Tetd819 week3 2014


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tetd819 week3 2014

  1. 1. TETD 819: Analytic Review of Empirical Literature Week3
  2. 2. Reading deeply: Value positions
  3. 3. Value positions • Always signaled by language choices, theoretical framing and “positioning” of the literature drawn on • Often signaled by what is studied or the examples drawn upon • Often signaled by what the author criticizes • Typically linked in different ways to normative claims
  4. 4. So let’s examine Ladson-Billings’ value positions
  5. 5. Reading deeply: Mapping arguments
  6. 6. Argument analysis • “An argument involves putting forward reasons to influence someone’s belief that what you are proposing is the case” (Hart 1998: 79) • An argument comprises “giving reasons for some conclusion: the reasons [claims] are put forward in order to establish, support, justify, prove or demonstrate the conclusion” (Fisher 1993:140). • An argument typically comprises at least two parts: reason(s)/evidence + conclusion
  7. 7. Hart (1998) • Types of argument: Inference, assertion & supposition
  8. 8. Toulmin’s approach (from Hart 1998) • Claim an arguable statement • Evidence data used to support the claim • Warrant an expectation that provides the link between the evidence and claim • Backing context and assumptions used to support the validity of the warrant and evidence
  9. 9. Fisher’s approach (Hart, p. 93) Let’s begin with mapping L-B’s argument (and nested arguments) on pp. 466-468. then Ladson-Billings, p. 472
  10. 10. What is Ladson-Billing’s main argument in this paper, and how do you know?
  11. 11. Remember • Your argument in your analytic review must necessarily “grow out of” your data set • In an analytic review, you cannot use your data set in the service of a pre-determined argument
  12. 12. More on writing analytic reviews
  13. 13. Winnowing your initial data pool • Initial pass: Toss out anything that’s not a fullblown report of a study • Prior to second pass: Develop and refine your selection criteria. These need to be documented, tied super closely to your research question, and justified. You will report your criteria in your methodology section. • Second pass: Apply your selection criteria consistently to your data pool. This generates your final data corpus with which you will work. • Watch for doubling up (multiple reports of the same study) • Attention to replicability
  14. 14. Finalizing & organizing your corpus • Looking at Spencer, Knobel & Lankshear, for example.
  15. 15. Sample selection criteria • qualitative study • article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal • conducted from a sociocultural theoretical orientation • the study focused on "non-school" literacy • the study focused on children aged between 4 and 8 years • the study focused on literacy practices outside school
  16. 16. Organizing your corpus • Decide what dimensions of the studies as a whole are likely to be useful and draw up a table to summarize key elements for easy comparisons
  17. 17. For example
  18. 18. Reminders • Liaise with your advisor re your research question and search boundaries.
  19. 19. When is enough enough? or When is too much too much?