Week 6 In This Final Module Discussion, Please Reflect On

Week 6in This Final Module Discussion Please Reflect On The Sequence

In this final module discussion, please reflect on the sequence of SLP assignments that you have completed, that are intended to enable you to complete the draft of your literature review for your project. Please discuss the clarity of the assignments and any difficulties that you had completing them. Please also suggest any changes that you feel might make these assignments more useful for future classes. NOTE: Feel free to be honest and direct here; you won’t be judged in any way for any criticisms that you may offer!

Paper For Above instruction

Reflecting on the sequence of assignments in the course, particularly those aimed at guiding us towards completing the draft of our literature review for the project, provides valuable insights into the instructional design and its effectiveness. Overall, the assignment sequence was structured logically, progressively building on foundational knowledge and skills necessary for developing a comprehensive literature review. The initial assignments helped clarify the scope and scope boundaries, while subsequent tasks facilitated deeper engagement with relevant sources and synthesis of existing research.

One notable strength of the sequence was its clarity; instructions were generally explicit, including specific objectives and expectations. For instance, early assignments emphasized understanding key concepts such as the importance of a literature review, the composition of credible sources, and the construction of an organized synthesis. These guided us step-by-step, reducing ambiguity and enabling a gradual increase in complexity, which aligned well with adult learning principles. Furthermore, the scaffolding approach meant that we could see how each task contributed to the final goal of draft completion, fostering motivation and a sense of progress.

Despite these strengths, some difficulties were encountered during the process. A recurrent challenge was integrating disparate sources into a cohesive narrative, especially for students with limited prior experience in literature synthesis. Some assignments lacked detailed guidance on how to effectively synthesize sources beyond merely summarizing findings. This occasionally led to frustration or superficial reviews that did not meet the depth expected for a doctoral-level project. Additionally, time constraints limited the opportunity to thoroughly revise drafts, which could have enhanced the overall quality of our work.

When considering improvements, providing more explicit rubrics or exemplars for how to synthesize literature effectively would be beneficial. For example, including models of well-structured literature reviews, highlighting transition strategies, and demonstrating how to critically evaluate sources would empower students to produce richer analyses. Moreover, incorporating peer review exercises at earlier stages might foster critical thinking and mutual learning, clarifying expectations and common pitfalls. Extending deadlines or integrating more formative feedback sessions could also help students better refine their drafts before final submission.

In conclusion, while the assignment sequence generally supported the development of a comprehensive literature review, enhancements such as clearer exemplars, expanded guidance on synthesis, and opportunities for iterative feedback could further improve its utility. By addressing these areas, future classes might benefit from a more scaffolded, supportive process that accommodates diverse levels of experience and enhances overall academic writing skills.

References

• Galvan, J. L. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research. University of Chicago Press.
• Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. Sage Publications.
• Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Sage Publications.
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. K. (2016). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. SAGE Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
• Thiselton, A. C. (2017). The importance of literature review in research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(3), 305-319.
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
• Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. Sage Publications.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.