- Teks
- Sejarah
◗ substantive (about some aspect of
◗ substantive (about some aspect of the social world – see page 216);
◗ theoretical (the concepts, theories or models informing the substantive question
or issue);
◗ methodological (the approach to conducting the study).
The attempt to address this question or issue drives the reviewing process. It provides
a criterion for selecting some texts for inclusion and rejecting others, the
rationale for reading selectively within a text, the basis for a critical analysis of
what has been read, and the focus for synthesising findings into a logically structured
account putting forward a convincing argument. Second, the review
synthesises claims to knowledge contained in a range of relevant texts in
answering this question, attempting to demonstrate to the target audience the
basis of reviewers’ informed judgements about what is known, how strong the
evidence is and what is not known from others’ work relevant to the identified
substantive, conceptual or methodological question. Third, it also enables
reviewers to demonstrate the significance of their question and why an answer is
worth seeking. The significance of a substantive question may be for the development
of research or practice knowledge in the field of enquiry, that of a
theoretical question may be for theory development, and that of a methodological
question for justifying the choice of research methods. Finally, it enables
reviewers to locate their own work within the wider body of knowledge in the area to
which the substantive, conceptual or methodological questions are applied.
Producing a high-quality literature review is a challenging task. One secret
of success is to clarify the guiding question or issue at the outset (we suggest
that framing an issue as a question will help you to focus with precision on
answering it) then sustain that focus right through to the conclusion (see also
pages 178–9). Another secret is to remember always to be constructive when
evaluating the literature, ensuring that your judgements are clearly backed by
what you have found. If it turns out that what is known in relation to your
question is not particularly robust or conceptually coherent, state this and justify
your assertion. But then be prepared to suggest how, in your best,
literature-informed, professional or academic judgement, the knowledge base
could be enhanced, related practice improved or theory developed.
In our view, a high-quality literature review is likely to be:
◗ focused on an explicit substantive, conceptual or methodological question
or issue;
◗ structured so as to address each question, perhaps broken down into subquestions,
in a logical sequence (see Chapter 10);
◗ critical, evaluating the extent to which any theoretical orientation is clear
and coherent and any knowledge claims and the arguments they support
are convincing (e.g. page 68);
◗ accurately referenced, so that each source can be followed up by readers of
the review;
◗ clearly expressed to help your audience read the review easily;
◗ reader-friendly, introducing each question to be addressed;
Chapter 1 Critical reading for self-critical writing 27
◗ informative, providing synthesis through a strong conclusion which summarises
a reviewer’s answer to each question or sub-question according to
the literature cited and its strengths and weaknesses, and arbitrating
between any opposing positions reviewed;
◗ balanced, indicating that whatever range of viewpoints expressed in the literature
about each question have been carefully weighed, and that the
reviewer’s judgements are demonstrably based on a careful assessment of
the relevant strengths and limitations of that literature.
These characteristics of a high-quality literature review are worth applying selfcritically
to your own writing which results from your critical reading of the
literature for your assessed work. For more detailed general guidance on
reviewing the literature, we recommend that you consult the sources in the
annotated list in Appendix 1.
◗ theoretical (the concepts, theories or models informing the substantive question
or issue);
◗ methodological (the approach to conducting the study).
The attempt to address this question or issue drives the reviewing process. It provides
a criterion for selecting some texts for inclusion and rejecting others, the
rationale for reading selectively within a text, the basis for a critical analysis of
what has been read, and the focus for synthesising findings into a logically structured
account putting forward a convincing argument. Second, the review
synthesises claims to knowledge contained in a range of relevant texts in
answering this question, attempting to demonstrate to the target audience the
basis of reviewers’ informed judgements about what is known, how strong the
evidence is and what is not known from others’ work relevant to the identified
substantive, conceptual or methodological question. Third, it also enables
reviewers to demonstrate the significance of their question and why an answer is
worth seeking. The significance of a substantive question may be for the development
of research or practice knowledge in the field of enquiry, that of a
theoretical question may be for theory development, and that of a methodological
question for justifying the choice of research methods. Finally, it enables
reviewers to locate their own work within the wider body of knowledge in the area to
which the substantive, conceptual or methodological questions are applied.
Producing a high-quality literature review is a challenging task. One secret
of success is to clarify the guiding question or issue at the outset (we suggest
that framing an issue as a question will help you to focus with precision on
answering it) then sustain that focus right through to the conclusion (see also
pages 178–9). Another secret is to remember always to be constructive when
evaluating the literature, ensuring that your judgements are clearly backed by
what you have found. If it turns out that what is known in relation to your
question is not particularly robust or conceptually coherent, state this and justify
your assertion. But then be prepared to suggest how, in your best,
literature-informed, professional or academic judgement, the knowledge base
could be enhanced, related practice improved or theory developed.
In our view, a high-quality literature review is likely to be:
◗ focused on an explicit substantive, conceptual or methodological question
or issue;
◗ structured so as to address each question, perhaps broken down into subquestions,
in a logical sequence (see Chapter 10);
◗ critical, evaluating the extent to which any theoretical orientation is clear
and coherent and any knowledge claims and the arguments they support
are convincing (e.g. page 68);
◗ accurately referenced, so that each source can be followed up by readers of
the review;
◗ clearly expressed to help your audience read the review easily;
◗ reader-friendly, introducing each question to be addressed;
Chapter 1 Critical reading for self-critical writing 27
◗ informative, providing synthesis through a strong conclusion which summarises
a reviewer’s answer to each question or sub-question according to
the literature cited and its strengths and weaknesses, and arbitrating
between any opposing positions reviewed;
◗ balanced, indicating that whatever range of viewpoints expressed in the literature
about each question have been carefully weighed, and that the
reviewer’s judgements are demonstrably based on a careful assessment of
the relevant strengths and limitations of that literature.
These characteristics of a high-quality literature review are worth applying selfcritically
to your own writing which results from your critical reading of the
literature for your assessed work. For more detailed general guidance on
reviewing the literature, we recommend that you consult the sources in the
annotated list in Appendix 1.
0/5000
◗ substantive (about some aspect of the social world – see page 216);
◗ theoretical (the concepts, theories or models informing the substantive question
or issue);
◗ methodological (the approach to conducting the study).
The attempt to address this question or issue drives the reviewing process. It provides
a criterion for selecting some texts for inclusion and rejecting others, the
rationale for reading selectively within a text, the basis for a critical analysis of
what has been read, and the focus for synthesising findings into a logically structured
account putting forward a convincing argument. Second, the review
synthesises claims to knowledge contained in a range of relevant texts in
answering this question, attempting to demonstrate to the target audience the
basis of reviewers’ informed judgements about what is known, how strong the
evidence is and what is not known from others’ work relevant to the identified
substantive, conceptual or methodological question. Third, it also enables
reviewers to demonstrate the significance of their question and why an answer is
worth seeking. The significance of a substantive question may be for the development
of research or practice knowledge in the field of enquiry, that of a
theoretical question may be for theory development, and that of a methodological
question for justifying the choice of research methods. Finally, it enables
reviewers to locate their own work within the wider body of knowledge in the area to
which the substantive, conceptual or methodological questions are applied.
Producing a high-quality literature review is a challenging task. One secret
of success is to clarify the guiding question or issue at the outset (we suggest
that framing an issue as a question will help you to focus with precision on
answering it) then sustain that focus right through to the conclusion (see also
pages 178–9). Another secret is to remember always to be constructive when
evaluating the literature, ensuring that your judgements are clearly backed by
what you have found. If it turns out that what is known in relation to your
question is not particularly robust or conceptually coherent, state this and justify
your assertion. But then be prepared to suggest how, in your best,
literature-informed, professional or academic judgement, the knowledge base
could be enhanced, related practice improved or theory developed.
In our view, a high-quality literature review is likely to be:
◗ focused on an explicit substantive, conceptual or methodological question
or issue;
◗ structured so as to address each question, perhaps broken down into subquestions,
in a logical sequence (see Chapter 10);
◗ critical, evaluating the extent to which any theoretical orientation is clear
and coherent and any knowledge claims and the arguments they support
are convincing (e.g. page 68);
◗ accurately referenced, so that each source can be followed up by readers of
the review;
◗ clearly expressed to help your audience read the review easily;
◗ reader-friendly, introducing each question to be addressed;
Chapter 1 Critical reading for self-critical writing 27
◗ informative, providing synthesis through a strong conclusion which summarises
a reviewer’s answer to each question or sub-question according to
the literature cited and its strengths and weaknesses, and arbitrating
between any opposing positions reviewed;
◗ balanced, indicating that whatever range of viewpoints expressed in the literature
about each question have been carefully weighed, and that the
reviewer’s judgements are demonstrably based on a careful assessment of
the relevant strengths and limitations of that literature.
These characteristics of a high-quality literature review are worth applying selfcritically
to your own writing which results from your critical reading of the
literature for your assessed work. For more detailed general guidance on
reviewing the literature, we recommend that you consult the sources in the
annotated list in Appendix 1.
◗ theoretical (the concepts, theories or models informing the substantive question
or issue);
◗ methodological (the approach to conducting the study).
The attempt to address this question or issue drives the reviewing process. It provides
a criterion for selecting some texts for inclusion and rejecting others, the
rationale for reading selectively within a text, the basis for a critical analysis of
what has been read, and the focus for synthesising findings into a logically structured
account putting forward a convincing argument. Second, the review
synthesises claims to knowledge contained in a range of relevant texts in
answering this question, attempting to demonstrate to the target audience the
basis of reviewers’ informed judgements about what is known, how strong the
evidence is and what is not known from others’ work relevant to the identified
substantive, conceptual or methodological question. Third, it also enables
reviewers to demonstrate the significance of their question and why an answer is
worth seeking. The significance of a substantive question may be for the development
of research or practice knowledge in the field of enquiry, that of a
theoretical question may be for theory development, and that of a methodological
question for justifying the choice of research methods. Finally, it enables
reviewers to locate their own work within the wider body of knowledge in the area to
which the substantive, conceptual or methodological questions are applied.
Producing a high-quality literature review is a challenging task. One secret
of success is to clarify the guiding question or issue at the outset (we suggest
that framing an issue as a question will help you to focus with precision on
answering it) then sustain that focus right through to the conclusion (see also
pages 178–9). Another secret is to remember always to be constructive when
evaluating the literature, ensuring that your judgements are clearly backed by
what you have found. If it turns out that what is known in relation to your
question is not particularly robust or conceptually coherent, state this and justify
your assertion. But then be prepared to suggest how, in your best,
literature-informed, professional or academic judgement, the knowledge base
could be enhanced, related practice improved or theory developed.
In our view, a high-quality literature review is likely to be:
◗ focused on an explicit substantive, conceptual or methodological question
or issue;
◗ structured so as to address each question, perhaps broken down into subquestions,
in a logical sequence (see Chapter 10);
◗ critical, evaluating the extent to which any theoretical orientation is clear
and coherent and any knowledge claims and the arguments they support
are convincing (e.g. page 68);
◗ accurately referenced, so that each source can be followed up by readers of
the review;
◗ clearly expressed to help your audience read the review easily;
◗ reader-friendly, introducing each question to be addressed;
Chapter 1 Critical reading for self-critical writing 27
◗ informative, providing synthesis through a strong conclusion which summarises
a reviewer’s answer to each question or sub-question according to
the literature cited and its strengths and weaknesses, and arbitrating
between any opposing positions reviewed;
◗ balanced, indicating that whatever range of viewpoints expressed in the literature
about each question have been carefully weighed, and that the
reviewer’s judgements are demonstrably based on a careful assessment of
the relevant strengths and limitations of that literature.
These characteristics of a high-quality literature review are worth applying selfcritically
to your own writing which results from your critical reading of the
literature for your assessed work. For more detailed general guidance on
reviewing the literature, we recommend that you consult the sources in the
annotated list in Appendix 1.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
◗ substantif (tentang beberapa aspek dari dunia sosial - lihat halaman 216);
◗ teoritis (konsep, teori atau model menginformasikan pertanyaan substantif
atau masalah);
◗ metodologis (pendekatan melakukan penelitian).
Upaya untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini atau masalah drive proses peninjauan. Ini memberikan
kriteria untuk memilih beberapa teks untuk dimasukkan dan menolak yang lain, yang
alasan untuk membaca selektif dalam teks, dasar untuk analisis kritis dari
apa yang telah dibaca, dan fokus untuk mensintesis temuan menjadi logis terstruktur
akun mengajukan meyakinkan sebuah argumen. Kedua, review
synthesises klaim pengetahuan yang terkandung dalam berbagai teks yang relevan dalam
menjawab pertanyaan ini, mencoba untuk menunjukkan kepada khalayak sasaran
dasar penilaian informasi pengulas 'tentang apa yang diketahui, seberapa kuat
bukti dan apa yang tidak diketahui dari pekerjaan orang lain yang relevan dengan diidentifikasi
substantif, konseptual atau metodologis pertanyaan. Ketiga, juga memungkinkan
pengulas untuk menunjukkan pentingnya pertanyaan mereka dan mengapa jawaban yang
layak mencari. Signifikansi pertanyaan substantif mungkin untuk pengembangan
penelitian atau praktek pengetahuan di bidang penyelidikan, bahwa dari
pertanyaan teoritis mungkin untuk pengembangan teori, dan dari metodologi
pertanyaan untuk membenarkan pilihan metode penelitian. Akhirnya, memungkinkan
pengulas untuk menemukan pekerjaan mereka sendiri dalam lebih luas tubuh pengetahuan di daerah tersebut untuk
yang pertanyaan substantif, konseptual atau metodologis yang diterapkan.
Memproduksi berkualitas tinggi tinjauan literatur adalah tugas yang menantang. Salah satu rahasia
sukses adalah untuk memperjelas pertanyaan membimbing atau masalah di awal (kami sarankan
bahwa framing masalah karena pertanyaan akan membantu Anda untuk fokus dengan presisi pada
menjawabnya) kemudian mempertahankan fokus yang sampai ke kesimpulan (lihat juga
halaman 178 -9). Rahasia lain adalah untuk mengingat selalu menjadi konstruktif ketika
mengevaluasi literatur, memastikan bahwa penilaian Anda jelas didukung oleh
apa yang telah Anda temukan. Jika ternyata apa yang dikenal dalam kaitannya dengan Anda
pertanyaan tidak terlalu kuat atau konseptual yang koheren, negara ini dan membenarkan
pernyataan Anda. Tapi kemudian bersiaplah untuk menyarankan bagaimana, di terbaik, Anda
literatur-informasi, pertimbangan profesional atau akademis, pengetahuan dasar
. dapat ditingkatkan, praktek terkait diperbaiki atau teori yang dikembangkan
Dalam pandangan kami, berkualitas tinggi tinjauan literatur adalah mungkin:
◗ difokuskan pada substantif, konseptual atau metodologis pertanyaan eksplisit
atau masalah;
◗ terstruktur sehingga dapat mengatasi setiap pertanyaan, mungkin dipecah menjadi subquestions,
dalam urutan logis (lihat Bab 10);
◗ kritis, mengevaluasi sejauh mana orientasi teoritis jelas
dan koheren dan klaim pengetahuan dan argumen mereka mendukung
secara meyakinkan (misalnya halaman 68);
◗ akurat direferensikan, sehingga setiap sumber dapat ditindaklanjuti oleh pembaca
review;
◗ jelas dinyatakan untuk membantu audiens Anda membaca review dengan mudah ;
◗-reader ramah, memperkenalkan setiap pertanyaan yang harus ditangani;
Bab 1 membaca kritis untuk menulis kritis terhadap diri sendiri 27
◗ informatif, memberikan sintesis melalui kesimpulan yang kuat yang merangkum
jawaban resensi untuk setiap pertanyaan atau sub-pertanyaan sesuai dengan
literatur yang dikutip dan kekuatan dan kelemahan, dan menengahi
antara setiap posisi lawan Ulasan;
◗ seimbang, menunjukkan bahwa apa pun berbagai sudut pandang dinyatakan dalam literatur
tentang setiap pertanyaan telah hati-hati ditimbang, dan bahwa
penilaian resensi yang terbukti berdasarkan penilaian hati-hati dari
kekuatan yang relevan dan keterbatasan literatur yang.
Karakteristik ini berkualitas tinggi literatur layak menerapkan selfcritically
untuk tulisan Anda sendiri yang dihasilkan dari membaca kritis Anda dari
literatur untuk pekerjaan Anda dinilai. Untuk pedoman umum yang lebih rinci tentang
meninjau literatur, kami sarankan Anda berkonsultasi dengan sumber di
daftar dijelaskan pada Lampiran 1.
◗ teoritis (konsep, teori atau model menginformasikan pertanyaan substantif
atau masalah);
◗ metodologis (pendekatan melakukan penelitian).
Upaya untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini atau masalah drive proses peninjauan. Ini memberikan
kriteria untuk memilih beberapa teks untuk dimasukkan dan menolak yang lain, yang
alasan untuk membaca selektif dalam teks, dasar untuk analisis kritis dari
apa yang telah dibaca, dan fokus untuk mensintesis temuan menjadi logis terstruktur
akun mengajukan meyakinkan sebuah argumen. Kedua, review
synthesises klaim pengetahuan yang terkandung dalam berbagai teks yang relevan dalam
menjawab pertanyaan ini, mencoba untuk menunjukkan kepada khalayak sasaran
dasar penilaian informasi pengulas 'tentang apa yang diketahui, seberapa kuat
bukti dan apa yang tidak diketahui dari pekerjaan orang lain yang relevan dengan diidentifikasi
substantif, konseptual atau metodologis pertanyaan. Ketiga, juga memungkinkan
pengulas untuk menunjukkan pentingnya pertanyaan mereka dan mengapa jawaban yang
layak mencari. Signifikansi pertanyaan substantif mungkin untuk pengembangan
penelitian atau praktek pengetahuan di bidang penyelidikan, bahwa dari
pertanyaan teoritis mungkin untuk pengembangan teori, dan dari metodologi
pertanyaan untuk membenarkan pilihan metode penelitian. Akhirnya, memungkinkan
pengulas untuk menemukan pekerjaan mereka sendiri dalam lebih luas tubuh pengetahuan di daerah tersebut untuk
yang pertanyaan substantif, konseptual atau metodologis yang diterapkan.
Memproduksi berkualitas tinggi tinjauan literatur adalah tugas yang menantang. Salah satu rahasia
sukses adalah untuk memperjelas pertanyaan membimbing atau masalah di awal (kami sarankan
bahwa framing masalah karena pertanyaan akan membantu Anda untuk fokus dengan presisi pada
menjawabnya) kemudian mempertahankan fokus yang sampai ke kesimpulan (lihat juga
halaman 178 -9). Rahasia lain adalah untuk mengingat selalu menjadi konstruktif ketika
mengevaluasi literatur, memastikan bahwa penilaian Anda jelas didukung oleh
apa yang telah Anda temukan. Jika ternyata apa yang dikenal dalam kaitannya dengan Anda
pertanyaan tidak terlalu kuat atau konseptual yang koheren, negara ini dan membenarkan
pernyataan Anda. Tapi kemudian bersiaplah untuk menyarankan bagaimana, di terbaik, Anda
literatur-informasi, pertimbangan profesional atau akademis, pengetahuan dasar
. dapat ditingkatkan, praktek terkait diperbaiki atau teori yang dikembangkan
Dalam pandangan kami, berkualitas tinggi tinjauan literatur adalah mungkin:
◗ difokuskan pada substantif, konseptual atau metodologis pertanyaan eksplisit
atau masalah;
◗ terstruktur sehingga dapat mengatasi setiap pertanyaan, mungkin dipecah menjadi subquestions,
dalam urutan logis (lihat Bab 10);
◗ kritis, mengevaluasi sejauh mana orientasi teoritis jelas
dan koheren dan klaim pengetahuan dan argumen mereka mendukung
secara meyakinkan (misalnya halaman 68);
◗ akurat direferensikan, sehingga setiap sumber dapat ditindaklanjuti oleh pembaca
review;
◗ jelas dinyatakan untuk membantu audiens Anda membaca review dengan mudah ;
◗-reader ramah, memperkenalkan setiap pertanyaan yang harus ditangani;
Bab 1 membaca kritis untuk menulis kritis terhadap diri sendiri 27
◗ informatif, memberikan sintesis melalui kesimpulan yang kuat yang merangkum
jawaban resensi untuk setiap pertanyaan atau sub-pertanyaan sesuai dengan
literatur yang dikutip dan kekuatan dan kelemahan, dan menengahi
antara setiap posisi lawan Ulasan;
◗ seimbang, menunjukkan bahwa apa pun berbagai sudut pandang dinyatakan dalam literatur
tentang setiap pertanyaan telah hati-hati ditimbang, dan bahwa
penilaian resensi yang terbukti berdasarkan penilaian hati-hati dari
kekuatan yang relevan dan keterbatasan literatur yang.
Karakteristik ini berkualitas tinggi literatur layak menerapkan selfcritically
untuk tulisan Anda sendiri yang dihasilkan dari membaca kritis Anda dari
literatur untuk pekerjaan Anda dinilai. Untuk pedoman umum yang lebih rinci tentang
meninjau literatur, kami sarankan Anda berkonsultasi dengan sumber di
daftar dijelaskan pada Lampiran 1.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- she
- About w hotels Escape to where iconic de
- Common features Some potential limitatio
- About w hotels Escape to where iconic de
- Common features Some potential limitatio
- Had u are diner
- Yes, i knew
- an apple
- What did his habit?
- Types of literature and indicative limit
- Let me
- they have to deliver it
- How
- apakah kamu tidak memiliki sarapan pagi
- Aku benci pembohong
- give
- apakah kamu tidak memiliki sarapan pagi
- Where did the nightingale
- apakah kamu tidak memiliki sarapan pagi
- ya baik lah tapi aku tidak punya bnyak w
- mas ini artinya apa1.crack an egg into a
- Becouse only you i give skype name
- Tidak ketemu alone
- Light
