David N. Boote

Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation

A thorough, sophisticated literature review is the foundation and inspiration for substantial, useful research. The complex nature of education research demands such thorough, sophisticated reviews. Although doctoral education is a key means for improving education research, the literature has given short shrift to the dissertation literature review. This article suggests criteria to evaluate the quality of dissertation literature reviews and reports a study that examined dissertations at three universities. Acquiring the skills and knowledge required to be education scholars, able to analyze and synthesize the research in a field of specialization, should be the focal, integrative activity of predissertation doctoral education. Such scholarship is a prerequisite for increased methodological sophistication and for improving the usefulness of education research.

Teachers' Professional Discretion and the Curricula.

At the heart of many current debates about curriculum and curriculum policy is an inadequately conceptualized and articulated notion of teachers’ professional discretion. This paper begins to detail a normative and descriptive theory of the social and individual conditions required for the development of professional discretion. A better understanding of teachers’ professional discretion should enable professional curriculum developers and policy writers to help teachers to adapt to the dynamic, complex social conditions of schooling.

On “Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research”: A Response to the Critique by Joseph Maxwell

We thank Joseph Maxwell (this issue of Educational Researcher, pp. 28–31) for accepting our invitation to examine the roles and expectations of dissertation literature reviews. We agree that most are inadequate but disagree why. Maxwell argues that dissertations should emulate research articles and include a conceptual framework that only discusses relevant literature. Candidates need not present a thorough analysis and synthesis of the scholarship and research, Maxwell argues, or justify claims made about the literature. Finally, he asserts that we misunderstand the relationship between literature and research, leading to an accusation of “foundationalism.” However, these specific disagreements ignore fundamental differences about the purposes of the doctoral dissertation and the relationship between those purposes and doctoral program goals. In this rejoinder, we briefly explore these conceptual and normative differences.

Commentary 3 on Re-conceptualizing Mathematics Education as a Design Science

Mathematics education faces many challenges which Lesh and Sriraman clearly identify—in many countries mathematics teaching and mathematics education research have growth too far apart; in many countries most mathematics researchers and scholars do not embed their insights into usable, widely-disseminated curricular or instructional products; in many countries policy, curricular, and instructional development too rigid, presuming unrealistic images of school life; and, as a result, those polices, curricula, and instructional methods are not readily adaptable by teachers to their local contexts. Moreover, the solution that Lesh and Sriraman suggest to address these vexing problems—reconceptualizing the field as a design science—has considerable merit. Yet many of their assertions and arguments supporting this solution are either too broad or simply inaccurate. As a result, their justifications are off base and their conclusions too sweeping.

Leaping from Discrete to Continuous Independent Variables: Sixth Graders’ Science Line Graph Interpretations

Students often struggle to interpret graphs correctly, despite emphasis on graphic literacy in U.S. education standards documents. The purpose of this study was to describe challenges sixth graders with varying levels of science and mathematics achievement encounter when transitioning from interpreting graphs having discrete independent variables to graphs having continuous independent variables. Data included think-aloud interviews and written line graph interactions. Data analysis focused on three constituent processes of graph interpretation: (1) encoding salient structures, (2) relating salient structures to each other, and (3) understanding referents in relation to salient structures. Difficulties encoding individual data points influenced interpretations of referents and relationships among data points. Cognitive resources learned for interpreting graphs with discrete independent variables both supported and hindered interpretations of graphs with continuous independent variables. Struggles relating graphs to referents reflected inexperience with data collection and analysis. Recommendations are provided to support students during this transition and to improve their ability to answer different types of graph questions.