Developing the flow of my literature review

In the few days since my last post, I have had more thoughts about my relational diagram and am now on V1.4! I have attached it below along with my latest assumptions.

RQ tems mapped to relational diagramV1.4

Further iterations of my relational diagram came from following the Doctoral Writing SIG Part 3 guide to writing a meaningful literature review, that calls for the researcher to plan the structure and flow of my literature review to generate content. Arnold Wentzel (2016) is the author of this particular guidance, and he suggests that “finding a logical flow between assumptions can be challenging”. He does, however, have an answer to this dilemma by using connecting phrases between each assumption to see if, at the end of what becomes a very long sentence, the potential flow of the literature makes sense. V0.0, V1.0, V1.1, V1.2 and V1.3 didn’t flow for me, and V1.4 is starting to feel more workable. Below you will see that I have created the long sentence, then have followed Wentzel’s suggestion for structuring my literature review by breaking my long sentence into sections.

The long sentence: Critical reflection of current online teaching experiences creates self-development opportunities in my desire to be an online teacher NOT do online teaching (D) and an awareness of established online teacher professional development (oTPD) models will contextualise my approach to developing my networked learning teaching praxis (NLTP) in a unique way (E) which can be achieved through applying analytic autonetnography as an emerging eResearch methodology which gives me complete member researcher status as an online teacher to identify my own oTPD needs (B) complemented by transformational learning theory as a theoretical framework to emphasise critical reflection of online pedagogy to inform how I maintain authentic relationships with online learners (C). oTPD success will be achieved by understanding situational knowledge relating to my NLTP, emotional barriers and critically reflexive self-examination (F) and my future NLTP will be enhanced as a result (A)

Now I need to break this down:

The nature of my oTPD needs

Critical reflection of current online teaching experiences creates self-development opportunities in my desire to be and online teacher, not do online teaching (D) and an awareness of established oTPD models will contextualise my desire to develop my NLTP in a unique way (E)

Methods to explore my oTPD needs

Analytic autonetnography as an emerging eResearch methodology gives me complete member researcher status as a neophyte online teacher to identify my own oTPD needs (B) supported by transformational learning theory as a theoretical framework to emphasise critical reflection of my understanding of online pedagogy to inform the development and maintenance of authentic relationships with online learners (C)

Achieving enhancement in NLTP

By understanding situational knowledge relating to my current NLTP, including emotion barriers and critically reflexive self-examination (F) self-examination will highlight areas of self-development and my NLTP will be enhanced as a result (A)

I am sure this process will evolve as I progress, but I feel more confident now in my literature review plan. Next, I move on to part 4 of the guidance and no doubt you will hear how well I manage the final phase of planning …

Developing the flow of my literature review

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s