered and we can not identify which research methods has been used by the researcher while gathering information for his research. Furthermore even though the author did not mention the aims and objectives of his research separately but from the theme of his study they can be easily identified. Similarly the current study shows that the author has used both, primary and secondary research methods. He has justified the use of secondary data by proper referencing but it is not clear that how he has conducted primary research and there is no evidence to prove and justify the primary data used in his study. Furthermore his research does not clearly indicate that whether he has used qualitative or quantitative research method and that what mode has been applied in his survey i.e. whether questionnaires were distributed or interviews were conducted, and that whether such primary data was collected by using online services or that he has followed traditional means.