Yearly Archives: 2017

Citations in your literature review

Leave a reply

A common mistake that people make when first writing a literature review is to present the literature in a neutral and even way, as if it is all equivalent.

For example:

‘Smith (2009) found that pigs can fly. Jones’ study (2009) suggested that this is not the case.’

This doesn’t help your reader to understand or contextualise this information (for example, Smith may have been looking at airline travel for animals, while Jones was studying aerodynamics). More importantly, it doesn’t help your reader to understand your position. Will your paper / thesis take the position that pigs can or can’t fly?

Ambiguity also occurs if you give an author’s name at the beginning of a sentence, because this often implies you don’t have a position on what they say. For example.

‘Smith (2009) says the moon is made of green cheese’.

It’s clear what Smith thinks, but it’s not clear what you think.

However, if you say:

‘The moon is made of green cheese (Smith, 2009)’

you are making it clear that you think this is a fact, which was first uncovered by Smith.

The other option is to keep the author at the beginning, but only because you are going to disagree with their view.

Smith (2009) argued that the moon is made of green cheese but subsequent observations (Jones, 2012) have shown that it is mainly composed of dog biscuits.’

Here you are showing that you are aware of Smith’s view, but that you agree with Jones.

Rigour in journal articles

Leave a reply

These points are taken from a talk by Sara Hennessy about assessing rigour in papers submitted to the British Journal of Educational Technology.

  • Is the account analytical or purely descriptive?
  • Do the authors critique the literature and present a balanced account or does the review gloss over known issues with educational technology initiatives?
  • How do the theoretical assumptions and explanations of the case compare with alternative explanations?
  • Are links made in the discussion/conclusions back to the conceptual framework?
  • Are the findings critically interpreted in relation to the existing literature?
  • Do the research questions convey genuine inquiry or do they assume that educational technology is a Good Thing?
  • What is the theory of change?
  • Were there any potential sources of bias?
  • What measures were taken to counter them? eg were any counter examples sought when collecting and analysing data?
  • Does reporting seem selective? Are the analyses systematic and explicit? Is the account reflective and evaluative?
  • Was there any kind of control in a technology intervention design?
  • Are there threats to validity and reliability? Does inadequate control of extraneous factors threaten validity of theoretical inferences from data?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Could reactivity have played a role? Did novelty value of shiny new tools increase motivation?
  • How robust are the claims – how adequately is the argument supported by the evidence provided?
  • Does the sampling strategy permit empirical generalization to a larger population?
  • Who is the audience? Is the work relevant and current?
  • Are there clear conclusions that generalized beyond specific case/context? Do they apply in other institutions?
  • Is the work applicable / of interest in other countries? Is the focus overly parochial?
  • Is educational technology serving only the privileged in developing countries who already have access?
  • SES and gender inequity, rural/urban divide, language, computer literacy, bandwidth and intermittent connectivity / electricity maintenance, technical support, gatekeepers / stakeholders, culturally appropriate content….
  • Is the research innovative or, at least, original
  • What is the significance and contribution to existing knowledge – theory? methodology? empirical data?
  • Has the innovation been tested with real users?
  • Are there any convincing learning outcomes?
  • Are there explicit implications for practice? Policy?
  • Many reports of interventions motivated by ‘how can I use…’ rather than educational need
  • How is it used, by and with whom, how often, for what purpose, under what conditions, with what support…
  • What is the role of the teacher? Has pedagogy-focused professional development been offered? What cultural shift in teacher and learner roles is necessary?

 

Giving a conference presentation

Leave a reply

I’m just back from the LAK17 conference in Vancouver. While I was there, I talked to a professor who had given feedback to doctoral students on their presentations in previous years. In most cases, it was the first time they had ever had feedback on their presenting skills. Thinking back to some of the talks I have heard from senior academics, I would guess that some have never had any help iat all in this area.

For me, an important part of presenting is the interactive aspect. If I see people looking puzzled, I try to go into more depth. If I see people looking bored, I’ll try to shift the pace. If a group of people arrives late, I’ll do a brief recap. If something of note happens in the room (loud noises outside, a phone going off , a butterfly circling overhead) I’ll try to react. A presentation is an opportunity to engage an audience and also to engage with an audience. I try to achieve that. I’m not claiming that I always succeed, but it’s always something I aim for.

The opposite of this approach is someone who reads a prepared script. I can see the attraction – particularly if you are nervous or if you are presenting in a language you don’t speak well. However, it’s usually far more difficult for an audience to follow. You put in more words. You use longer words. You start adding in citations. Your audience may be extremely familiar with the major works of every single person you cite – but it’s unlikely. If you cite two or three people in a single sentence, even the most skilled audience will be struggling to keep up. If everything you want to say is in the paper, people could just read your paper. Your presentation needs to offer something extra.

Small text doesn’t work. If you want your audience to read it, it needs to be big. If you are presenting to a large audience in a large room, your text needs to be very big. Unless it’s there as an example of illegible text, then small text serves no purpose. Long text has similar drawbacks. Either you have to pause awkwardly while the audience reads it, or you have to read it to the audience while they are reading it themselves, or you talk over it and the audience isn’t listening because they are reading the text.

You can run into the same problem with inexplicable images. For example, you put up a picture of a bear because you are talking about a big problem and you see a bear as an example of a big problem. While you talk about the issue, your audience is busy running through possible explanations for your choice of image. Woodland creature? About to hibernate? Likes honey? Lives in Canada? I once spent 20 minutes trying to figure out the use of an image on the second slide of a presentation. It was a presentation about a strong piece of work – in fact, it later won the prize for best paper – but I didn’t hear a word of it, because I was so distracted by the image.

Images also routinely get used without accreditation. People who scrupulously attribute the sources of their ideas use pictures without any reference to their creators. Sometimes, they even use ones that are have watermarks making it clear they are commercially available and should not be used without permission. It doesn’t take much effort to find images licensed using Creative Commons (you can filter your searches on both Flickr and Google Images in order to return these images). And when you use the images, credit them. Credit the work that went into them. Creative commons usually requires the author’s name and a link to the appropriate licence. This isn’t arduous, and it’s acknowledgment you would give to others whose work you have used.

A final thought. Your final slide. This is the one that stays up through the questions and answers that follow your talk. It is the slide that the audience spends most time looking at. Don’t waste it by filling it with ‘Thanks!’ Reiterate your key point. Provide a link to your work. Offer your contact details. Pose a question. Help the audience to engage with you once your presentation has ended.