JennysResearchReadingsPhaseTwo < ACUT

Jenny's Research Readings Phase Two

This is a list of the research readings for the second rising of my thesis in summer 2009. Since this is a different thesis altogether, I thought it made sense to put my materials in a different place. The readings/resources in this research journal are in alpha order by author. The citations are messy and are not intended to be used in a formal report as is. "Killer" resources will be in red .

Dyba, Tore, Dingsoyr, Torgeir, and Hanssen, Geir. (2007). Applying Systematic Reviews to Diverse Study Types: An Experience Report. First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Management, pp. 225-233.

This article is about the systematic review reported in the other Dyba articles. It is mostly repetitive. The discussion and conclusions section is the only part worth revisiting.

This article is mostly just a repeat. Entire passages are found in the other articles.

Dyba, Tore, and Dingsoyr, Torgeir. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50, pp. 833-859.

This was an interesting read because it was a systematic review in addition to being an article about agile systems, which I needed to learn more about.

Watching the process unfold for developing the systematic review, and seeing the kinds of conclusions this careful study could make, or rather how few conclusions this study could make, was very interesting. The fact that so few conclusions could be drawn was disappointing. It seemed like after such a carefully constructed review that at least some significant conclusions could be drawn. But, instead, because the studies selected by the review didn't pass the review's ranking criteria, the authors were unable to make any kind of strong conclusions other than that more studies needed to be done and that they should be done in context to the existing literature, i.e. do more studies where few studies have been done so far.

You have to admire the integrity of the authors, but it is also very frustrating as someone who intends to perform her own review, to see how so much work can amount to very little difference.

I do appreciate the methodology followed by the authors. They demonstrated a strong command of the literature in their citations and such. That makes it all the more frustrating for me as a reader to see that so much hard work amounts to so little.

Anyhow, this was the second in a series of three articles that Hilary wanted me to read. The first was the "Strength of evidence..." article. Now, on to the third.

Dyba, Tore, and Dingsoyr, Torgeir. (2008) Strength of Evidence in Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering. ESEM '08, October 9-10, 2008, Kaiserslautern, Germany. pp.178-187.

This was an amazing read. Really well explained and substantiated by the citations.

This is the first of three articles by Dyba that Hilary found and recommended I read. It builds on the Kitchenham and Charters (2007) report on how to write systematic literature reviews.

This article even discusses the use of its method on building this article. I was interested in the weeding process where they went from almost 2,000 articles down to 36.

It would not be difficult to use this method on my own systematic review. Time-consuming, yes, but not difficult to implement.

I think this is a "killer resource."

Hollenbeck, James E. (2003). Using A Constructivist Strategy and STS Methodology To Teach Science with the Humanities. International Conference on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education (3rd, East London, South Africa, January 15-18, 2003). (see ERIC database).

I liked this article. Short and sweet. Describes the STS method and the author's personal experience using the method. Gets into the historical context for the method and the justification for using it. The reason is to empower students with skills that will enable them to improve their lives and the world around them. STS will give students these skills; rote memorization will not, asserts the author.

Howell, Scott L. (2006). The Chautauqua Movement and its influence on adult education theory and practice today. ERIC (i.e., the database).

This is a more detailed historical review of the rise of the Chautauqua Movement.

There are some interesting references...must see ones. The paper is organized in a way to help adult education providers succeed. It offers brief lessons on finances, rewards and competition.

Short but sweet, and useful.

Kitchenham, Barbara. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Joint Technical Report. Keele University Technical Report TR/SE 0401 and Empirical Software Engineering NICTA Technical Report 0400011T.1

This is the first article by Kitchenham for how to write a systematic review in the field of software engineering. It's good, but the rewrite in 2007 is better.

Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Version 2.3 EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01

Be sure and check this document when referencing. Its cover page lists two organizations instead of the two primary authors.

This updated version of the systematic literature review guidelines is a lot better than the first. It is clearer and gives better detail. I found it easier to follow and understand.

When considering this topic, be sure and see the three Dyba articles as well. I am going to read these three articles next.

I haven't finished this article as of today, July 28th. I have only read the first half, which is the part that covers where I am now.

Lee, Mee-Kyeong and Erdogan, Ibrahim. (2007) The Effect of Science-Technology_Society Teaching on Students' Attitudes toward Science and Certain Aspects of Creativity International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 29, No. 11, 3 September 2007, pp. 1315-1327.

This is a particularly relevant article for my thesis topic. It discusses how teaching in more flexible, personalized, and creative ways leads to better motivation and learning.

There are many citations I want to follow.

This was a second read, and it got my attention way more the second time around.

Hilary noted that it would be informative to look up this particular instance of STS teaching and see what was reported on it.

Moore, Michael G. (2003). From Chautauqua to the Virtual University: A Century of Distance Education in the United States. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. (Available from ERIC database)

Moore's essay covers the development of distance education both in the US and abroad. That perspective makes it more interesting and more valuable, since other countries that have made more organized efforts in establishing and legitimizing distance education can provide a comparison for what I learn about progress in the US on this topic.

This essay was a comprehensive review of distance education, loaded with further resources to check out. I marked it up pretty well. There were a number of instances where topics like providing multiple access points to materials was discussed. I marked all instances of these that I found, in addition to other items of note.

The three reaction papers at the end were interesting. Some supported Moore's work, while others were critical of what they felt were significant omissions. They were all worthwhile to read (and reread) in and of themselves. They provide more references above and beyond Moore's work.

I consider this essay to be a valuable read.

Passig, David. (2003). A Taxonomy of Future Higher Thinking Skills. Informatica, 2003, Vol. 2, No. 1

I just read "A Taxonomy of Future Higher Thinking Skills" and feel like I completely missed the boat. I was so excited about the article, given to me by Hilary, simply by it's intriguing title. However, when I started to read it, I kept asking myself where the foundation of this arguments were. It seemed like he just started right off making claims without substantiating anything. For example, he cited the World Future Society, but why would I immediately believe anything that that society claims simply because someone mentioned its name in a paper? I feel like the whole paper is just a random thought, with little or no time spent building up any arguments made. The author seems to just ramble on with little concern as to building up any credibility about what he says.

Am I being a naive reader of academic writing? This is certainly possible, but if it is, I wonder why academic writing doesn't stand up to the same standards of regular writing. I know you can use other people's papers as citations while making your own arguments, but I also think it is good policy to build your arguments in your own paper and not simply assume that people who are following your argument necessarily believe everything that you do.

Hilary doesn't like the choice of melioration as a 7th type of thinking skill. Frankly, the author lost me as a believer in his ideas long before that.

I found this article very difficult to believe. I feel that it would require me to read up a lot of the references, and I think that kind of work should be done for the reader in the article itself. It wouldn't have required a lot more writing to win me over. The author simply took no time at all to build up his assertions. Instead, he simply stated a lot of debatable (to me) things and just moved on with his argument.

I have marked up my copy of this article.

I do not feel I understand anything more after reading this article. I feel like I just believe less in anything this author writes.

As a matter of record, Hilary gave me this article and said the value of it is in the description of Bloom's taxonomy.

Yager, R. (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model Towards Real Reform in Science Education. The Science Teacher, Sept. 1991, p. 52-57.

A very informative article about the Constructivist Learning Model. Seems to be essentially what we are trying to create with the twiki. People must interact with information and create their own mental models for learning to take place. That seems to be the essential message.

Yager, Robert E., Blunkch, Susan M., and Dass, P. Maxwell (1995). Science as a way of knowing. Thrust for Educational Leadership, v. 25, p. 22-5.

This author is one to look out for in the literature.

The author makes interesting comments about the learning process while explaining the Iowa Chautauqua Program (ICP).

For example: "By teaching science in the context of human experience, the Iowa Chautauqua Program encourages students to take ownership of their learning, and construct meaning from the information they gather."

This article tipped me off on constructivism (...a theory of knowing and a model for learning...):
"Constructivism is the idea that all humans develop their own meaning."

"Often what occurs in classrooms is a matter of remembering what has been read and told via lectures, or what has been performed in carefully directed laboratories. Such imitation rarely leads to understanding."

"Typical science instruction produces students who can repeat information and actions that seem to have little meaning in the real world context. College students are unable to apply the information and skills they appeared to master in classrooms and laboratories."

-- JennyYang - 07 Jul 2009