The Process to Write a Doctoral Lit Review 2017 part two
•
4 likes•371 views
This document provides an agenda for a session on organizing a literature review for a post-graduate education. It discusses general outlines and pathways for structuring a literature review, including introducing relevant background information and theories, critically analyzing prior research, and identifying gaps to be addressed by one's own study. The document also provides tips for writing each chapter, such as introducing the problem statement in Chapter 1, critically analyzing the literature in Chapter 2, and outlining the research methodology in Chapter 3. Discussion questions are posed to help participants think about how to develop a strong literature review.
Report
Share
The Process to Write a Doctoral Lit Review 2017 part two
- 1. Exploiting Rapid Change in Technology Enhanced Learning … for Post Graduate Education Organize Your Literature Review: Part Two 2017
- 3. Agenda 1. Homework from last session 2. Quick overview of where this chapter fits in the logic 3. General outlines of pathways that work 4. Steps to consider in planning and writing 5. Quick analysis of award winners – possible exercise 6. What makes great reviews? 7. What makes poor ones? 8. Discussion questions to ponder 9. What’s coming up from your university and DN?
- 4. 1. Watch any 3 minute thesis –and record what literature was needed to back this up 3MT – 3 minute thesis…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_dj-AtvR7U 2. Start building your spreadsheet. That will set you up for next week for when we move into organization and writing your lit up. Homework from Last Week…
- 5. Chapter One Introduction or Overview Background Theoretical &/or Conceptual Framework Problem Statement Purpose of the Study Research Question Research Design Structure Said Another Way… What should be studied (Problem statement) The theoretical framework What is expected to achieve (Purpose) What to answer or test (Research question, hypothesis, or objective) How answers will be looked for and tests done (Research design)
- 6. Chapter Two To discuss the literature in your field so that it presents a CRITICAL, organized, articulated, and supported view of: 1. the current knowledge about the research topic and problem, 2. the variables involved, 3. the different explanations already provided, 4. your own position, 5. the gaps that still exist, and 6. how your study addresses them. Purpose for writing the review of literature
- 7. Chapter Two An introduction The body of the discussion Discussion of all the themes Explanation of where the research questions/ objectives/ hypotheses come from. Links your own study Any theoretical elements needed Structure for a critical analysis of what has come before
- 8. Chapter Two This chapter is perilous – it is the reason people don’t pass defense of proposal in the US. You need to critically know and analyze your field You need to structure your argument & then the lit that backs it up Perform critical analysis in all sections of the literature review chapter(s). Remember that you are expected to show deep understanding of the elements discussed and that implies being able to support and contradict points of view (including findings of research) with solid arguments and evidence. Hints
- 10. Chapter Three Provide information: 1. Related to how the study is conducted 2. Needed to evaluate how valid the study is 3. Necessary to replicate the study Purpose
- 11. Chapter Three Think of it as a set of instructions or user guide • Introduction: • Population & Sample: • Research Design: • Data Collection: • Data Analysis: • Instruments: • Limitations and Assumptions: • Summary: Structure
- 12. Chapter Two again Hints 1. Analyze your models 2. Set up your headings 3. Analyze an award winner 4. Then write employing these principles • Decide ahead of time how you will lead your reader through your material • Be clear in your use of headings/paragraphs and points to be made • Watch out for the killer problem – redundancy!
- 13. Pathways for Critical Analysis ANALYZE OTHERS, DECIDE ON A PATHWAY THROUGH THE LIT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS, THEN WRITE!
- 14. ORGANIZATION Pathway.1: LET YOUR READER FOLLOW YOUR IDEAS DOWN THE FUNNEL Context and background The general ideas that lead to your study What previous research has been done Gaps To Be Filled By Your Study
- 15. ORGANIZATION Pathway.2: Set up an argument You are claiming that your methodology is the right one and that your study will address the problem in the context you are writing about… Your evidence is 1. Prior studies agree this problem… 2. Can be studied this way 3. Or have shown a gap and recommended someone study it in this way 4. Or that others have done this in other circumstances Therefore… Your warrant is that … 1. Because the things are true in #2 and have been demonstrated it is not that big a jump to see that your study done in the way you are proposing (or in the way you did it) is convincing.
- 16. ORGANIZATION.2: Lay out the logic of your path Analyze the holes or weak spots and plot how you will fill them
- 17. ORGANIZATION Pathway.4: Critical Idea – use smart art and diagram your lit review Positions your studies logic as a development from the past • Your study• Your Idea • What others did • What others thought Their results Outcomes to this point How it develops the field Outcomes unknown
- 18. ORGANIZATION Pathway.4: Chronological Not all that useful in most fields for phd work – not “critical” enough
- 19. Chapter Two Pathways - Overview Steps as you design and write … 1. Analyze your models 2. Set up your headings 3. Analyze an award winner 4. Then write employing these principles • Decide ahead of time how you will lead your reader through your material • Be clear in your use of headings/paragraphs and points to be made • Watch out for the killer problem – redundancy!
- 20. Examples – Primarily Qualitative Mixed Methods • Topic: restructuring schools to prepare students for the future • Problem: Public schools have been shown not to adequately develop the skills needed for 21st century employment • Theoretical base: constructivism, pragmatism, positivism, systems theory • RQ: To what extent do former students of K-12 public schools believe that their education did not meet their individual needs nor prepare them with the skills needed to be successful in a 21st century ? • Mixed methods case study – interviews and survey data.
- 21. What takes a good review to become a great one? 1. New or innovative interpretations or ideas clearly developed through solid critical analysis 2. A provocative discussion of places where authors in the field disagree 3. Discussion of little known literature that clearly bears on this thesis.
- 22. Examples- Primarily Quantitative Mixed Methods • An exploration into the bearing of language deficits on math scores • Problem statement – an exploration is needed into the amount to which language deficits remain an influence in low math scores • Positivism, postpositivism • 1: Does language acquisition and reading comprehension affect mathematical processing skills on high-stakes, state- mandated testing? • 2: Could students, who did not previously show mathematic mastery, display content mastery if the test vernacular was at their comprehension level? • 3: What effect does direct testing vernacular instruction have on student perception of the question? To what extent do students show content mastery after direct intervention? • 4: Is teaching mathematics about teaching state test terminology? Should this be the teaching strategy for every single indicator? Do content specific educators have a dual role of teaching to the test and teaching content? Chapter 2: Lit Review • Introduction • Methodology and Theory Based Research – Applicability – The Debate...... • Panorama of Historical and Current Research Studies – Math Scores and Reading Skills – Math and Reading Skills of Students With Math Disabilities – Math and reading skills of students with reading disabilities or ELL students ... – Phonological Short-Term Memory, Language Acquisition and Numeration ...... – Ideology Behind Study • Gaps In Literature and Research • Summary...
- 23. What takes a great review to become a disappointing one? 1. Writing only states the obvious 2. Lit doesn’t back up or have relationship to the methodology 3. Writing falls into patterns = Author(year) states…. = little or no synthesis of ideas across authors, timeframes, parts of the world etc. 4. Little or no discussion of ideas that fall out of the clear path towards the obvious goals – no surprises, no places where the reader is required to think.
- 24. Discussion questions…. 1. Should methodology and/or theoretical readings be in the lit review? Answer it depends….. 2. How long should a review be? 3. Should you include history? Or the development of your topic area? 4. What is the boldest move you have ever seen in a lit review?
- 25. What’s Up at DoctoralNet? 1. Please take our survey about doctoral experience: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/socialization4graduatestudents 2. A full range of webinars in 2017 + groups for writing and one for lingering. Critical writing/analysis and getting published coming up in Feb & March 3. Hundreds of #doctoralstudents have already gone through the 30 day writing challenge - is this the month YOU should consider just 15-30 minutes a day? http://www.doctoralnet.com/resources/phd-coaching-doctoral-coaching/30- day-writing-challenge/48-jinbound-landing-pages/30-doctoral-writing- challenge.html 4. Also a NEW 30 day challenge on improving your work life balance: http://www.doctoralnet.com/resources/30-day-challenge-4-work-life-balance.html 5. Friday this week – Independence – will it make your or break you?