Grace Mission College

Catiningan, Socorro, Oriental Mindoro

Subject: EL 110 Language Education Research

Teacher: Mrs. Marilou B. Panagsagan
Weeks: 5-6

MODULE 4

Review of Related Literature

Definition
A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources
relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a
description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research
problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview
of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate
to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.

Source: Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. Fourth edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but
in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern
and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual
categories. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a
synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that
informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical
features of a literature review might:

 Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
 Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
 Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most
pertinent or relevant research, or
 Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how
a problem has been researched to date.
The purpose of a literature review is to:

 Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research
problem being studied.
 Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
 Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
 Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.

1
  Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
 Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
 Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
 Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Source: Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005;
Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf,
Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature
Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three
layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish.
Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations
built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the
perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that
become part of the lore of field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this

third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose
relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while
literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent
sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt
depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Types of Literature Reviews

Argumentative Review

This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an

argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already
established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that
establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social
science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative
approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of
discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they
are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see
below].

Integrative Review

Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes

representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks
and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies
that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done
integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity,
rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

2
Historical Review

Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature

reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with
the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then
tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place
research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments
and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review

A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings],

but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing
methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e.
those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and
analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging
from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of
ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative
integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach
helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go
through your own study.

Systematic Review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly

formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to
identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze
data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately
document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about
a clearly defined research problem. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical
question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A
contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior
research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly
being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review

The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has
accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical
literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships
between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to

3
 develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack
of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining
new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical
concept or a whole theory or framework.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews." Review of General Psychology 1
(September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper.
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research
Imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational
Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A
Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews:
Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and
Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and
Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches
to a Successful Literature Review. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following:

 An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the
objectives of the literature review,
 Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a
particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
 An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the other s,
 Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most
convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding
and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider:

 Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported
by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent
scientific findings]?
 Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data
appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate?
Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
 Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data
considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
 Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least
convincing?

4
  Value -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work
ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II. Development of the Literature Review

Four Stages

1. Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its
component issues?
2. Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored.
3. Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution
to the understanding of the topic.
4. Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of
pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review:

Clarify

If your assignment is not very specific about what form your literature review
should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions:

1. Roughly how many sources should I include?

2. What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites;
scholarly versus popular sources)?
3. Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common
theme or issue?
4. Should I evaluate the sources?
5. Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as
definitions and/or a history?

Find Models

Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your
discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read
them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own
research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or
reference section of sources you've already read are also excellent entry points into
your own research.

Narrow the Topic

The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you
need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor
will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but

5
 you'll make your job easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good
strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for books about the
topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues.
You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that
can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played
in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is
mentioned in the text.

Consider Whether Your Sources are Current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This
is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research
conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However,
when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature
may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem
requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed
over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field
to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to
explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III. Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events
If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the
materials according to when they were published. This approach should only
be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be
identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of
development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing
research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the
Soviet Union.

By Publication
Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order
demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review
of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression
revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the
researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Thematic [“conceptual categories”]

Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather
than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an
important factor in a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s
impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of

6
 online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s
impact on American presidential politics, it will still be organized
chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The only
difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what
is emphasized the most: the role of the Internet in presidential politics. No te
however that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from
chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between
time periods within each section according to the point made.

Methodological
A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the
researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one
methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between
the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French
websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet
on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either
the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents
are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review

Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review,
the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out
because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a
chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a
thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the
theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections
that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy
of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you but
include only what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the
larger scholarship framework.

Here are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type
of review you write:

 Current Situation: information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the

literature review.
 History: the chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that
is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review
is not already a chronology.
 Selection Methods: the criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources
in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes
only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
 Standards: the way in which you present your information.
 Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review
sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

7
IV. Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each
section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence
A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research
paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence
[citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid.

Be Selective
Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The
type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research
problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items
that provide additional information but that are not key to understanding the
research problem can be included in a list of further readings.

Use Quotes Sparingly

Some short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author
stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain
terminology that was coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken
directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for your own
summary and interpretation of the literature.

Summarize and Synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic
paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a
research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and
relating it to your own work.

Keep Your Own Voice

While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should
remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what
you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph
with your own ideas and wording.

Use Caution When Paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent th e author's
information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing
an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

8
V. Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research
literature.
 Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
 You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevent sources to use in
the literature review related to the research problem;
 Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary
research studies or data;
 Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than
examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
 Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying th e literature to
review;
 Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-
analytic methods; and,
 Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings
and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One
Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature
Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the
Social Science Research Imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review:
Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University;
Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a
Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature
Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the
Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic
Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A
Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Sk ills
Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip
Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying

new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural
anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might
geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities
than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough
review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in othe r fields of
study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from
multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new
perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other
disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to
indexing its research literature.

9
Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this
part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and
evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some
questions to ask:

 How are they organizing their ideas?

 What methods have they used to study the problem?
 What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
 What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
 How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to
illustrate key points?
When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into
how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for
developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem .
Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
1998 .

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the
literature:

 Look for repeating patterns in the research findings. If the same thing is being said,
just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a
conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current
research? Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being
said?
 Look at sources the authors cite to in their work. If you begin to see the same
researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have
been generated to address the research problem.
 Search the Web of Science [a.k.a., Web of Knowledge] Citation database and Google
Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in
your literature review. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources
that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your
discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may
indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.
Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural
Approach. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications, 2016.

https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/literaturereview

10
 SUMMARY
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
The review of the literature involves the systematic identification, location, and analysis of
documents containing information related to the research problem. It is the process of collecting,
selecting, and reading books, journal articles, reports, abstracts, and other reference materials,
including electronic sources about the problem under investigation.
Referring to various sources, the following information may be collected:
 Background information about the problem and related concepts.
 Theories that explain the existence of the problem and the possible connection between
certain factors and the problem.
 Data that confirm the existence and seriousness of the problem.
 General and specific findings of studies related to the problem.
 Recommendations for further study given in related studies.

1. The Need for a Review of Literature and Studies

A review of literature and studies is a must in research. It aids the researcher in many
ways:

a. It helps the researcher identify and define a research problem. A new problem may
arise from vague results, conflicting findings, or the inability of study variables to
adequately explain the of the problem.
b. It helps justify the need for studying a problem. When findings of related studies are
not clear or do not provide adequate/conclusive answers to certain issues or questions,
then the conduct of a study is justified.
c. It helps prevent unnecessary duplication of a study. There are many research
problems that are already "over studied" and yet, similar studies are still being
conducted. If a researcher has adequately reviewed related literature about his/her
study, unnecessary duplication can be avoided.
d. It can be a source of a theoretical basis for the study. Correlation studies usually use
or generate theories to explain the research phenomenon under study. Researchers
may use or adopt the same theory of theoretical framework used in the related
studies.
e. It enables the researcher to learn how to conceptualize a research problem and
properly identify and operationally define study variables.
f. It provides a basis for identifying and using appropriate research design. It also helps
in the formulation or refinement of research instrument.
g. Results of related studies provide lessons for data analysis and interpretation.
Findings of a study can be compared to findings of related studies.

11
2. Functions of a Review

A review of related literature and studies links the study to any underlying
assumptions and theories related to the initial research question. It assesses the researcher's
preparedness to conduct the study, identifies potential gaps in the literature, suggests
promising educational practices, refines the initial research question, and embeds the
research questions in "guiding hypotheses". Specifically, the review seeks to:

a. determine what has been done already;

b. provide insights necessary to develop a logical framework into which the topic
fits;
c. provide the rationale for the hypotheses being investigated and the justification
of the significance of the study;
d. identify potentially useful methodological strategies; and
e. facilitate the interpretation of the results.

3. General guidelines for the scope of the review

When considering the scope of one's review, the researcher should be reminded of
the following guidelines:

a. Bigger does not mean better.

b. Heavily researched topics provide enough references to focus only on the major
studies.
c. Lesser researched topics require reviewing any study related in some meaningful
way even if this means searching related fields.

4. Stages of conducting a review

The review of literature and studies often follow certain stages:

a. Identifying key words to guide the search

It is important to experiment with several key words and combinations of
them “Legal”" key words may also be used for particular data bases the ERIC
Thesaurus which can be accessed through the ERIC homepage.

b. Identifying sources

Sources may be classified as primary and secondary or empirical and

opinion. It is important to use secondary sources such as handbooks,
encyclopedias, and reviews early in the review process because they broaden
and narrow keyword searches. Three important Boolean operators may be used

12
 in the search: AND and NOT narrow a search while OR broadens a search. A
search may be narrowed by focusing date of publication, specific authors, titles,
etc.
The following resources can facilitate the researcher's search: For books,
use electronic databases of university libraries and keyword searches; for
journals or papers, use ERIC; for indices, access them more easily through the
library using EBSCO or other search tools such as Education Index,
Psychological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, and Readers’ Guide to
Periodical Literature; for the web, the search engines are Google, Excite,
HotBot, the subject directories are Yahoo!, Web Crawler, Lycos and the meta
search engines are Dogpile, Mamma, Vroosh, for educational sites, access the
following; ERIC, Ingenta, New Jour, Education Week, National Center for
Education Statistics, US Dept. of Education, Developing Educational
Standards, Education Resource Organization Directory. For evaluating the
quality, honesty, bias and authenticity of web sites, check Thinking Critically
about WWW Resources, Critically Analyzing Information Sources.

c. Abstracting the information found in the references

To summarize references, there are seven steps suggested:

1) Read the article abstract;

2) Skim the entire article;
3) Record complete bibliographic information,
4) Classify and code the article,
5) Summarize the article;
6) Identify thoughts about the article you believe important and
7) Indicate direct quotes properly.
There are certain strategies used in abstracting.
1) Begin with the most recent references. and move toward the most dated;
2) Record all bibliographic information such as author, date of publication, title,
journal name or book title or website name, volume and issue, pages, library call number
or URL;
3) Identify direct quotes and record page numbers; and
4) Identify main ideas.

d. Analyzing, organizing and reporting

Having abstracted the information needed, the next stage is to analyze, organize
and report the information gathered. This is the time to make important decisions
regarding the following: the outline of the review, and the technical nature of
reporting which includes. the use of formal language and adherence to prescribed
styles (e.g., APA).

13
 The review may be grouped by topics, analyzed for similarities and differences
within. subheadings, and discussed from the most relevant studies, to the least
relevant studies. It must include a discussion on the implications related to the
research problem.

PARTS OF THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

After gathering notes from the different sources reviewed, the researcher prepares the
final review. Most literature reviews consist of the following parts: introduction, body,
summary/synthesis, and conclusion.
1. Introduction. The introduction briefly describes the mature of the researcher
problem and explains what led the researcher to investigate the question. The
summary presents the main topics covered in the literature review section.

2. Body. The body of the review briefly reports what experts think or what other
researchers have found about the research problem. Studies done on one key
element or factor of the research problem are reviewed under that topic followed
by studies done on other aspects. of the problem. The common findings. of several
studies. are summarized in one or two sentences and only when necessary, some
specific findings of each study may be presented.

3. Summary/synthesis. The summary / synthesis of the literature review "ties

together" the major findings of the studies reviewed. It presents a general picture
of what has been known or thought of about the problem to date. It points out
similar results, as well as conflicting findings.

4. Conclusion. This part presents the course of action suggested by the literature.
Based on the state of knowledge revealed by the literature, the researcher could
further justify the need for his/ her study.

****
Performance Task 3
Write your Literature Review based from your chosen topic. Follow the Parts of making
Review of Related Literature.
Note: Access and extract relevant information from secondary data sources, to complete
an initial, cursory review of related literature and studies, and to narrow the list observing
thematic presentation of ideas and concepts. Look for at least 10.

Rubric:
Content 20 points
Organization of Ideas 10 points
Language Use 5 points
Correct citation of sources/references 15 points
TOTAL 50 points

14