Using Loop Learning in developing Innovative Literature Reviews
1 like2,155 views
The document presents a framework for developing innovative literature reviews through loop learning and critical dialogue, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive literature review as a foundation for scholarly research. It discusses methodologies such as single, double, and triple-loop learning to critically engage with literature, overcome biases, and integrate diverse perspectives. The goal is to foster profound understanding and generate new insights in the research process.
![Literature Review & Triple Loop Learning
1. Understand how problems and solutions are related,
even when separated by time and space
2. Understand why previous actions led to current
problems (Situatedness*).
3. Uncover and question premises and cognitive patterns
4. Synthesize new perspectives to emerge, and
5. Establish a rationale for new research
* Polanyi, M. (1998 [orig.1958]). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London,
Routledge.
© 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved
Page
16](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/usinglooplearningindevelopinginnovativeliteraturereviews-131127111455-phpapp02/85/Using-Loop-Learning-in-developing-Innovative-Literature-Reviews-16-320.jpg)
![References
Kabat-Zinn J. ,2003. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice. 10:144–156.
Lindblom J. & Ziemke T. ,2003. Social situatedness of natural and artificial intelligence: Vygotsky and beyond. Adaptive
Behavior, 11 (2): 79-96.
Myers, D. G. ,2004. Psychology. New York, New York: Worth Publishers.
Peschl, M. F.,2007. Triple-loop learning as foundation for profound change, individual cultivation, and radical innovation.
Construction. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/6161/1/pesc07_
Polanyi, M. (1998 [orig.1958]). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London, Routledge
Richardson, V. ,2003. The Ph.D. in education. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CID/essays
/CID_educ_Richardson.pdf
Rogers,P. Hohoff, C. Heatherley, S. Mullings, Maxfield, P Evershed, R. Deckert. J. and Nutt. D. (2010) Association of
the Anxiogenic and Alerting Effects of Caffeine with ADORA2A and ADORA1 Polymorphisms and Habitual Level of
Caffeine Consumption. Neuropsychopharmacology, DOI: 10.1038/npp.2010.71.
Shulman, L. S. ,1999. Professing educational scholarship. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in
education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 159-165). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R. E. ,1986. Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analysis and traditional reviews. Educational
Researcher, 15(9), 5-11.
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. ,2013. Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2013 ed.). Seattle, WA:
Dissertation Success. Retrieved from http://dissertationrecipes.com/
Trede, F.; Higgs, J. & Rothwell, R. ,2008. Critical Transformative Dialogues: A Research Method Beyond the Fusions
of Horizons [37 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1),
Usher, R., & Bryant, I. ,1989. Adult education as theory, practice and research. London, England: Routledge.
© 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved
Page
23](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/usinglooplearningindevelopinginnovativeliteraturereviews-131127111455-phpapp02/85/Using-Loop-Learning-in-developing-Innovative-Literature-Reviews-23-320.jpg)
Using Loop Learning in developing Innovative Literature Reviews
- 1. USING LOOP LEARNING AND CRITICAL DIALOGUE IN DEVELOPING INNOVATIVE LITERATURE REVIEWS Presenter: Marilyn K. Simon, Ph.D Co-Author: Jim Goes, Ph.D. School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix October 2013
- 2. Graduate Studies • Old Adage: More and more about less and less • Eventually know everything about nothing. • Good news/Bad news • Literature review. © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 2
- 3. The Scholarly Literature Review • A comprehensive, fully developed literature review is the foundation and starting point for scholarly research, and one of the most important tasks in dissertation development. Pre-requisite for doctoral research. • Literature reviews often suffer from bounded, linear –wikipeida like thinking, limited scope, and little effort to go outside of the existing literature on a topic, in content, analysis, and synthesis. Little attention in grad school • Extensive, not exhaustive • Challenging in traditional programs; more so in online setting © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 3
- 4. Emphasis • Methodology • APA formatting • Plagiarizing • Data Analyses • Key word searches © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 4
- 5. Purpose of a Literature Review • Justification • Substantiate gap in the existing literature. • Analysis/synthesis of scholarly literature • ROC bottom test justification. • A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field (Boote & Biele, 2005). © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 5
- 6. Quality Literature review: UoP/SAS Search criteria and scope is explicit and justified Criteria for material inclusion and exclusion are clear and justified Demonstrates a purposeful and thorough inclusion of material Demonstrates comprehensiveness: breadth, relevance, currency, availability, and authority Demonstrates comprehensiveness: depth (including alternative and conflicting perspectives) Discussion is supported by relevant, scholarly, and peer-reviewed sources © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 6
- 7. Mind-mapping First Step – Key word search © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 7
- 8. Keyword Search • A basic keyword search follows this syntax: • <your keyword> <your keyword> • cats scratching: This search retrieved 49 results in EBSCOhost. • You can narrow down the number of results you get by using more keywords: • cats scratching allergy • This search retrieved 2 results in EBSCOhost • You can expand the number of results you get by using synonyms and truncation: • (cats or kittens) scratch* • This search retrieved 548 results in EBSCOhost. © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 8
- 9. Single Loop Literature Review Standard Review Format: 1. Single-loop learning model following Argyris (1994) 2. Identify a gap in the literature, and conduct research to improve a given situation 3. Focus on problem solving by seeking supportive views 4. Generates little new insight into known problems because of the limited perspective of the search and analysis. 5. Wikipedia-like: Example: case for character education © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 9
- 10. Single Loop Example • Example: Study the efficacy of caffeine intake while conducting scholarly research. • Search is designed, intentionally or not, to support researcher’s view • Potential for cultural bias © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 10
- 11. An Annotated Bibliography is not a Lit Review • Concise summaries • Little integration Presented in a linear or chronological fashion • Literature connections support the study © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 11
- 12. Scholarly Debate and Double Loop Learning • Review is widened to consider opposing views • 180 degree review • Active search for opposing/ outside views on the issue • However opposing/outside views usually receive greater critical scrutiny, potentially biasing results (Gilovich,1991). • e.g. In a debate over character education, someone wins and someone loses © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 12
- 13. Dialogue and Convergence – Triple Loop Learning • Single Loop – Problem Solving (I’m hungry, I need food, give me a fish, I eat for a day) Problem solved. • Double Loop – Problem Reframing (I need to eat regularly, teach me to fish, overcome challenges of recurrent hunger and fishing… I will be able to eat more often) • Triple Loop – Problem Convergence (What else can I eat besides fish? sustenance and satiation) © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 13
- 14. Triple Loop Learning – Literature Review • A profound understanding of our own and others beliefs, perceptions, and understandings. • Peschl (2007) proposed that triple-loop learning is a type of double-loop thinking about double-loop learning. • Not only pro and con arguments, but questioning: – Are we are studying the right issue? – right way? – right time. • Engage researchers in each other studies. © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 14
- 15. Chris Argyris. Model © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 15
- 16. Literature Review & Triple Loop Learning 1. Understand how problems and solutions are related, even when separated by time and space 2. Understand why previous actions led to current problems (Situatedness*). 3. Uncover and question premises and cognitive patterns 4. Synthesize new perspectives to emerge, and 5. Establish a rationale for new research * Polanyi, M. (1998 [orig.1958]). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London, Routledge. © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 16
- 17. More like a conversation between Authors where new ideas are generated. These authors are toasting you as the newest member of the team; respect for ideas. AVATARs © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 17
- 18. Experiential Learning with Triple Loop Learning Problem: School Violence • Proposed Study: Delphi survey of experts, advocates about what can be done to Stop School Violence • Brainstorm with a group of Colleagues • Create a mindmap on areas to research • Present potential single, double, triple loop learning strategies • Assess situatedness, dialogue with participants until convergence is reached © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 18
- 19. Stop School Violence • What can be done to stop school violence? (mind-map – one idea) • Single-Loop: What can be done to stop school violence? Generate support for idea • Double-Loop: Pros and Cons – Support - Refute idea • Triple-Loop: Situatedness – what is the context? • Loop ideas to others © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 19
- 20. How does this map compare to yours? © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 20
- 21. Creating an Innovative and Scholarly Review of the Literature Triple Loop Dialogic Processing • The task is to orchestrate the voices and ideas of many into a form of textual unity. • Parts Whole, Whole Parts • Framework for relating new findings and a profound understanding of how new research can advance prior research. • Deep knowing profound change/innovation - Peschl © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 21
- 22. References Argyris, C.,1994, July. Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D., 1985. Action science: concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Bakhtin, M. ,1973. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics (R. D. Rotsel, Trans.). New York, NY: Ardis. Bohm, D. ,1996. On dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge. Boote, D., & Biele, P. ,2005. Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Journal: Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X034006003 Buber, M. ,1996. The letters of Martin Buber: A life of dialogue. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Cooper, H. ,1988. Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in society (1), 104106. Canales, J. ,2010. Comparative neuroscience of stimulant-induced memory `dysfunction: role for neurogenesis in the adult hippocampus, Behavioural Pharmacology, 21, 5-6, 379 Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. ,1998. Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation. London, England: Wiley. Franklin, S. P.,1995. Artificial minds. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass Gilovich, T. ,1991. How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York, NY: Macmillan. Isaacs, W. N. ,1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39. Isaacs, W.N. ,1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell. © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 22
- 23. References Kabat-Zinn J. ,2003. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 10:144–156. Lindblom J. & Ziemke T. ,2003. Social situatedness of natural and artificial intelligence: Vygotsky and beyond. Adaptive Behavior, 11 (2): 79-96. Myers, D. G. ,2004. Psychology. New York, New York: Worth Publishers. Peschl, M. F.,2007. Triple-loop learning as foundation for profound change, individual cultivation, and radical innovation. Construction. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/6161/1/pesc07_ Polanyi, M. (1998 [orig.1958]). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London, Routledge Richardson, V. ,2003. The Ph.D. in education. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CID/essays /CID_educ_Richardson.pdf Rogers,P. Hohoff, C. Heatherley, S. Mullings, Maxfield, P Evershed, R. Deckert. J. and Nutt. D. (2010) Association of the Anxiogenic and Alerting Effects of Caffeine with ADORA2A and ADORA1 Polymorphisms and Habitual Level of Caffeine Consumption. Neuropsychopharmacology, DOI: 10.1038/npp.2010.71. Shulman, L. S. ,1999. Professing educational scholarship. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 159-165). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Slavin, R. E. ,1986. Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analysis and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5-11. Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. ,2013. Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2013 ed.). Seattle, WA: Dissertation Success. Retrieved from http://dissertationrecipes.com/ Trede, F.; Higgs, J. & Rothwell, R. ,2008. Critical Transformative Dialogues: A Research Method Beyond the Fusions of Horizons [37 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Usher, R., & Bryant, I. ,1989. Adult education as theory, practice and research. London, England: Routledge. © 2012 University of Phoenix, Inc. | All rights reserved Page 23