Conducting the TPACK literature review taught me a lot -- mainly that I did not want to focus on TPACK! I decided that the current state of teacher development as it relates to the new literacies is less a problem framed by cognition (as in, developing TPACK) and more a problem with dispositions and mindsets toward new digital technologies. In other words, when teaching about and through 21st century technologies, we fail to acknowledge the fear and sense of disequilibrium that gives rise to the initial resistance among even the most gung-ho learners.
Still. I am pretty happy with the final outcome of the review. I enjoyed writing it and don't want my efforts to go to waste. I see value in the TPACK construct in that it provides a common language for researchers and teacher educators, and I found interesting intersections in the literature between the TPACK and new literacies discourse communities. So, I am going to submit my review of the TPACK literature to this year's Literacy Research Association conference in hopes of striking a chord with the niche group of new literacies teacher educators who annually attend.
Before doing so, I would not object if someone gave my TPACK review the once-over with the evaluation framework Boote and Beile (2005) devised for their analysis of doctoral literature reviews in education.
Boote and Beile pull no punches in their harsh assessment of the state of the literature review, and I wonder how my TPACK document would hold up to their standards, particularly the methodology criteria. To my knowledge, I did not describe the advantages and disadvantages of primary methodologies used in the field of teacher education and instructional technology, except to note the preponderance of quantitative studies and their ineffectiveness in "measuring" change in the affective domain. And that is teetering on the edge of the pitfall known as the "negative logic-of-justification" (Piantanida & Garman, 2009, Ch. 11, "Preparing to construct a logic-of-justification," para 4).
Take-away: I need to maintain a steady focus on the "pockets of discourse" where scholars are connecting on particular qualitative approaches (i.e. fruitful connections between Cultural-Historical Activity Theory and the New Literacies perspective).
Bridging, not filling, gaps
Approaching the literature review is an exercise in making connections as much as the actual writing of the review itself. Before I began the process of "immersion in literature" (Piantanida & Garman, 2009), I had already oriented to my topic of interest based on a combination of worldview and practical and professional experience. Boote and Beile (2005), Kilbourn (2006), and Piantanida and Garman all argue this point.
 |
| from FreeDigitalPhotos.net |
Kilbourn, for instance, says we don't so much "find" topics as we "construct" or "develop" them. He says, "Problems are usually constructed out of a complex interplay among one's own thinking about an issue, one's own experience, and one's understanding of the research literature" (p. 539).
What we identify as a worthwhile problem to pursue is partly determined by our own thinking, experience, and reading of the literature. It is highly subjective.
And Piantanida and Garman explain, "...[P]atterns of meaning are not embedded in the literature per se, but are forged in relation to the nagging issues that are pushing and prodding one toward a picture of one's study" (Ch. 10, "Developing a Mindset for Reviewing Literature," para 1). Moreover, the patterns and connections help clarify "how one's ideas fit into an evolving discourse about the topic" (para 4).
A good lit review is not just a summary of research; it is the foundation upon which the researcher puts forth his or her unique perspective.
However, in their assessment of 12 dissertations from three state-funded institutions, Boote and Beile found evidence to suggest that, for many doctoral students and their advisers, the literature review is a "hollow exercise" (p. 9). The review is treated as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. We engage with the literature only long enough to find "the gap" that will justify our own study. Piantanida and Garman would call it just more academic folklore, a "misinterpretation of the expectation that the dissertation be an original piece of research" (Ch. 10, "Developing a Mindset for Reviewing Literature," para 3).
This misrepresentation is alive and well among my classmates and colleagues. Where do we get the idea that this is the purpose of the review? I certainly believed it, and I remember feeling envious when friends breathlessly delivered the news that they had finally "found a gap" in the literature for their dissertations. How many of us in our own reviews of the literature have skipped the discourse altogether, impatiently scrolling (or turning) the pages until we could rest our eyes on the all-important "findings" and "recommendations" sections of this-or-that study? We test the waters, rather than immerse ourselves in the discourse.
Take-away: Stop looking for gaps and look for opportunities to contribute to the ongoing deliberations on a topic within my field. My study should not propose to fill a gap; it should make connections across and between gaps.
"Crafting discursive text"
Piatanida and Garman describe the period of reading the literature as a time marked by confusion and feelings of incompetence. The incredible "Henny Penny" anecdote from Chapter 8 again comes to mind and should be required reading for all who are about to embark on the lit review journey.
Piantanida and Garman advise, "It is important to give oneself time to enter into the discourses, to read without necessarily understanding, and finally to read with enough understanding to begin crafting discursive text for the proposal" (Ch. 10, "Developing a Mindset for Reviewing the Literature, para 1).
By way of a somewhat tedious lawnmower repair metaphor, Kilbourn makes a similar point. He explains that the literature review is the route to writing the all-important problem statement (or Piantanida and Garman's "statement of intent"). Kilbourn says, "An educational problem gets translated into a research problem (1) when it is couched in an argument (an argument, not merely an assertion) that illustrates its educational significance and (2) when it explicitly refers to existing research" (p. 541).
The literature review, then, is integral to the study, not merely "tacked on," but interwoven in the context, motivation, and significance (Kilbourn, 2006). Kilbourn writes, "Articulating the problem in the proposal is one of the more difficult stages of a dissertation, one of the sweaty inclines" (p. 539).
 |
| from FreeDigitalPhotos.net |
I think the TPACK review did this for me. It pointed me to the less-understood phenomenon of teacher identity in relation to classroom technology integration. It goaded me to formulate a clear and (I hope) convincing rationale for the focus of my research.
So, contrary to popular belief, the literature review should not be put off until after the problem and methods are defined, nor should it be set aside as a "static artifact" upon completion (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 11). This last bit of advice from Boote and Beile gave me pause because I really have not looked at my literature since submitting my proposal almost two months ago.
Take-away: Treat my dissertation literature review as a living, breathing document and stay engaged with the literature throughout the dissertation process.
References:
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X034006003
Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. The Teachers College Record, 108(4), 529–576.
Piantanida, M., & Garman, N. B. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed., Kindle version.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
"My study should not propose to fill a gap; it should make connections across and between gaps."
ReplyDeleteYes, that. I think I am guilty of using the "fill a gap" language myself, which does oversimplify it, doesn't it? Thanks for the reminder.