What You Think You Know, You Dont

1
What You Think You Know, You Dont
2
(No Transcript)
3
NEW REPORT Strengthening Forensic Science in the
United States A Path Forward
No forensic method except for DNA analysis "has
been rigorously shown to have the capacity to
consistently, and with a high degree of
certainty, demonstrate a connection between
evidence and a specific individual or source."
4
Our problem is not just that we dont know the
future, we dont know much of the past either
5
"My major hobby is teasing people who take
themselves and the quality of their knowledge too
seriously and those who dont have the guts to
sometimes say 'I dont know...." - Nassim
Nicholas Taleb
6

• A literature review is a summary and critique of
  current theoretical and empirical knowledge about
  a problem that provides a basis for the study
  being conducted.
• Summation without critical analysis is the
  weakest aspect of most reviews.

7
A good literature review should inform YOU (and
your readers) of what is known and unknown about
your topic.
8
A good literature review should help to establish
your credibility as an expert in a research area.
9
A good literature review helps you find the gaps
in the literature that will justify your
research.
10
A good literature review provides the basis for
establishing the importance of your study and the
appropriateness of your methodology.
11
Start with an Introduction

• The purpose of this study was to delineate the
  dimensions that foster and sustain teachers as
  innovators and schools as innovative places for
  improved teaching and learning by studying an
  exemplary school known for its innovative
  practices in teaching and learning. The review of
  the literature related to this study includes
  four general areas instructional technology in
  schools lessons learned school change theory,
  research, and practice teacher professional
  development and practice and social learning
  theory.

Jen Brill
12
Specify Questions Addressed

• This review answers the following questions
• - What insights does recent research (since the
  early 1990s) on school-based instructional
  technology (IT) initiatives have to offer
  regarding the role of the teacher in successful
  innovation?
• - What does the recent literature (from the 1980s
  to the present) on school change theory,
  research, and practice contribute to our
  understanding of teachers as successful
  innovators and schools as innovative places?
• - How do traditional contemporary notions of
  teacher professional development and practice
  impact the role of teachers as innovators and
  schools as innovative?
• - What do more recent ideas about learning as a
  social enterprise have to contribute to the
  realization of teachers as innovators and schools
  as innovative environments?

13
Specify How Literature Was Found

• My literature review began in a formal sense with
  my comprehensive exams during the Winter of 2000
  and it continues today. The main resource that I
  used to conduct my search for relevant literature
  was the University of Georgia Libraries System,
  including the Galileo databases and the GIL
  catalog. I used the World Wide Web as a secondary
  resource, using the Google Academic search
  engine. I also conferred with professional
  colleagues both here and afar as a third source
  of knowledge. I covered quite a bit of subject
  territory including instructional technology
  foundations, initiatives, research, and practice,
  change theory and practice (especially school
  change theory and practice), teacher professional
  development and practice (both preservice and
  inservice), and social theories of learning and
  innovation.

14
End by Recapping the Review

• To summarize my journey through the literature,
  recent research in school-based instructional
  technology initiatives, including ACOT and
  Schools for Thought, identify the teacher as
  central to successful innovation. The teacher is
  the local and immediate agent for changing
  teaching and learning practices in the classroom.
  As such, any person, group, or organization
  concerned with school-based innovation must
  concern themselves with the teacher and,
  especially, those issues impacting teacher
  professional development and practice. Indeed,
  some instructional technologists advocate for a
  reconceptualization and redesign of teacher
  practice and school environments as a requirement
  for successful innovation to take place. However,
  as a community, instructional technologists
  appear to lack a shared and meaningful language
  for examining broad issues of educational change.

15
You expect clarity?

• A Good Literature Review is organized around a
  coherent set of questions.
• A Poor Literature Review rambles from topic to
  topic without a clear focus.

16

• A Good Literature Review includes the major
  landmark or classic studies related to the
  questions guiding the study.
• A Poor Literature Review omits landmark or
  classic studies or mixes them with trivial
  studies without making distinctions about quality
  or relevance.

Dont forget me!
17
I am so smart.

• A Good Literature Review acknowledges the
  authors biases as well as the limitations of the
  review process.
• A Poor Literature Review assumes an omniscient
  voice without acknowledging biases and
  limitations.

18

• A Good Literature Review critically evaluates the
  quality of the research according to clear
  criteria.
• A Poor Literature Review simply summarizes
  research findings without critical evaluation.

It so hard to be critical.
19

• A Good Literature Review uses quotes,
  illustrations, graphs, and/or tables to present
  and justify the critical analysis of the
  literature.
• A Poor Literature Review simply lists studies
  without presenting any critical evidence in the
  form of quotes, illustrations, graphs, and/or
  tables.

20
Its simply logical.

• A Good Literature Review takes the form of a
  logical argument that concludes with a clear
  rationale for additional research.
• A Poor Literature Review does not present a
  logical argument and fails to build a clear
  rationale for additional research.

21
I must eschew obfuscation.

• A Good Literature Review is interesting to read
  because it is clear, coherent, and systematic in
  its organization and presentation.
• A Poor Literature Review is boring or obtuse
  because of the overuse of jargon and pretentious
  language and the lack of organization.

22

• A Good Literature Review presents research
  evidence in a meaningful chronological order.
• A Poor Literature Review mixes studies from
  different decades without acknowledging
  chronological developments.

23

• A Good Literature Review has an accurate and
  up-to-date bibliography that adheres to APA
  Guidelines.
• A Poor Literature Review has inaccurate or
  missing references that are poorly formatted.

24

• A Good Literature Review is eminently
  publishable.
• A Poor Literature Review will never see the light
  of day in a respectable publication.

If only I had published.