Here are some of my posts on the following articles which were reviewed as part of this topic:
Lauman, D. J. (2000). Student home computer use: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing Education, 33(2),196-203.
MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-301.
Posted Date: February 17, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: Lauman Review
Deanna,
Great observations… but I’m not sure this paper constitutes a research paper. Initially, the paper looks well organized and developed but the author’s arguments don’t hold together. I found myself wondering about the argument for this paper. I expect research papers to address an issue, take a point of view, or answer some question… Lauman’s article didn’t do any of these things. I think there was a thread of connectedness and integration that made sense to the author but it was not well presented. I have had this kind of experience…you read a few things, attend a few workshops, talk to a few people and begin to see trends and connections. They make for good conversation but require much more research, processing, and reflection before the connections can be explained and the topics can be presented in a unified way.
Don
Posted Date: February 17, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Reflections on MacArthur et al., 2001
Michael and Mel,
I was also impressed by MacArthur’s work especially after I read Lauman’s: how the structure of each new point built upon the previous one and lead to the next, was admirable. So was the degree of explanation: terms, ideas, and relationships were clearly laid-out and their significance explained. You needn’t know much about the topic to understand the issues being presented and discussed.
My understanding of the requirements for my project is becoming clearer. I have a new appreciation for the degree of thoroughness required. I want to produce a project that can be understood. I want the criticism and concerns it draws to be in response to it’s content and not its presentation. I do not want inprecise language, lack of explanation, poor writing and mistakes in methodology to impact the results and impact of my project. Like MacArthur, I want my thoroughness to provide a solid foundation for my project and to stimulate ideas for extending and further developing its subject. I don’t think it’s just about the amount of work or even the scope of the work. I think it is about a thorough summary, analysis, critique, and synthesis.
I must admit some stuggle in nailing down the exact nature of my project. I wonder if this will continue until I complete my own literature review. Responding to MacArthur’s review, I had some questions and ideas about “next studies”. I trust that a more thorough review of my topic will reveal the same. In the next couple of days, I’ll post the latest version of my topic and questions (Draft 3). I’d appreciate your feedback.
Don
Posted Date: February 14, 2013 9:30 PM
Subject: Note on Lauman
Emma,
I didn’t comment on the use of quotations in Lauman article (I had some trouble editing myself to 250 words as it was) but I didn’t believe they added to the author’s discussion or argument. The opening quotation sounded like an interesting sound-bite or like something you would read on an inspirational poster but it didn’t have anything to do with the subject.
Don
Posted Date: February 14, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Lauman’s Literature Review
Sarah,
Thanks for the observation. I was worried that it was the end of a busy week and my attitude was getting in the way of seeing something positive in the article. I do clearly see some of my own mistakes reflected in this paper. Hope I can keep the example in mind when I critique my own work before submission.
Don
Date Posted: February 14, 2013 9:17 PM
Subject: Lauman’s Literature Review
Ben,
I agree with your point about the inclusion of personal experience. It appears that the author treated it like a primary source rather than information to illustrate a point. As a review of literature, I was surprised by the lack of literature and how this was not accounted for in the paper. Overall, I found the paper unfocused; I stopped reading several times when the discussion thread got lost to ask myself, “What are we talking about now?”. I think it would been a better opinion piece or editorial about the importance and impact of home comupter use.
Don
Date Posted: February 14, 2013 9:04 PM
Subject: Thoughts on Lauman’s Literature Review
Lauman’s purpose for writing “Student Home Computer Use: A Review of the Literature”, is not clear. She states her objective to examine three guiding questions but fails to explain the reason behind these questions. The purpose of helping parents better understand their role when integrating the use of home and school technology is hinted at in the abstract, background and conclusion. However, the relationship between this unstated purpose and the article, is not fully explained.
The article is organized into sections corresponding to the questions. However, the transition between these sections is unclear and the discussions do not address the questions. For example, “What are the primary activities students engage in when using their home computers?” (p 198) presents information on the impact of technology on student learning and motivation. Additionally, only three primary sources related to this question are cited. Their methodology is not explained and a chronology is not established. Connections and critical analyses are not provided. Secondary sources and personal experiences are integrated into the review but are not supported by primary sources and their context is not established.
As a conclusion, the answers provided to the guiding questions are unconvincing. Paraphrasing Lauman, the answer to “What is the role of parents?” appears to be “Parents have an important role.” The answer simply does not address the question. In the same way that this article does not address the topic or the body of research I would expect to find in a literature review.
Date Posted: February 12, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: MacArthur – pleasantly surprised!
Emma,
I agree the paper was very readable. I think this results from a solid framework and a commitment to explaining ideas clearly and with little jargon. Last term my wife, who is not in education, reviewed my final paper. I could tell immediately by the look on her face when my writing was unclear and overly verbose. Honesty, clarity, and transferability are very important! What good is a research project no one can understand or use?
Don
Date Posted: February 12, 2013 10:48 PM
Subject: Literature Review
Rose,
I think you’ve got it. Recalling our work on the photographs (was that just last week?), our summary is the narrative we develop as we prepare, conduct, and conclude our research. It’s a package deal with all parts supporting each other – even the information that doesn’t seem all that supportive has a role to play. Preparation is key to a successful research project; I am now starting to more fully understand the purpose of a good literature review. So much to think about and organize, I like the idea of some kind of graphic support.
Don
Posted Date:February 12, 2013 10:34 PM
Subjects: Reflections on MacArthur et al., 2001
I read this article quite quickly, focusing on its approach and structure rather than its specific content.
At the beginning of the article, the authors set the tone for their paper by defining their terms of reference and explaining their methodology. In the ensuing discussion and development of the paper, the authors returned to this approach time and time again.
In each section, a summary was provided to introduce and define a topic. The relationship of technology to this topic was explained in a similar way. Studies and their results were summarized and critiqued in ways that connected them to the topic while providing balance and a sense of objectivity to the authors’ work. Analysis and synthesis followed by not always in that order. They were more like two stream of thought running side by side as the authors followed a chronological path, in explaining the pattern of research and results related to the topic. Ever present was an underlying sense of “What does this all mean?” and “How is it all connected?”
In developing their conclusion, the authors broke out of their chronology. While the body of the paper used a formative approach, this final section was summative in nature. The authors’ summary, analysis, synthesis, and critique were more distinct. Their opinions were clearly stated and referenced the observations made earlier in the paper. In the end, the authors used the themes of “What does this all mean?” and “How is it all connected?” to reconnect their conclusions to the question of technology applications for student with literacy problems.