Tez Yazımı İçin Bir Alanyazın Taraması Kılavuzu

Abstract

Kusurlu bir alanyazın çalışması, bir tezi rayından çıkarmanın yollarından biridir. Bu makale yüksek kalitede bir bilimsel tez alanyazınının nasıl yazılacağına dair bazı temel bilgileri özetlemektedir. Bu çalışma öncelikle alanyazın taramasının amaçlarını ve sınıflandırmasını belirterek sonrasında nicel ve nitel bir alanyazın incelemesinin yürütüldüğü adımları tartışmaktadır. Bu makale, yaygın hataların tartışılması ve bir alanyazın taramasının öz-değerlendirmesini içeren çerçeve ile son bulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Alanyazın,Alanyazın taraması,Tez

A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review

Abstract

Writing a faulty literature review is one of many ways to derail a dissertation. This article summarizes some pivotal information on how to write a high-quality dissertation literature review. It begins with a discussion of the purposes of a review, presents taxonomy of literature reviews, and then discusses the steps in conducting a quantitative or qualitative literature review. The article concludes with a discussion of common mistakes and a framework for the self-evaluation of a literature review.

Keywords

• Literature,Literature review,Dissertation

References

1. Alton-Lee, A. (1998). A Troubleshooter’s Checklist for Prospective Authors derived from Reviewers’ Critical Feedback, Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8): 887-890.
2. American Education Research Association. (2006). Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications, Educational Researcher, 35(6): 33-40.
3. Boote, D. N. ve Beile, P. (2004). The Quality of Dissertation Literature Reviews: A Missing Link in Research Preparation American Educational Research Association. USA: San Diego.
4. Boote, D. N. ve Beile, P. (2005). Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation, Educational Researcher, 34(6): 3-15.
5. Cooper, H. M. (1984). The Integrative Research Review: A Systematic Approach Applied Social Research Methods Series. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6. Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews, Knowledge in Society, 1: 104-126.
7. Cooper, H. ve Hedges, L. V. (1994a). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. H. Cooper ve L.V. Hedges (Editörler). New York: Sage.
8. Cooper, H. ve Hedges, L. V. (1994b). Research Synthesis as a Scientific Enterprise. İçinde H. Cooper ve L.V. Hedges (Editörler), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (ss. 3-14). New York: Sage.

9. Educational Resources Information Center. (1982). ERIC Processing Manual (Section 5: Cataloging). Washington DC.
10. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. Londra: Sage.
11. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. ve Gall, J. P. (1996). Education Research: An Introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
12. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B. ve Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13. Grant, C. A. ve Graue, E. (1999). Reviewing a Review: A Case History of the “Review of Educational Research”, Review of Educational Research, 69(4): 384-396.
14. LeCompte, M. D., Klinger, J. K., Campbell S. A. ve Menke, D. W. (2003). Editor’s Introduction, Review of Educational Research, 73(2): 123-124.
15. Light, R. J. ve Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Üniversitesi.
16. Lipsey, M. W. ve Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis Applied Social Research Methods Series (49. Baskı). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Mullins, G. ve Kiley, M. (2002). It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize: How Experienced Examiners Assess Research Theses, Studies in Higher Education, 27(4): 369-386.
19. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Noblit, G. W. ve Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Ogawa, R. T. ve Malen, B. (1991). Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literature: Applying The Exploratory Case Method, Review of Educational Research, 61: 265-286.
22. Randolph, J. J. (2007a). Computer Science Education Research at the Crossroads: A Methodological Review of Computer Science Education Research: 2000-2005, http://www.archive.org/details/randolph_dissertation, Erişim tarihi: 1 Mart 2009.
23. Randolph, J. J. (2007b). Meta-Analysis of The Effects of Response Cards on Student Achievement, Participation, and Intervals of Off-Task Behavior, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(2): 113-128.
24. Randolph, J. J. (2007c). Multidisciplinary Methods in Educational Technology Research and Development. Hämeenlinna, Finland: HAMK, http://justus.randolph. name/methods, Erişim tarihi: 1 Mart 2008.
25. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-Evidence Synthesis: an Alternative to Meta-Analysis and Traditional Reviews, Educational Researcher, 15(9): 5-11.