3.+Thoroughness


 * __Analysis 3: Thoroughness__**

For the literature review, complete the following analysis:


 * 1) **Did the review adequately specify its focus, providing specific topics or search terms?** The review does specifically define two terms related to the theme of the dissertation: transactions and struggling readers. Both of these terms are more than adequately discussed and defined; however, more terms certainly could have been defined.
 * 2) **If not, how could it have been more specific?** The terms that could have been included to strengthen the review and help cultivate a larger, more generalized audience include the following: content area teacher, socio-cultural and socio-cognitive perspectives, and comprehension strategies.


 * 1) **Did the review adequately specify the search strategies, methods, and sources it used to find the literature on the topic?** The author does not divulge her searching methods and sources; however, a reading professional would recognize that she does use the work of renowned figures in the field of reading to lend credence to her dissertation.
 * 2) **If not, what strategies, methods, or sources would be most appropriate and fruitful?** It is apparent that the author used valid citations within her literary review; therefore, if she had shared her searching methods with her audience her paper would have been more conclusive and credible. On a side note, it would have enhanced the quality of the dissertation if she had proofread more closely her citation list because she was remiss in citing John Dewey, who is referred to by many scholars as the founder of modern education in the United States. She would have also been more thorough if she had included some research and references to Vygotsky in terms of the social cultural interaction between the teacher and student; I was surprised to see this neglected.


 * 1) **Did the review adequately specify the criteria for inclusion in the review?** The review does not include a piece that explains the criteria for the included citations.
 * 2) **If not, what criteria would have been appropriate?** It would have been appropriate for the Ms. Hall, the author, to explain shortly how the citations were selected. For example, she cites Louise M. Rosenblatt several times throughout the literature review. In citing Rosenblatt, she could have incorporated the reasons for the citation. In such an example Ms. Hall could have mentioned that Rosenblatt, who died in 2005, was a powerful figurehead in the field of reading who is still one of the most frequently cited individuals in the field of teaching literature. This type of brief explanation could have helped to further solidify Ms. Hall's scholarliness as an author. As well, she could have looked at those who followed and built on Rosenblatt's research; she was a powerful influence. Also, in content area literacy, Vacca and Vacca are often included; I was wondering if she was unaware of their research, or purposefully chose to ignore it. No way of telling. Based on the area of citations, I'm inclined to think this person approaches literacy from the English classroom, and not from the field of reading.

Comments and Reflections: