We’ve had more than a few confused and frustrated students have a difficult time with the process of putting together their Lit Review and all of the re-editing requests that come with the process. The following is my response to one student’s frustration:

I appreciate your frustration and confusion at the requested changes. One thing that is “consistent” in academic programs and Action Research in particular, is that they tend to evolve. It can be a frustrating thing, but the overall thrust is to make the program the best it can possibly be, and thus the changes that happen along the way are part of that. In this way AR is very much like the technology we use, what worked 12 months ago might not work so well 12 months later.

So the core of what we are looking for hasn’t change but some of the sign posts might have. We’ve been working very closely with together as a team and these are the things that we are looking for:

1. The Lit Review check list: If you go to Dr. Bedard’s example website (see: http://web.me.com/suebedard/AR/Literature_Review.html), you’ll see the check-list. This is very important info.
2. Does it make sense: Just getting a fresh pair of eyes to read the document has proven to be very important. So we’re looking for missing words, missing sentences, things that might have made sense in your head but don’t quite work in print.
3. APA: In-line references and the resource list
4. Synthesis of Resources: The biggest enemy to a good lit review is when one doesn’t fully understand or synthesize the resources and tries to write a lit review. What results is more like an annotated bib where the lit review writer bounces from author name to quote, author name to quote, author name to quote, etc. What we’re looking for is for the author to have a grasp of the lit., so that the writer can act like a talk show host, bring in two or three sources, ask them questions about their work, where their work overlaps, where they disagree with each other and where there are gaps. The talk-show host (lit review writer) never shares his/her opinion, but lets the guests (sources) do all the talking. When they’ve shared their piece, the host brings on a few more guests until the spectrum of the subject has been covered. The host guides the conversation and blends all of the voices, whether they agree or disagree with each other and never shares his opinion or makes his voice louder than theirs. Of course, being a good host, he began the session with a brief intro, no opinion, just the main question at hand. Then when all the guests have spoken, he concludes with a brief summary, again, no opinion on the part of the host. That’s what we’re looking for

Please take advantage of Dr. Bedard’s website, http://web.me.com/suebedard/AR/Literature_Review.html.

Lit Reviews are too complicated to keep it all in your head and being one of the more “academic” things that we do, there’s always a need for re-editing. It’s just the nature of the process.

We want you to be successful and for your work to stand up to the scrutiny of any program in the nation. So we’re going to look at student work that is intended to represent a year’s worth of work with a fine-tooth comb. It’s a lot of work for all of us, but in the end it makes for much better results and speaks to those who under-estimate the value of online education. Hang in there, remember Rule #6, roll with the changes and you’ll be so happy with your work in the end. It’s not that your work is not good enough, we just want it to sing with all the passion that you’ve already invested in it. Hope that this helps. jbb

Joe Bustillos | Course Director
Media Asset Creation – EMDTMS | Full Sail University