EDUC 850 03/04 Literature Review: Outline Assignment Instructions Overview A formal literature review should be approached strategically to ensure a high-quality review of the current literature that
Criteria Ratings Points Title Page 10 to >9.0 pts Advanced Includes all required information. 9 to >7.0 pts Proficient Includes most required information. 7 to >0.0 pts Developing Contains some of the required information. 0 pts Not Present 10 pts Content 70 to >63.0 pts Advanced All headings are logical and related to the research topic. The heading topics flow smoothly from one subject to the next. Citation choices are appropriate. 63 to >58.0 pts Proficient Most headings are logical and related to the research topic. The heading topics mostly flow smoothly from one subject to the next. Citation choices are mostly appropriate. 58 to >0.0 pts Developing Some headings are logical and related to the research topic. Some heading topic10s flow smoothly from one subject to the next. Some citation choices are appropriate. 0 pts Not Present 70 pts Format, Grammar, Spelling, Length 20 to >17.0 pts Advanced There are zero to three APA format errors. There are no grammar/spelling errors. The paper is 3-5 pages. 17 to >16.0 pts Proficient There are four to six APA format errors. There are few grammar/spelling errors. The paper is 3-5 pages. 16 to >0.0 pts Developing There are more than six APA format errors. There are several grammar/spelling errors. The paper is less than 3 pages. 0 pts Not Present 20 pts Total Points: 100 Literature Review: Outline Grading Rubric | EDUC850_B09_202220
EDUC 850 03/04 Literature Review: Outline Assignment Instructions Overview A formal literature review should be approached strategically to ensure a high-quality review of the current literature that
IMPROVING STUDENT TEST SCORES Recommendations for Improving Students Test Scores on the Ohio Educational Assessment for Science at Hampton High School Liberty Student School of Education, Liberty University In partial fulfillment of EDUC 850 Literature Review Overview Narrative Review Standardized Testing (Gallagher, 2003) Characteristics of Standardized Tests (Christensen, 2018; Frey, 2018) Ohio Educational Assessment for Science (ODOE, 2018c) Strategies to Improve Standardized Test Scores (Education World, 2019) Analyzing test data (National Association of Elementary School Principals, n.d.) Parental involvement (Garcia & Thornton, 2014) Bubble students (Cole, 2008) Monitoring progress (Herman, Osmundson, & Dietel, 2010) Instructional practices (Case & Zucker, 2015) Student Motivation (ODOE, 2018c) Teacher Effectiveness (Stronge, 2018; DeMonte, 2015) Teacher credentials (USDOE, 2018) Professional development (Fischer et al., 2018) New teachers (Frey, 2018) Class and school size (Thijs & Fleischmann, 2015) Teacher attendance (Okeke et al., 2015) Substitute teacher qualifications (Davies, 2019) Instructional Resources (Koedel & Polikoff, 2017) Summary References Case, B., & Zucker, S. (2005). Horizontal and vertical alignment [Policy Report]. Pearson. https://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/HorizontalVerticalAlignment.pdf?WT.mc_id=TMRS_Horizontal_and_Vertical_Alignment Christensen, V. (2018).  What makes a test standardized?  The Classroom. https://www.theclassroom.com/test-standardized-6680561.html Cole, R. W. (2008). Educating everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/107003/chapters/Educating-Everybody%[email protected]%E2%80%94And-What-Doesn%27t.aspx Davies, R. (2019). 5 reasons your students misbehave for a substitute & how to prevent it. Differentiated TEACHING. https://www.thethirdwheelteacher.com/why-students-misbehave-for-the-substitute/ DeMonte, J. (2015). A million new teachers are coming: Will they be ready to teach? American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Million-New-Teachers-Brief-deMonte-May-2015.pdf Education World. (2019). Boosting test scores: Principal strategies that work. https://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin366.shtml Fischer, C., Fishman, B., Dede, C., Eisenkraft, A., Frumin, K., Foster, B., & McCoy, A. (2018). Investigating relationships between school context, teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a nationwide reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.011 Frey, B. B. (Ed). (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n340 Gallagher, C. J. (2003). Reconciling a tradition of testing with a new paradigm. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021323509290 Garcia, L. E., & Thornton, O. (2014, November 18). The enduring importance of parental involvement. NEA Today. http://neatoday.org/2014/11/18/the-enduring-importance-of-parental-involvement-2/ Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., & Dietel, R. (2010). Benchmark assessment for improved learning (AACC Report). University of California. National Association of Elementary School Principles. (n.d.). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. http://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/Student_Data_0.pdf Ohio Department of Education. (2018c). Ohio comprehensive assessment system (MECAS). https://www.Ohio.gov/doe/Testing_Accountability/MECAS Okeke, C. I. O., Shumba, J., Rembe, S., & Sotuku, N. (2015). Demographic variables, work-stimulated stressors and coping strategies of pre-school educators: A concept paper. Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 91–101. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. Thijs, J., & Fleischmann, F. (2015). Student-teacher relationships and achievement goal orientations: Examining student perceptions in an ethnically diverse sample. Elsevier, 42, 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.014 U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2018). Alternative routes to teacher licensure. Author.
EDUC 850 03/04 Literature Review: Outline Assignment Instructions Overview A formal literature review should be approached strategically to ensure a high-quality review of the current literature that
EDUC 850 Literature Review: Outline Assignment Instructions Overview A formal literature review should be approached strategically to ensure a high-quality review of the current literature that includes an analysis and synthesis of known research, knowledge, and thinking that precedes the proposed research. This assignment should serve as a guide for the candidate as the process of a formal literature review begins. Instructions For this assignment, you will use the information from the textbook readings throughout the course to write a first draft of an outline for your proposed capstone project literature review. This is a 4–6-page paper. The first page should be a correctly APA formatted title page that includes the title of your study written as a recommendation. The second, and possibly third pages of the paper should be the outline. It should include level one, two and three headings. See the example to ensure compliance. The last page must be the Reference page(s).
EDUC 850 03/04 Literature Review: Outline Assignment Instructions Overview A formal literature review should be approached strategically to ensure a high-quality review of the current literature that
Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research: A Commentary on Boote and Beile’s “Scholars before Researchers” Author(s): Joseph A. Maxwell Source: Educational Researcher , Dec., 2006 , Vol. 35, No. 9 (Dec., 2006), pp. 28-31 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4124800 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4124800?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Researcher This content downloaded from 208.95.48.49 on Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:22:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research: A Commentary on Boote and Beile’s “Scholars Before Researchers” by Joseph A. Maxwell n their article “Scholars Before Researchers: On the Central- ity of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Prepa- ration” (Educational Researcher, August/September 2005yf , David N. Boote and Penny Beile argue that the literature review is the fundamental task of dissertation and research preparation. They claim that doctoral students receive minimal formal train- ing, and little guidance from faculty or published sources, in how to analyze and synthesize research literature (p. 5yf $ V D U H V X O W , they argue, most dissertation literature reviews are poorly con- ceptualized and written (p. 4yf D Q G ‘ R F W R U D O V W X G H Q W V P D Q R t be learning what it means to make and justify educational claims” (p. 9yf 7 K H F R Q F O X G H W K D W / L W H U D W X U H U H Y L H Z L Q J V K R X O d be a central focus of predissertation coursework, integrated throughout the program” (p. 12yf . Many of Boote and Beile’s claims are consistent with my ex- perience in teaching and advising doctoral students, and the authors perform a valuable service in raising important, and often neglected, issues that bear on conducting a literature review for a doctoral dissertation in education. I agree with their assessment of the majority of dissertation literature reviews, and with their emphasis on the importance of learning to identify, analyze, and integrate research literature competently. In my view, however, the authors’ conception of a proper dissertation literature review undercuts the value of their in- sights. They repeatedly use the terms “thorough” and “com- prehensive” to describe the type of dissertation literature review they recommend, and although they criticize the idea, held by many doctoral students, that such reviews should be “exhaus- tive” (p. 7yf W K H D X W K R U V R Y H U D O O P H V V D J H L V F O H D U O W K D W G L V V H U W D – tion reviews should be a broad and comprehensive review of the literature dealing with a particular field or topic. “Comprehen- siveness” and “breadth” are two of their criteria for assessing “coverage,” the first of their standards for evaluating disserta- tion literature reviews and the one to which they devote the most discussion. In taking this position, Boote and Beile confound literature re- view articles for publication (reviews ofresearchyf Z L W K G L V V H U W D W L R n literature reviews, which are primarily reviewsfor, rather than of, research. They cite with approval Cooper’s (1985yf G L V F X V V L R Q R f “coverage” as the key feature of a literature review, and add that Although it is worth noting that Cooper is referring here to litera- ture reviewing as a distinct form of scholarship, we believe that the same expectation should be applied to a literature review that is a precursor to research. (p. 7yf In equating literature reviews for publication, which are in- tended to summarize and synthesize a specific field of research for a wider audience, with dissertation literature reviews, which are intended to inform a planned study-to create a focus, con- ceptual framework, design, and justification for the study- the authors miss the centrality of relevance as the key issue in conducting and assessing the latter type of review. Although they employ the adjective “relevant” in characterizing the sort of literature review they advocate, they never discuss what rele- vance involves or how to identify and evaluate this, and do not include relevance in their criteria for assessing dissertation literature reviews. (The term “relevance” appears only twice in their article- once in listing another author’s components of coverage, and once in a quote from an author whose views they are criticizing.yf I argue that this neglect of relevance leads them to misrepresent the essential characteristics of a good dissertation literature re- view, and to propose inappropriate standards for evaluating such reviews. I am not denigrating or dismissing the value, for research gen- erally or for a doctoral dissertation in particular, of an accurate and sophisticated understanding of the relevant theoretical and research literature. However, I emphasize two points about this understanding. First, the key word is “relevant”; relevant works are those that have important implications for the design, con- duct, or interpretation of the study, not simply those that deal with the topic, or in the defined field or substantive area, of the research. Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman (1999yf D U J X H W K D W W K e writer’s task is to employ the research literature artfully to sup- port and explain the choices made for this study, not to educate the reader concerning the state of science in the problem area” (p. 69, emphasis in originalyf , F O D L P W K D W U H O H Y D Q F H L Q W K L V V H Q V H , and not comprehensiveness or thoroughness, is the most essen- tial characteristic of a good dissertation literature review. Second, all of the results of demarcating, critically analyzing, and synthesizing this literature need not, and should not, be pre- sented in the dissertation itself. Rudestam and Newton state that A good literature review needs to be selective, and it is taken for granted that the majority of source material you have read will not make it directly into the literature review…. One of our col- leagues likens the process to a courtroom trial, where all admissi- ble testimony by the witnesses must be relevant to the case and question at hand. Consistently ask yourself ‘Why am I including this study or reference?’ (2001, p. 59yf Educational Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 28-3 I1 2811 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER This content downloaded from 208.95.48.49 on Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:22:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms My disagreement with Boote and Beile on the centrality of rel- evance reflects a division within the educational research com- munity as a whole over the proper form and goal of literature reviews that are part of dissertations and dissertation proposals’ (Krathwohl & Smith, 2005, pp. 197-198yf 7 K L V G L Y L V L R Q L V E H – tween faculty who expect a thorough review of the research lit- erature in the area of the dissertation (the traditional viewyf D Q d those who want a selective review of the literature that relates di- rectly to what the student plans to do, showing these works’ im- plications for the proposed study. Krathwohl and Smith (2005, p. 50yf W D N L Q J W K H O D W W H U S R V L W L R Q G H V F U L E H W K H H V V H Q W L D O W D V N V R I a literature review for a dissertation proposal as follows: * survey a select group of studies that provide a foundation for the proposed project, * discuss these studies in detail sufficient to provide an un- derstanding of their relevance, * describe how they contribute to the study, * indicate how the study moves beyond them. Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman (1999, p. 68yf V L P L O D U O V W D W H A research proposal [in which they prominently include disserta- tion proposals] is not the place to review the body of literature that bears on a problematic area, or even the place to examine all the research that relates to the specific question.” Boote and Beile have stepped unknowingly into the middle of an ongoing (though mostly implicityf G H E D W H D E R X W W K H S U R S H r form and function of a dissertation literature review, and their failure to recognize and address the differences between these two views undermines the value of their recommendations for im- proving dissertation literature reviews. A relevant research report contributes an important concept, finding, or method to the study’s conceptual framework or design, provides a necessary piece of the argument that explains and justifies this study, or both (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 1999, p. 69yf $ V W X G L V U H O – evant if failing to discuss it would create a significant gap in this explanation or justification, leave unanswered an important question that a reader of the dissertation might raise, or miss a potentially valuable contribution to the research. The centrality of relevance as a criterion for dissertation liter- ature reviews also applies to literature reviews for funding pro- posals, research reports, and other forms of scholarly writing in which the primary purpose is not to summarize and synthesize some body of literature, but to use this literature to inform and support some decision or argument external to the review itself. Krathwohl and Smith (2005, p. 198yf G H V F U L E H W K H W U D G L W L R Q D O O L W – erature review format as “something of an anachronism” that is employed only in a review journal or annual review volume, and even then must be “more targeted and more critical of flaws and weaknesses.” Similarly, the American Psychological Association’s Publication Manual (2001, p. 328, cf. p. 28yf V W D W H V % H V H O H F W L Y e in the references that are reported in the literature review,” and repeatedly uses the term “relevant” to characterize what should be discussed in a review. Relevance, rather than thoroughness or comprehensiveness, is the essential characteristic of literature re- views in most scholarly work; self-contained literature reviews for publication are the exception, rather than the norm.2 This fact undermines Boote and Beile’s argument (p. 4yf W K D t the 19th century conception of the doctorate as a teaching degree, requiring a thorough grasp of the literature in the chosen field (a conception which was supplanted in the 20th century by the Ger- man emphasis on research trainingyf S U R Y L G H V W K H S U R S H U P R G H l for contemporary doctoral training and dissertations. This model downplays the importance of relevance to the specific study for which the literature is being reviewed, and is thus less appropri- ate for research preparation than is a model focused on relevance. Relevance is also important for goals other than research preparation. Most doctoral students in education will pursue ca- reers other than teaching the subject area of their dissertation, and it is less important for them to attain a thorough, compre- hensive understanding of a particular topic or field than it is to learn how to identify and assess relevant research findings and to apply these in evaluating and supporting some claim or action. This is particularly true for students who will continue their ca- reers as educational practitioners rather than researchers. Aside from specialists in a particular field such as reading, teachers and administrators are generalists, needing to understand and use re- search findings from a wide range of topic areas rather than being experts on a particular area. Finally, Boote and Beile repeatedly state that the literature re- view should be focused on the dissertation’s field of study (e.g., p. 11yf W K H L U R Q O H [ F H S W L R Q L V I R U D W R S L F D E R X W Z K L F K Y H U O L W – tle has been written,” for which a student “may need to broaden the search to examine analogous research in other fields or topics” (p. 7yf 7 K H G R Q R W D F N Q R Z O H G J H W K D W H Y H Q I R U D V W X G R I D Z H O O – researched topic, there may be extremely relevant theories, findings, or methods in other fields or disciplines. In particular, conducting a review limited to a particular field or topic increases the danger that the student will become a prisoner of the theoretical or methodological perspective that dominates this literature, and fail to see alternative ways of conceptualizing or studying the issue or problem. Becker (1986, pp. 146-149yf S U R – vides an example of how his own research on marijuana use was distorted by the prevalent perspective in this field. Alternative per- spectives can come from other fields or theoretical approaches (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, pp. 28-35yf R U I U R P W K H V W X G H Q W s observations and personal experiences (Grady & Wallston, 1988, pp. 40-42yf . Some of the problems created by Boote and Beile’s conception of a literature review as a comprehensive summary and synthesis of a defined “field of study” are manifested in two parts of their paper: the literature review for their article, and their criteria for assessing reviews. Literature Review Boote and Beile’s lack of attention to the relevance of the works they discuss leads to a review (pp. 4-6yf L Q Z K L F K P X F K R I W K H L U G L V F X V – sion is unconnected to the argument of their article. For example, their entire presentation of one work they report on is as follows: Barger and Duncan (1986yf U D L V H G L I I L F X O W T X H V W L R Q V D E R X W W K H D V – sumption that doctoral candidates should do creative scholarly work, and outline what they feel are the psychological, theoretical- methodological, and institutional contexts required for creative work. (p. 4yf They do not indicate what Barger and Duncan actually said about these issues, or discuss how this work relates to their own argument or conclusions. This description of Barger and Duncan’s article could be appropriate in a published review of literature on DECEMBER 2006 29 This content downloaded from 208.95.48.49 on Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:22:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms preparation for doctoral work, but it serves no purpose in Boote and Beile’s article. In addition, the authors’ claim that “doctoral students seeking advice on how to improve their literature reviews will find little published guidance worth heeding” (p. 5yf L V E D V H G R Q D U H Y L H Z R f research methods texts and handbooks, which are one important possible source for such advice. This topic-based focus on methods texts leads them to overlook relevant works outside of this area. Valuable, and often detailed, guidance on using literature in a doctoral dissertation or other research can be found in books on reading research literature (Locke, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2004yf , designing research (Light, Singer, & Willett, 1990; Maxwell, 2005yf S U H S D U L Q J D G L V V H U W D W L R Q S U R S R V D O . U D W K Z R K O 6 P L W K , 2005; Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 1999yf F R P S O H W L Q J D G R F – toral dissertation (Rudestam & Newton, 2001yf D Q G G R L Q J V F K R O – arly work in general (Becker, 1986; Booth, Colomb, & Williams, 1995; Mills, 1959yf D V Z H O O D V L Q Z R U N V R Q T X D O L W D W L Y H U H V H D U F h methods (Delamont, 1992; Glesne, 2006; Schram, 2003; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990yf 7 K H V H Z R U N V S U R Y L G H W K H N L Q d of advice that Boote and Beile failed to locate; in addition, most of these authors place considerably more importance on selec- tivity and relevance in locating and using research literature than do Boote and Beile. Criteria Boote and Beile describe their criteria for evaluating dissertation literature reviews as establishing “ambitious expectations” for such reviews, and state that “a literature review that meets high standards on these criteria indicates that the doctoral candidate has a thorough, sophisticated understanding of a field of study- a precondition for substantial, useful research” (p. 9yf + R Z H Y H U , as noted above, the concept of relevance is entirely missing from these criteria. Their criterion for assessing “coverage,” the one standard for which relevance is mentioned earlier in their article, does not address relevance at all, only whether the review “justi- fied [the] criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature” (p. 8yf . Thus, a review could score highly on their formal criteria and still be almost completely lacking in direct relevance to, or important implications for, the dissertation research. In addition, as indi- cated earlier, some faculty do not want all of the results of se- lecting and analyzing literature to be presented in the dissertation itself. This makes their criteria, which can be used only to ana- lyze the latter document, a problematic indicator of the student’s understanding of this literature as a whole. Foundationalism One possible source of the difficulties with Boote and Beile’s conception of the dissertation literature review is the central metaphor that informs their article, the metaphor of “founda- tion.” The authors clearly hold a foundationalist conception of the place and function of literature reviews in research. They re- peatedly refer to the literature review as the “foundation” or “pre- condition” of research, and to its “centrality” in the research process, and assert that the ability to analyze and synthesize re- search “should be the focal, integrative activity of predissertation doctoral education” (p. 3yf 7 K L V I R X Q G D W L R Q D O P H W D S K R U P D E e part of the motivation for their view of the dissertation literature review as necessarily broad, thorough, and topic-focused. An alternative, non-foundationalist view is of a literature re- view (or more broadly, a conceptual framework, which can draw on sources other than published literatureyf D V R Q H R I V H Y H U D l major components of research design (Grady & Wallston, 1988; Martin, 1982; Maxwell, 2005yf U D W K H U W K D Q D V W K H E D V L V D Q G V W D U W – ing point of the research. Other components of the design in- clude perceived problems, goals, research questions, research methods, and validity threats. None of these components is a “foundation” for the others; instead, they form an interacting system in which “each influences the others and each is a major factor in the outcome of the research” (Grady & Wallston, 1988, p. 12yf 7 K L V P R G H O G U D Z V D W W H Q W L R Q W R W K H U H O H Y D Q F H R I W K H G L I – ferent components of the design for one another. Krathwohl and Smith (2005, p.49yf D O W K R X J K W K H V R P H W L P H s use the term “foundation,” invoke more explicitly the metaphor of the literature review as an “anchor,” which is not prior to the structure it anchors, but connects and steadies it. Another ap- propriate metaphor for a literature review is a tool rather than a foundation, similar to a hammer and power drill for a carpenter. A literature review is an essential tool, and any researcher must learn to use it competently and appropriately, but it is no more the foundation of research than a hammer, or even an entire tool- box, is the foundation of carpentry. Implications for Doctoral Training As stated earlier, I agree with Boote and Beile that learning to un- derstand and apply published research and scholarship is a key goal of doctoral training, and one that is often neglected or taught inadequately. In my experience, relevance is the most dif- ficult concept for doctoral students to grasp in learning to use the literature effectively, and lack of relevance is the most common problem with dissertation literature reviews. A major reason for this is the traditional concept of the “review of the literature,” which Locke, Spirduso, and Silverman (1999, p. 68yf F R Q V L G H U a “misleading if not completely inappropriate title” for this section of a dissertation proposal. As argued above, the dissertation writer’s goal in reading and using published research is quite dif- ferent from that of the traditional literature review, and most doctoral students receive little help in grasping this difference. I use several strategies for helping students to identify rele- vance and use this effectively: 1. I emphasize the idea of a “conceptual framework” for a study, rather than a “literature review.” Examining, assess- ing, and connecting published research is an important source for this conceptual framework, but the goal is an in- tegrated set of theoretical concepts and empirical findings, a model of the phenomena they are studying that informs and supports the research, rather than a review ofa body of literature. As Boote and Beile note, “Researchers cannot ap- propriate sophisticated research methods if their understand- ing of the phenomena they are investigating is rudimentary and unsystematic” (p. 11yf . 2. I present a model of research design (Maxwell, 2005yf W K D t highlights the ongoing interaction of their conceptual framework with other components of their research design (goals, research questions, methods, and validity concernsyf , and how these components should inform and influence one another. Boote and Beile likewise emphasize that the dissertation literature review should be a “dynamic, integral part of the research process” (p. 11yf U D W K H U W K D Q D V W D W L c artifact, but do not discuss how this can be accomplished. 30 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER This content downloaded from 208.95.48.49 on Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:22:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 3. I encourage students, rather than simply analyzing, summa- rizing, and critiquing the literature they read, to look con- stantly for things that they can use from this literature. Locke, Silverman, and Spirduso (2004, pp. 9-21yf S U R Y L G H D Q H [ W H Q – sive discussion of the kinds of useful information that can be found in research reports, encompassing much more than re- search findings. Becker (1986, pp. 141-146yf D O V R G L V F X V V H s effective ways to use the literature in research, emphasizing the concept of “modules” that can be borrowed and employed in constructing an argument or conceptual framework. 4. I teach the technique of concept mapping (Miles & Huber- man, 1994; Novak & Gowin, 1984yf D V D Z D W R L Q W H J U D W e both the conceptual framework itself, and the research de- sign as a whole. Concept mapping is a powerful tool for see- ing and developing connections, particularly for students who are primarily visual learners, because it visually displays the relevance relationships that they are establishing. 5. Complementary to concept mapping, I promote the strategy of outlining the argument of a proposal, dissertation, or paper (Maxwell, 2005, pp. 128-136yf 6 X F K D Q R X W O L Q H L V T X L W H G L I – ferent from a traditional outline, which lists the topics that are to be covered. An argument outline summarizes the actual argument of a work, explicitly stating the points that are being made and the links between them. It thus forces students to identify how these points are relevant to one another. In summary, I am arguing for a different conception of a dis- sertation literature review from Boote and Beile’s, one focused on relevance rather than comprehensiveness, and one that sees this review as an essential component of research rather than the foundation for research. I believe that such a conception can bet- ter address the problems with dissertation literature reviews that the authors identify, and can better inform and support the train- ing of doctoral students as competent scholars, researchers, and practitioners. NOTES ‘Several of the works I cite in this paper deal with dissertation pro- posals, rather than dissertation literature reviews per se. This is not a problem for my argument, for two reasons. First, the proposal literature review is normally the basis for the dissertation review; indeed, a wide- spread (though, in my view, inappropriateyf P R G H O R I W K H G L V V H U W D W L R n proposal is that it consists of the first three chapters of the dissertation. Second, it is the proposal review, rather than the final dissertation re- view, that constitutes the preparation for conducting the research, which is precisely what is at issue here. 2Even for literature reviews for publication, relevance is an impor- tant criterion. The guidelines for reviewers of manuscripts for the Re- view OfEducational Research include in their “coverage” criteria not only “Is the process for selecting studies for review clearly described?” but also “Are the criteria used for selection broad enough to include all relevant literature?” REFERENCES American Psychological Association (2001yf 3 X E O L F D W L R Q P D Q X D O W K H G f. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Becker, H. S. (1986yf : U L W L Q J I R U V R F L D O V F L H Q W L V W V + R Z W R V W D U W D Q G I L Q – ish your thesis, book, or article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (1995yf 7 K H F U D I W R f research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005yf 6 F K R O D U V E H I R U H U H V H D U F K H U V 2 Q W K e centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher 34(6yf . Cooper, H. M. (1985yf $ W D [ R Q R P R I O L W H U D W X U H U H Y L H Z V 3 D S H U S U H V H Q W H d at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ- ation, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED254541yf Delamont, S. (1992yf ) L H O G Z R U N L Q H G X F D W L R Q V H W W L Q J V 0 H W K R G V S L W I D O O V , and perspectives. London: Falmer Press. Glesne, C. (2006yf % H F R P L Q J T X D O L W D W L Y H U H V H D U F K H U V U G H G f. Boston: Pearson. Grady, K. A., & Wallston, B. S. (1988yf 5 H V H D U F K L Q K H D O W K F D U H V H W W L Q J V . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krathwohl, D. R., & Smith, N. L. (2005yf + R Z W R S U H S D U H D G L V V H U W D W L R n proposal: Suggestionsforstudents in education and the social and behavioral sciences. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Light, R. J., Singer, J., & Willett, J. (1990yf % G H V L J Q & R Q G X F W L Q J U H – search on higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Locke, L., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2004yf 5 H D G L Q g and understanding research (2nd ed.yf 7 K R X V D Q G 2 D N V & $ 6 D J e Publications. Locke, L., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (1999yf 3 U R S R V D O V W K D t work (4th ed.yf 7 K R X V D Q G 2 D N V & $ 6 D J H 3 X E O L F D W L R Q V . Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995yf ‘ H V L J Q L Q J T X D O L W D W L Y H U H V H D U F K . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Martin, J. (1982yf $ J D U E D J H F D Q P R G H O R I W K H U H V H D U F K S U R F H V V , Q – ( . McGrath, J. Martin, & R. Kulka (Eds.yf – X G J P H Q W F D O O V L Q U H V H D U F K . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Maxwell, J. A. (2005yf 4 X D O L W D W L Y H U H V H D U F K G H V L J Q $ Q L Q W H U D F W L Y H D S S U R D F h (2nd ed.yf 7 K R X V D Q G 2 D N V & $ 6 D J H 3 X E O L F D W L R Q V . Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994yf 4 X D O L W D W L Y H G D W D D Q D O V L V : An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.yf 7 K R X V D Q G 2 D N V & $ 6 D J e Publications. Mills, C. W. (1959yf 7 K H V R F L R O R J L F D O L P D J L Q D W L R Q / R Q G R Q 2 [ I R U G 8 Q L – versity Press. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984yf / H D U Q L Q J K R Z W R O H D U Q & D P – bridge: Cambridge University Press. Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2001yf 6 X U Y L Y L Q J R X U G L V V H U W D W L R n (2nd ed.yf 7 K R X V D Q G 2 D N V & $ 6 D J H 3 X E O L F D W L R Q V . Schram, T. H. (2003yf & R Q F H S W X D O L ] L Q J T X D O L W D W L Y H L Q T X L U 8 S S H U 6 D G – dle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Strauss, A. (1987yf 4 X D O L W D W L Y H D Q D O V L V I R U V R F L D O V F L H Q W L V W V & D P E U L G J H , England: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990yf % D V L F V R I T X D O L W D W L Y H U H V H D U F K : grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. AUTHOR JOSEPH A. MAXWELL is an Associate Professor in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444; [email protected] His research interests include qualitative and mixed method research de- sign, qualitative methods, and the philosophy of social research. Manuscript received January 17, 2006 Accepted July 5, 2006 DECEMBER 2006 E3 This content downloaded from 208.95.48.49 on Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:22:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
EDUC 850 03/04 Literature Review: Outline Assignment Instructions Overview A formal literature review should be approached strategically to ensure a high-quality review of the current literature that
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/new-jerseys-segregated-schools-trends-and-paths-forward/New-Jersey-report-final-110917.pdf Multicultural education exists at my current high school. I work at a charter high school named Northstar academy-Uncommon schools. https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/new-jerseys-segregated-schools-trends-and-paths-forward/New-Jersey-report-final-110917.pdf based on these two websites. What statistics could we pull from the article that could be used as my problem statement.