Examples Relevant to Literature Reviews

It can be useful to have examples of writing if you are trying to create a specific style of a document.

You will find a number of examples throughout the RWLDs, the Assignment pages and in the back of the Galvan book.

"10-page" Literature Reviews for Seminar:

• The Effect of Lecture Capture Technology on Student Learning in Higher Education by Ima Writer
• Using Universal Design for Learning to Create Differentiated Learning in a PostSecondary Setting by Grady Grade

"30+ page" Literature Review (written as an IT Masters Culmination Activity)
Here is an example of a well-written, student-written literature review.  The review is actually 39 pages (+ references) but it will provide a good example.

Facilitating Transfer for Adult Learners Through Cross-Cultural e-Learning by Andy Rose

The Effects of Blended Learning on K-12th Grade Students (Lora Bora)

This is a thorough review of the research.  Three themes were identified: 1) engagement, 2) achievement, and 3) student perceptions.  She referred to another literature review on the subject to help provide a framework at the beginning. You will find that she used each of the themes as headings to provide a consistent framework for the reader.   The Conclusions and Recommendations section is extensive but it uses the same heading topics to keep a consistent organization for the reader.

Affordances of Flipped Learning and Its Effects on Student Engagement and Achievement (Jerry Corpman) This is a well-organized review that is explores flipped learning. A review of the literature found three themes (identified as research questions in this paper.)  These themes are 1) comparing flipped learning with traditional learning, 2) effects on student engagement, and 3) effects on student achievement. Notice how he uses a table to compare the various studies and their results (the table’s format is a little strange because it was converted from MS Word.)  Review how he discusses the information in each table and how he is comparing the research results.

Using Google Tools to Enhance Secondary Writing Instruction (Berra Sahara)

This review took an interesting strategy.  The author wanted to explore research about the effectiveness of the Google Tool Suite in enhancing secondary writing.   Unfortunately, there isn’t much research on using Google Tools in the classroom so she found research about effective strategies in teaching writing at the secondary level.  As she used research to define these effective strategies, she noted how Google Tools might address each strategy.

Published Peer-Reviewed Literature Reviews:

Emily R. Grekin PhD & Dinah Ayna MSc (2012) Waterpipe Smoking Among College Students in the United States: A Review of the Literature, Journal of American College Health, 60(3), 244-249.

    This is an interesting topic. We are including this review because it is used in our text book (Pan, 2010) This review generally follows the format and outline we are suggesting:

• The Abstract is unique because it contains synopses for each of the parts of the review. (We will not use this format.)  
• The Introduction is intriguing. The last paragraph on the first page identifies the gaps it plans to fill (themes).
• The Methods section is brief.  It answers most of our methodology questions.
• The Results section is similar to the Analysis and Discussion section in our format.
• The headings align with the topics listed at the end of pg 244.  They don’t match exactly. The demographic correlations topic is split into to headings in the Results section.
• Each section of the Results identifies and explains relevant studies. They will compare and contrast these relevant studies. In some sections, they relate to other sections or the research as a whole.
• Notice how the Table is used to present the information about the various studies in a graphic form.  The Prevalence of the Waterpipe Use section compares and contrasts the data in the table.  These studies are referenced in the other sections as well.
• There is not culminating Comment section talks about the strengths and limitations of the present body of literature. These are conclusions about the studies and recommendations for future research.  
• The Conclusions section is brief.  
• Notice that neither of these sections cites the studies when they refer back to the actual studies as we will be doing in our literature reviews.
• So what do you think?  How do you feel as a reader?  Regardless of whether you feel that Waterpipe Smoking is a worthwhile topic for research, did this author succeed in sharing and analyzing the waterpipe literature?

What do you think?  Were these examples useful?

Z