documents

sample syllabi

Download Education T&L 925 Syllabus [DOC]

Education T&L 925

EDU T&L 925
Dr. Ian Wilkinson
Spring 2008
Ramseyer 200
Thursday 7:00 – 9:18 pm
wilkinson.70@osu.edu
Office hours: by appointment

Rationale

The purpose of this course is for students to gain an in-depth understanding of how to review, analyze, and synthesize research in reading and literacy. The focus is on the process of reviewing and synthesizing research. We will examine what makes for a good review, closely examine examples of reviews of research in reading and literacy, and engage in the process of conducting a review. Students will have opportunity to engage in guided practice in reviewing research on a common topic as well as to further their own review of research on a topic relevant to their interests.

Objectives

As a result of taking this course, students should be able to:

1. Demonstrate understanding of how knowledge is constructed through research and the process of peer review.
2. Identify resources for conducting reviews of research in reading and literacy.
3. Use electronic data bases for conducting literature searches.
4. Demonstrate knowledge of APA format for citation and referencing.
5. Analyze arguments in the research literature in reading and literacy.
6. Critically evaluate research studies in reading and literacy on the grounds of logic, method, and significance and quality of argument.
7. Write a review of research in reading and literacy

Prescribed Readings

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd edition). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edition). Washington, DC: APA.

Additional readings will be posted on the Carmen website for the course.

Statement of Student Rights

Any student with a documented disability who may require special assistance should self-identify to the instructor as early as possible in the quarter in order to receive effective and timely accommodations.

Requirements

1. Participation in class (10% of final grade)
   
   You are expected to come to class having read the readings and prepared to discuss them and to make connections to your review of research. All queries, reflections, explanations, and other ideas are grist for the discussion mill. Points for participation will be awarded at the end of the quarter based on my judgment of your contribution to class sessions.
   
   
2. Proposal for research review (20% of final grade, due May 1, 2008)
   
   You are required to submit a proposal for your final review of research paper. Your proposal should be coherent, well written prose, using appropriate headings, that outlines your progress and the anticipated structure of your review. Although you do not need to have everything determined, I do expect you to have selected a topic and question(s) to motivate your review, conducted at least an initial search of the literature, and defined the literature. I also expect you to have a good understanding of the scope and possible structure of your review.
   
   Length: Maximum 5 double-spaced typed pages plus references, 12-point font.
   
   
3. Presentation on your research review (20% of final grade, due May 29, 2008)
   You are required to prepare and present a presentation of approximately 30 minutes on your research review for the May 29 class. Your review need not be complete at this point but you should provide enough information for class members to understand the process you went through in conducting your review (e.g., your question or topic, how you searched the literature, the scope of your review, problems that arose) and the expected outcomes in terms of what you learned about the topic. Expect to be interrupted by questions from class members and from me.
   
   
4. Research review (50% of final grade, due June 4, 2008)
   You are required to critically review the research on a topic in reading and literacy that is relevant to your interests.  In your paper, synthesize the research on the topic in a coherent, well-organized way, critically evaluate the strengths weaknesses in the research on the topic, state your conclusion(s), and identify areas for further research.  Papers will be evaluated on the basis of the organization of your review, evidence of reading of relevant research and theory, critical analysis of the literature, and the clarity of argument and writing.  Use APA style (5th edition) for citation and references.
   
   Length:  10-15 pages, double-spaced, 12-point font, plus references.

Grading

Participants will receive a letter grade (A, A-, B+, etc.). Grades will be assigned based on the instructor's judgment as to whether the student has satisfied the stated objectives of the course in the following manner:

A = 100-95 A-= 94-90 B+= 89-87 B = 86-83 B-= 82-80 C+= 79-77
C = 76-73 C-= 72-70 D+= 69-67 D = 66-60 E = below 60

It should be noted that grades of A and A- are only used where the work is of an excellent standard. The Ohio State University Bulletin states guidelines for marking (grading) that indicate the above quality determinations are based on a comparison with other students in the course, and/or with students who have taken the course previously, and/or the instructor's personal expectations relative to the stated objectives of the course, based on the instructor's experience and expertise.

Topic Outline and Readings

3/27 [No Class / AERA]

4/3 Introduction to Course, Knowledge Construction and Scientific Progress

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd edition). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Dressman, M.. (2007). Theoretically framed: Argument and desire in the production of general knowledge about literacy Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 332-363.

4/10 Conducting a Review of Research

Shanahan, T. (2000). Research synthesis: Making sense of the accumulation of knowledge in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 209-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bus, A. G., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2004). Meta-analysis in reading research. In N. K. Duke and M. H. Mallette (Eds.) Literacy research methodologies (pp. 227-251). New York: Guilford Press.

Kennedy, M. M. (2007). Defining a literature. Educational Researcher, 36, 139-147.

4/17 Searching the Literature

Library workshop:
Using electronic databases (ERIC, PsycINFO, SSCI, LLBA, Dissertation Abstracts)
Using other library resources (e.g., RefWorks, IMChat, Artcle Express)

4/24 Thinking about Research Methods

Shulman, L. S. (1997). Disciplines of inquiry in education: A new overview. In R. M. Jaeger (2nd ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3-29). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9.

Johnstone, B. (2000). Thinking about methodology. In B Johnstone, Qualitative methods in sociolinguisics (pp. 20-38). NY: Oxford University Press.

Pressley, M. (2004). What I have learned up until now about research methods in reading education. In R.D. Robinson, M. C. McKenna, & J. M. Wedman (Eds.), Issues and trends in literacy education (3rd ed.) (pp. 287-298). Boston: Pearson Education.

5/1 Analyzing Arguments

Hart, C. (1998). Argumentation analysis. In C. Hart, Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination (pp. 79-108). London: Sage.

Kelly, A. E., & Yin, R. K. (2007). Strengthening structured abstracts for education research: The need for claim-based structured abstracts. Educational Researcher, 36, 133-138.

5/8 Synthesizing Studies

TBA

5/15 Organizing a Review

The following are examples of research reviews that we might examine. If there are other reviews you would like to examine in class, please notify me ahead of this class.

Paris, S. Wasik, B.A., Van der Westhuizen, G. (1988) Meta-metacognition: A review of research on metacognition and reading. In J. E. Readence and R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research (Thirty-seventh Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 143-166). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. In P. D. Pearson and A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 23, pp. 217-234). Washihgton, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.

5/22 APA Format, Writing Style, Citation, and Referencing

American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edition). Washington, DC: APA.

5/29 Student Presentations on Research Reviews

Additional References

Abelson, R. P. (1994). Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duke, N. K., & Mallette, M. H. (Eds.) (2004). Literacy research methodologies. New York:Guilford Press.

Galvan, J. L. (2004). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. ISBN 1-884585-50-7;

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage.

Herber, H. L. (1994). Professional connections: Pioneers and contemporaries in reading. In Ruddell, R. B., Ruddell, M. R., and Singer H. (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 4-21). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Barr, R., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading research (Volume III). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Light, R. L., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lunsford,  A. A., Ruszkiewicz, J. J., & Walters, K. (2001). Everything's an argument (2nd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Shavelson, R. J., and Towne, L. Editors. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading comprehension. Science & Technology Policy Institute, Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Ruddell, R.B., & Unrau, N.J. (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Shanahan, T., & Neuman, S. B. (1997). Literacy research that makes a difference. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 202-210.

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (Eds.). (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.