3.9

Concluding Thoughts on Literature Reviews

Linda Frederiksen & Sue F. Phelps

When you began looking through this book, you may have already been an accomplished researcher and writer.  As a student, you may have had both research and writing experiences as an undergraduate that prepared you for your first graduate-level literature review.  For most graduate students, however, many of the concepts and skills needed to successfully complete this high-stakes document will be new.  And, while developing these skills is not always a linear process, the effort put into acquiring them will serve you throughout both your academic and professional life.

Here is a quick review of the main points from each of the chapters in this book:

  1. The purpose of a literature review is to survey the current state of knowledge in the area of inquiry; to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area; and to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area. (Chapter 3.1)
  2. Some common errors in many first-time literature reviews include:
    1. Accepts another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
    2. Neglects to consider or mention contrary findings and alternative interpretations
    3. Findings are not clearly related to one’s own study or findings are too general.
    4. Allows insufficient time to define best search strategies and writing
    5. Simply reports individual studies rather than synthesizing the results
    6. Problems with selecting and using most relevant keywords and descriptors are evident.
    7. Relies too heavily on secondary sources
    8. Does not record or report search procedures
    9. Summarizes rather than synthesizes (Chapter 3.1)
  3. By understanding what the literature in your field is, as well as how and when it is generated, you begin to know what is available and where to look for it. (Chapter 3.2)
  4. Most graduate-level literature reviews begin with choosing a relevant, appropriate, interesting topic and then changing it. (Chapter 3.3)
  5. Search and discovery of the literature is an iterative process.  There are many places to look and many tools and techniques to use to find resources.  Advanced researchers master this skill early on and refine it with each project. (Chapter 3.4)
  6. You searched the literature and found lots of relevant resources. How do you now determine whether each item is an appropriate fit for your own review? (Chapter 3.5)
  7. How will your resources be organized (alphabetically or chronologically)?  By broad general theme or theory?  Based on a type of methodology or population?  What citation management program or software are you going to use to keep track of all your references? (Chapter 3.6)
  8. Your literature review is not a summary of all the articles you read but rather a synthesis that demonstrates a critical analysis of the papers you collected as well as your ability to integrate the results of your analysis into your own literature review. (Chapter 3.7)
  9. Like any effective argument, the literature review is about both content and form.  It should have logical and smooth flow, a clear introduction and conclusion, and use a consistent citation style throughout. (Chapter 3.8)

Remember: Writing a good literature review takes time.  Start early.  Begin thinking about your topic and collect references even while you work on other tasks.  Write a first draft and then revise.  Go over the language, style, and form.  Focus, sharpen, clarify, and search again.  When you are satisfied with the result, you’re done.

How is the literature review evaluated?

It is usually judged in three main areas:

  1. Selection of the literature
    1. Have you clearly indicated the scope and purpose of the review?
    2. Have you included a balanced coverage of what is available?
    3. Have you included the most recent and relevant studies?
    4. Have you included enough material to show the development and limitations in this area?
    5. Have you indicated the source of the literature by referencing accurately?
    6. Have you used mostly primary sources or appropriate secondary sources?
  2. Critique of the literature
    1. Have you clearly (and logically) ordered and sorted the research, focusing on themes or ideas rather than the authors?
    2. Does the review move from broader concepts to a more specific focus?
    3. Is there adequate critique of research limitations, including design and methodology?
    4. How do the studies compare or contrast with debates or controversies highlighted?
    5. Is the relevance to your problem clear?
  3. Summary and interpretation of the literature
    1. Have you made an overall interpretation of what is available?
    2. Do the implications provide theoretical or empirical justification for your own research questions/hypothesis?
    3. Do the implications provide a rationale for your research design? (RMIT University)

We hope that this discussion about literature reviews is useful.  After reading this guide, and reviewing the additional resources and activities in each chapter, we hope you have a better understanding of the research and writing process.  What conclusions have you reached regarding the content and structure of a literature review that can answer the question, “How do I write a graduate-level literature review?”

Additional Resources

Bell, J. (2005).  Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science (4th ed.). New York: Open University Press.

Booth, A., Sutton, Anthea, & Papaioannou, Diana. (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Collins, S. (2016). Professional Writing in the Health Disciplines.  http://edtechbooks.org/-bL   CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Coughlan, M., & Cronin, Patricia. (2017). Doing a Literature Review in Nursing, Health and Social Care (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Galvan, J.L. (2009). Writing Literature Reviews: A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.  Glendale, CA : Pyrczak

Garrard, J. (2017). Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method.  Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Machi, L.A., & McEvoy, B.T. (2012). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Milardo, R.M. (2015). Crafting Scholarship in the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Writing, Reviewing, and Editing.  New York: Routledge.

Pautasso M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology 9(7): e1003149. http://edtechbooks.org/-pb

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates  (3rd ed.).  Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

References by Chapter

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.1

Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90-126. doi: 10.3102/0034654312438409

Bendermacher, G., Egbrink, M., Wolfhagen, I., & Dolmans, D. (2017). Unraveling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. Higher Education 73(1), 39-60.  doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9979-2

Bhattacherjee, A., (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks Collection. 3. http://edtechbooks.org/-JK

Boote, D., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation.  Educational Researcher 34(6), 3-15.

Brock, A., & Ryan, T. (2016).  Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 175. http://edtechbooks.org/-DJ

Capar, G., & Tarim, K. (2015).  Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 15(2), 553-559. http://edtechbooks.org/-Kd

Cuttance, P. (1981). School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future. Journal of Sociology 17(3), 65-69.

Dohn, N. (2010).  The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review.   Nordic Studies in Science Education. http://edtechbooks.org/-Rfb

Duncan, G., Leak, J., Li, W., Magnuson, K., Schindler, H., & Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Timing issues with early childhood education programs: How effect sizes vary by starting age, program duration and persistence of effects.  Society for Research on Educational Effectivenesshttp://edtechbooks.org/-CF

Fear, W., & Erikson-Brown, A. (2014). Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature.  Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 18(2).  http://edtechbooks.org/-eH

Fragkos, K. (2016). Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review. Education Sciences 6(27). http://edtechbooks.org/-aM

Franklin, C., Bernhardt, J., Lopez, R., Long-Middleton, E., & Davis, S. (2015). Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: An integrative review.  Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. http://edtechbooks.org/-Zo

Ghaicha, A. (2016). Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review. Journal of Education and Practice 7(24), 212-231. http://edtechbooks.org/-TE

Hartmann, S., Braae, L., Pedersen, S., & Khalid, M. (2017). The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review.  Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET 16(1), 190-202. http://edtechbooks.org/-aI

Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43-87. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001043

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 449-471. doi: 10.1080/0305498032000153025

Houser, J., (2018). Nursing Research Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Imberger, G., Thorlund, K., Gluud, C., & Wetterslev, J. (2016). False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review. BMJ Open, 6(8). http://edtechbooks.org/-vcr

Jankowski, M., Brożek, G., Lawson, J., Skoczyński, S., & Zejda, J. (2017). E-smoking: Emerging public health problem? International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30(3), 329-344. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01046

Khanassov, V., Pluye, P., Descoteaux, S., Haggerty, J., Russell, G., Gunn, J., & Levesque, J. (2016). Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: a scoping review.  International Journal for Equity in Health. http://edtechbooks.org/-wyp

Khunti, S., Davies, M., & Khunti, K. (2015).  Clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a focused literature review. British Journal of Diabetes and Vascular Disease, 15, 65-69. http://edtechbooks.org/-oE

Lee, J., Lee, Y, Gong, S., Bae,J., & Choi, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students.  BMC medical education, 16(1).  http://edtechbooks.org/-uT

Levy, Y. & Ellis, T. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science Journal, 9, 181-212. http://edtechbooks.org/-oz

Machi, L., & McEvoy, B. (2012). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success (2nd ed).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Majumder, K. (2015). A young researcher’s guide to a system reviewhttp://edtechbooks.org/-mA

Mazzocato P, Savage C, Brommels M, Aronsson, H., & Thor, J. (2010). Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the literature. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19, 376-382. http://edtechbooks.org/-fD

Morris, S., King, C., Turner, M., & Payne, S. (2015). Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review.  Palliative Medicine, 29(6), 487-495. http://edtechbooks.org/-Nd

Mwakyusa, W., & Mwalyagile, N. (2016).  Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(30), 152-160. http://edtechbooks.org/-ifk

Nowrouzi, B., Giddens, E., Gohar, B., Schoenenberger, S., Bautista, M. C., & Casole, J. (2016). The quality of work life of registered nurses in Canada and the United States: a comprehensive literature review. International Journal Of Occupational & Environmental Health, 22(4), 341-358. doi:10.1080/10773525.2016.1241920

O’Gorman, K., & MacIntosh, R. (2015). Research Methods for Business & Management: A Guide to Writing Your Dissertation. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.

Pal K, Eastwood S., Michie S., Farmer A., Barnard M., Peacock R, Wood B, Inniss J., & Murray E. (2013). Compute-based diabetes self-management interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD008776. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008776.pub2.

Pimpin L., Wu J., Haskelberg H, Del Gobbo L., & Mozaffarian D.  (2016) Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0158118. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158118

Ridde, V., & Morestin, F. (2011). A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. Health Policy and Planning, 26(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czq021.

Rocco, T. & Plathotnik, M. (2009).  Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks.  Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120-130. p. 128, 2009. http://edtechbooks.org/-Zt

Rosario, R. A. M., & Widmeyer, G. R. (2009). An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 289-300.  http://jise.org/Volume20/20-3/Pdf/20N3P289-abs.pdf [http://edtechbooks.org/-wuk]

Schuetzenmeister, F. (2010). University research management: An exploratory literature review. Institute of European Studies. UC Berkeley: Institute of European Studies. Retrieved from: http://edtechbooks.org/-EpY

Seida, J. K., Ospina, M. B., Karkhaneh, M., Hartling, L., Smith, V., & Clark, B. (2009). Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 51(2), 95-104. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03211.x.

Stainton, C. (1992). Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature. Language Awareness, 1(2), 109-121

Thomson, P. (2013),  Not all literature reviews are the same. http://edtechbooks.org/-xZ

Tonhäuser, C. & Büker, L. 2016). Determinants of transfer of training: A comprehensive literature review. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 3(2), 127-165. http://edtechbooks.org/-PEZ. doi: 10.13152/IJRVET.3.2.4

Vanstone, M., Hibbert, K., Kinsella, E., McKenzie, P., Pitman, A., & Lingard, L. (2013). Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review.  Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(2), 42-67. http://edtechbooks.org/-tH

Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. http://edtechbooks.org/-xi

Wegner, W., Silva, M., Peres, M., Bandeira, L., Frantz, E., Botene, D., & Predebon, C. (2017). Patient safety in the care of hospitalised children: Evidence for paediatric nursing. Revista gaúcha de enfermagem, 38(1). doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2017.01.68020.

Williams, E. S., & Skinner, A. C. (2003). Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: a narrative review, implications, and directions for future research. Health care management review, 28(2), 119-139.

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology.  Journal of Advanced Nursing 52(2), 546-53. http://edtechbooks.org/-uM

Vorsino, M. (2015). Re-reading Dewey through a feminist lens. Educational Perspectives, 47(1-2), 50-54. http://edtechbooks.org/-HMH

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.2

Great Schools Partnership. (2016). The Glossary of Education Reform.  http://edglossary.org/action-research/ [http://edtechbooks.org/-Bh]

Hansen, K., & Paul, N. (2015). Disciplines of knowledge. In Information Strategies for Communicators. http://edtechbooks.org/-FK

Hansen, K., & Paul, N. (2015). Scholarly sources. In Information Strategies for Communicators. http://edtechbooks.org/-MiV

Houser, J., (2018). Nursing Research Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Writing for Success (2015). Strategies for gathering reliable information.  http://edtechbooks.org/-BN

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.3

D’Antoni, A. V., & Pinto Zipp, G. (2006). Applications of the mind map learning technique in chiropractic education: A pilot study and literature review. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, 13, 2-11.

Dhanga, N., & Taheri, S. (2017). A narrative review of obesity and hearing loss.  International Journal of Obesity.  doi: 10.1038/ijo.2017.32

Dittman, M. (2005). Starting the dissertation. gradPSYCH 3(1). http://edtechbooks.org/-LTx

Early Childhood Longitudinal Program (ECLS). (2011). Example research questions. http://edtechbooks.org/-Rq

Kefalianos, E., Onslow, M., Block, S., Menzies, R., & Reilly, S. (2012). Early stuttering, temperament and anxiety: Two hypotheses.  Journal of Fluency Disorders 37(3), 151-163.

Leslie, M., Floyd, J., & Oermann, M. (2002).  Use of MindMapper software for research domain mapping. Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 20(6), 229-35.

Manafo, E., & Wong, S. (2012). Health literacy programs for older adults: A systematic literature review. Health Education Research 27(6), 947-960.

Pain, E. (2016). How to (seriously) read a scientific paper.  http://edtechbooks.org/-Bj

Rowan, M., Poole, N., Shea, B., Gone, J., Mykota, D., Farag, M., Hopkins, C., Hall, L. Mushquash, C., & Dell, C. (2014). Cultural interventions to treat addictions in indigenous populations: Findings from a scoping study.  Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 9(34). doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-9-34.

Sandoval, E. (2016). Music in peacebuilding: A critical literature review. Journal of Peace Education 13(3), 200-217.

Snyder, E., Witmer, S., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature.  Preventing School Failure 61(2), 136-145.

Walton, A., & Rogers, B. (2017). Workplace hazards faced by nursing assistants in the United States: A focused literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5). http://edtechbooks.org/-odm

Wahl P, Bruland D, Bauer U, Okan O, & Lenz A. (2017). What are the family needs when a parent has mental health problems? Evidence from a systematic literature review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 30, 54–66. http://edtechbooks.org/-ysJ

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.4

Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014a). Scoping: Knowing what is available. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook. http://edtechbooks.org/-Gn

Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014b). Science literacy: Information literacy in the sciences. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook. https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-information-literacy-users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/chapter/science-literacy-information-literacy-in-the-sciences/ [http://edtechbooks.org/-mwI]

Clark, S. (2016). Online Research: Tips for Effective Search Strategies. CC BY http://edtechbooks.org/-Rwb

Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hammond, C. & Brown, S. (2008). Citation searching: Search smarter & find more. Information Today 28(5). http://edtechbooks.org/-KT

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.5

Association of College & Research Libraries (2016). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. http://edtechbooks.org/-IUq

Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014). Scoping: Knowing what is available. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook. http://edtechbooks.org/-oL

Blendell, R.L., & Fehr, J.L. (2012). Discussing vaccination with concerned patients: An evidence-based resource for healthcare providers. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing 26(3), 230-241. Retrieved from http://edtechbooks.org/-zC

Caulfield, M. (2017). Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers. CC BY. http://edtechbooks.org/-vE

Frydenberg, J. (2002). Quality standards in e-learning: A matrix of analysis. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 3(2). CC BY-SA 4.0. doi: http://edtechbooks.org/-cW

Kerath, S., Klein, G., Kern, M., Shapira, I., Witthuhn, J., Norohna, N., Kline, M., Baksh, F. Gregersen, P., and Taioli, E. (2013). Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research: A population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 13 (114). http://edtechbooks.org/-jp

Mandalios, J. (2013). RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Science 39(4), 470-478. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513478889 [http://edtechbooks.org/-EV]

McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., and Hinz, S. (2017). The Condition of Education. Retrieved from http://edtechbooks.org/-FG

Radom, R. (2017). Evaluating Information Sources Using the 5 Ws”. OER Commons. Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education. CC BY-NC 4.0 http://edtechbooks.org/-vkw

Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University. (2017). Evaluating Social Media. CC BY. http://edtechbooks.org/-JX.

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.6

Bell, J. (2005). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science (4th ed). New York: Open University Press.

Collins, S. (2016). Professional Writing in the Health Disciplines. http://edtechbooks.org/-bL CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Machi, L.A., & McEvoy, B.T. (2012). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Teaching & Learning, Ohio State University Libraries. (2015). Choosing & using sources: A guide to academic research. CC BY 4.0 http://edtechbooks.org/-Wm

University of Edinburgh Records Management (2017). Electronic record naming conventions. http://edtechbooks.org/-MH

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.7

Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson,  T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014). Presenting: Sharing What You’ve Learned.  In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook.  http://edtechbooks.org/-uje

 Garrard, J. (2017). Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method.  Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Klingner, J., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals.  Educational Researcher 34(8): 14-20.

 Milardo, R.M. (2015). Crafting Scholarship in the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Writing, Reviewing, and Editing.  New York: Routledge.

[http://edtechbooks.org/-Sz]Chapter 3.8

Loseke, D. (2017). Methodological thinking: Basic principles of social research design (2nd ed.).  Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Pautasso M (2013) Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology 9(7): e1003149. http://edtechbooks.org/-pb

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016). This is a derivative of Research Methods in Psychology by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution, which was originally released and is used under CC BY-NC-SA. This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License [http://edtechbooks.org/-wWK].

Suggested Citation

Frederiksen, L. & Phelps, S. F. (2018). Concluding Thoughts on Literature Reviews. In R. Kimmons, Rapid Academic Writing: In Progress: This Book is Currently Being Written. EdTechBooks.org. Retrieved from http://edtechbooks.org/rapidwriting/lit_rev_conclusion

End-of-Chapter Survey

: How would you rate the overall quality of this chapter?
  1. Very Low Quality
  2. Low Quality
  3. Moderate Quality
  4. High Quality
  5. Very High Quality
Comments will be automatically submitted when you navigate away from the page.