8.++Assignment+2

To begin to understand some of the common forms of literature reviews, students will work in groups of three (3) to analyze the characteristics of four (4) genres of literature reviews

Hadwin, A.F., & Winne, P.H. (1996). Study strategies have meager support: A review with recommendations for implementation. Journal of Higher Education, 67(6), 692-715. This analysis will identify: a) The kind of claim the author(s) of the review were trying to make This is a claim of policy; what should be done differently that what has been the norm. The authors claim that students need to learn how to be strategic in processing information, and how to use those strategic actions in flexible ways to get information from text; however, in their review, they found little appropriate research to support the current approach of study skills classes. b) Classification using Cooper’s (2003) taxonomy of kinds of literature reviews 1. Focus: The focus is the research findings on whether study skills classes, which are widely supported on college campuses, incorporate instructional practices appropriate to provide for transfer of learning, enabling college students the strategic actions to support advanced learning. 2. Goal: The authors are making a criticism of practice based more on opinion, doing things the way they’ve always been done, than in research studies of effective strategies. 3. Perspective: This is not a neutral position. The authors believe students need support, but find little supportive research in the field. They are clearly, and unashamedly, biased. 4. Coverage: The coverage is exhaustive with selective citation. The authors were clear about the criteria they used, which screened out many studies. 5. Organization: The review is arranged methodologically, with specific criteria applied. 6. Audience: The audience is based in academia; specifically, college professors of study skills and related interests. c) How the author(s) positioned themselves within the literature and academic community they were reviewing The authors position themselves as peers; participants with a vested interest in applying the outcomes of the review. d) The organizational structures and rhetorical devices the author(s) used to accomplish their goals The structure is an analysis of the research, selected by highly defined criteria to identify informative elements that show support for the teaching of specific strategies. This is an inductive argument. e) How the choice of literature review genre related to the authors understanding of the state of the literature in their field The authors clearly feel that the literature in their area is sparse in empirical research to support the way study skills are taught. This may not have been what they believed when they started the review, but by the end, the need for further research is evident.
 * Article 1:**

Wideen, M.F., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), pp. 130-178. [A critical review of findings and research methods, proposing a new conceptual framework.]
 * Article 2:**

This analysis will identify: a) The kind of claim the author(s) of the review were trying to make After systematically reviewing the research involving teacher education, the authors aimed to make the claims that the researchers reporting data need a "more self-critical stance" and an ecological method on researching how individuals learn to teach. b) Classification using Cooper’s (2003) taxonomy of kinds of literature reviews Focus: research methods The article mainly is a methodological criticism as the authors closely examine and compare/contrast research in the field of teacher education. Goal: criticism The article is offers criticism in the way researchers report, study, and conduct their research and provides suggestions to those researchers so that they can improve the products they are creating for the betterment of enhancing teacher education. Perspective: espousal of position The article takes a stance of criticism and therefore is espousal of position. The article title is enough to suggest this position. Coverage: exhaustive Very carefully the authors explained their methods of searching and reporting. They also explained how they determined that they had collected enough data to create a report that accurately reflected the research in the field of teacher learning and programs. Overall, they collected over 100 empirical studies. Organization: methodological This article is methodological in nature because a system of methods were used when collecting and analyzing the data that was reported by the authors. Their methodological approach allowed them to provide a perspective on the current research in the field in a representative and more valid way. The article also contains a //Methodological Approach// section to explain their processes, reasoning, and logic. Audience: general scholars The article is applicable to general scholars because of the content and focus. Also, because it was printed in the Review of Educational Research which is a journal that is well read by many general scholars. c) How the author(s) positioned themselves within the literature and academic community they were reviewing The authors positioned themselves as criticizing the current research in the field of learning to teach. d) The organizational structures and rhetorical devices the author(s) used to accomplish their goals This article has outstanding organizational structures that include the following sections: //Framing the Review, Programs and Participants, Methodological Approach (//detailed tables included in this section//), Results of the Review, Beginning Teachers and Their Beliefs, Interpretive Commentary, Program Intervention, Program Monitoring, Preservice Interventions, Interpretive Commentary, Student Teaching Experiences, and a Summary of Results.// The article effectively reports history and concepts to enhance the reader's understanding of their study. The rhetorical devices the authors used to accomplish their goals can be classified as point of view. The point of view of the article is illustrated by phrases such as the following: "authors //need// to pay more attention to," "//we believe// that this corpus of research, //despite its weaknesses//". The authors also explain early on that they have biases in reviewing the research for their study. e) How the choice of literature review genre related to the authors understanding of the state of the literature By the time the longitudinal study was completed the authors had gained an insightful understanding, backed up by their findings, indicating that prior research revolving around how teachers learn to teach was insufficient, unscholarly and did not necessarily contribute to the body of knowledge on the topic.

Windshitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175. [A conceptual analysis and synthesis.] http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ucfproxy.fcla.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e42d70f679a2de010a3a0b2714a438fa371c237fe76424c9bea60f6ae32de3c35&fmt=
 * Article 3:**

This analysis will identify: a) The kind of claim the author(s) of the review were trying to make The author is clearly making a conceptual claim. According to Hart in Table 4.3, claims of concept center around definitions and language use. Windshitl identifies keywords at the start of his review, provides various definitions in the background section and elaborates on language use in his notes, prior to the references. The concept of "constructivism in practice" is what he argues and analyzes using a four frame framework of dilemmas. b) Classification using Cooper’s (2003) taxonomy of kinds of literature reviews 1. Focus: Theory The focus or type of literature review presented here is a theoretical analysis. Using four frames in a framework of dilemmas, the author analyzes the tensions and ambiguities circumscribing educators as they attempt to apply constructivist teaching in the classroom. 2. Goal: I believe the goal here is identification of central issues. The author states that due to unique technological, economic and social contexts affecting today's teachers, a current examination of dilemmas faced in constructivist teaching is warranted. 3. Perspective: Espousal of Position Windshitl is clear that there are four specific and overlapping dilemmas facing today's teachers trying to teach in constructivist ways: conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political. 4. Coverage: Exhaustive Windshitl was exhaustive in his search of the literature. The references for this one review encompassed 12 pages and offered articles or chapters from many books and a wide variety of scholarly journals. 5. Organization: Conceptual Although the review is somewhat "all over the place", the information is presented in a conceptual manner where the ideas are connected in an effort to appear synthesized. In the end, the article displays a gap between theory and practice. 6. Audience: General scholars and practitioners The author states in the article that both researchers and teachers need anchors to support their thought processes on how constructivist learning theory can be applied into today's classroom. He hopes that his review will provide significant implications for practicing educators. This shows that he is building a foundation for just such an audience. c) How the author(s) positioned themselves within the literature and academic community they were reviewing The author presented himself as both critical and authoritative. Windshitl provided many operational definitions for constructivism and terms related to constructivist teaching and then went on to critically analyze the varying degrees in which educators truly understand the application of constructivist theory. He argued that due to this lack of understanding, other studies support the claim that constructivist teaching tends to be superficial at best because only superficial attention is paid to the foundational theories of learning. He also supports the fact that constructivist teaching veers so far from the traditional educational models that current teachers experienced in their schooling, that is it difficult for them to visualize constructivist pedagogy in practice. d) The organizational structures and rhetorical devices the author(s) used to accomplish their goals The literature review began with an introduction and background. Here, he provided a framework for how the rest of the article would be organized. The organization stemmed from the four frames: conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political. It concluded with the examination of the overlap of the dilemma categories, discussion, suggestions for professional development and a conclusion. The review incorporated several tables and bulleted insets in an effort to synthesize the information for the reader. Although somewhat convoluted at times, the rhetoric employed by the author was easy to read and with my educational (schooling and careers) background, simple to process. e) How the choice of literature review genre related to the authors understanding of the state of the literature in their field Windshitl, in providing this theoretical analysis of constructivism in practice, positioned himself in a way that showed he was an expert in this area. The exhaustive search, in depth discussion of dilemmas facing today's teachers, the thoughtfulness of noting even the intersections of the dilemmas along with the critical analysis of the variety of views pertaining to constructivism was enlightening. The overall review displays a gap in relation to constructivist theory and application of this learning theory on teaching in the classroom.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593. [A multi-disciplinary analysis and synthesis of a concept.]
 * Article 4:**

This analysis will identify: a) The kind of claim the author(s) of the review were trying to make This is a claim of value; the authors are making a case that trust is an important element for reform and interaction in American schools. It could also be said to be a claim of concept, as several studies are reviewed to define trust. b) Classification using Cooper’s (2003) taxonomy of kinds of literature reviews 1. Focus: The focus is the research findings on the concept of trust. By going outside of education, the authors bring in several more studies, but relate it back to their central theme. 2. Goal: The authors are integrating the research to make some generalizations. 3. Coverage: The coverage is exhaustive. 4. Organization: The review is arranged conceptually. 5. Audience: Educational leadership and those interested in school environments. c) How the author(s) positioned themselves within the literature and academic community they were reviewing The authors position themselves as peers; they even quoted some of their own research. However, it was such an exhaustive study that this just adds to the research and situates the authors as one set of several experts. d) The organizational structures and rhetorical devices the author(s) used to accomplish their goals The structure is developed by building on concepts, from the definition of trust, to the “dynamics of trust”, to what happens in the absence of trust, back to trust in the school environment. The authors take a stand from the beginning on the importance of trust to the school reform effort, built with rhetorical devices such as “Trust is pivotal as American society considers its schools,” and “lack of trust is a serious impediment to many of the forms taking place in American schools,” (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, pp.548). e) How the choice of literature review genre related to the authors understanding of the state of the literature in their field The authors clearly feel that the literature is exhaustive outside of education. By going outside of their field they brought in important elements that pertain back to the schools. The need for further research is centered within the school environment, which is a rather open field, according to the authors. I find it interesting that there is a lack of studies that show the importance of trust between teachers and administrators, and teachers and students, although that would seem, intuitively, to be an important element in schools.