Writing Literature Reviews

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


A workshop for doctoral students on writing literature reviews.


  • 1. Pick up the three annotations and begin reading them.
    As you come in

2. Michael M. Grant, PhD
Writing a Literature Review
Michael M. Grant 2010
3. Michael M. Grant
4. http://viral-notebook.com
5. What is a literature review?
6. Its a review of related literature.
Its not a literature review.
7. def. the combination of ideas to form a theory or system
creative, unique
analyzes, identifies, explains, analyzes
Its a synthesis not a summary
8. Blooms Taxonomy
9. Series of organized arguments around your variables.
10. Planned. Coherent.
11. Critical of previous research.
12. Operationalizes your variables.
13. in the body of knowledge.
Identifies deficits
14. What a review of related literature is not.
15. It does present seminal works and traces lines of research.
is not a history lesson.
16. is not a list of summaries of study after study
17. Just because you read it, doesnt mean it gets to go in.
is not everything you can find.
18. It does present your point of view.
is not an opinion piece.
19. What goes into the review of related literature?
20. Look at your research questions.
21. The variables (topics under investigation/exploration) are the ones that go into your literature review.
22. Once your questions have been decided, theres no longer any choices to be made.
23. Synthesis: Step by Step
24. Read the three article summaries.
25. Write at least two points that these three articles say together.
26. Choose one of the points.
27. Write a meaningful, narrow statement about this point that encompasses what you believe the three articles are saying about this one point.
28. Write at least one sentence for each article that has to do with only this point.
29. Now answer the following question in one sentence:So what do you as the writer want me as the reader to walk away with after reading this paragraph?
30. Writing a Literature Review: The whole process
31. 32. Literature search
33. 34. 35. 36. Topics
37. 38. It should be no surprise that the topics are very similar to your research variables.
Be specific.
Be narrow.
For each of your topics, make a list of points.
39. 40. 41. 42. Faculty development in higher education has been considered through a number of lenses.
Caffarellaand Zinn (1999) characterize a continuum of professional development over the career of a faculty member. They propose
In contrast, Diaz et al. (2009) consider professional development for faculty based on where and how it occurs. For example, they suggest
The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework has advanced the idea that
43. When coupled together in a comprehensive professional development effort, programs with these factors have the potential to influence substantial change in the ways teachers teach and students learn (Garet, et al., 2001; Penuel et al., 2007). It is important to note, as Scribner (1999) does, that external factors do not ensure engagement with professional development activities and may not encourage active learning. So, faculty may only participate at a surface level, and have no direct influence on their enacted instructional practices.
So what?
44. 45. 46. 47. Michael M. Grant 2010