sample education literature review

• Library databases
• Library website

Education Literature Review: Education Literature Review

What does this guide cover.

Writing the literature review is a long, complex process that requires you to use many different tools, resources, and skills.

This page provides links to the guides, tutorials, and webinars that can help you with all aspects of completing your literature review.

The Basic Process

These resources provide overviews of the entire literature review process. Start here if you are new to the literature review process.

• Literature Reviews Overview : Writing Center
• How to do a Literature Review : Library
• Video: Common Errors Made When Conducting a Lit Review (YouTube)  

The Role of the Literature Review

Your literature review gives your readers an understanding of the evolution of scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

• survey the scholarly landscape
• provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts
• possibly provide some historical background

Review the literature in two ways:

• Section 1: reviews the literature for the Problem
• Section 3: reviews the literature for the Project

The literature review is NOT an annotated bibliography. Nor should it simply summarize the articles you've read. Literature reviews are organized thematically and demonstrate synthesis of the literature.

For more information, view the Library's short video on searching by themes:

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

Search for Literature

The iterative process of research:

• Find an article.
• Read the article and build new searches using keywords and names from the article.
• Mine the bibliography for other works.
• Use “cited by” searches to find more recent works that reference the article.
• Repeat steps 2-4 with the new articles you find.

These are the main skills and resources you will need in order to effectively search for literature on your topic:

• Subject Research: Education by Jon Allinder Last Updated Aug 7, 2023 3624 views this year
• Keyword Searching: Finding Articles on Your Topic by Lynn VanLeer Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 17916 views this year
• Google Scholar by Jon Allinder Last Updated Aug 16, 2023 11988 views this year
• Quick Answer: How do I find books and articles that cite an article I already have?
• Quick Answer: How do I find a measurement, test, survey or instrument?

Video: Education Databases and Doctoral Research Resources

(6 min 04 sec) Recorded April 2019 Transcript 

Staying Organized

The literature review requires organizing a variety of information. The following resources will help you develop the organizational systems you'll need to be successful.

• Organize your research
• Citation Management Software

You can make your search log as simple or complex as you would like.  It can be a table in a word document or an excel spread sheet.  Here are two examples.  The word document is a basic table where you can keep track of databases, search terms, limiters, results and comments.  The Excel sheet is more complex and has additional sheets for notes, Google Scholar log; Journal Log, and Questions to ask the Librarian.  

• Search Log Example Sample search log in Excel
• Search Log Example Sample search log set up as a table in a word document.
• Literature Review Matrix with color coding Sample template for organizing and synthesizing your research

Writing the Literature Review

The following resources created by the Writing Center and the Academic Skills Center support the writing process for the dissertation/project study. 

• Critical Reading
• What is Synthesis 
• Walden Templates
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden EdD (Doctor of Education) studies?
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden PhD dissertations?

Beyond the Literature Review

The literature review isn't the only portion of a dissertation/project study that requires searching. The following resources can help you identify and utilize a theory, methodology, measurement instruments, or statistics.

• Education Theory by Jon Allinder Last Updated May 1, 2022 405 views this year
• Tests & Measures in Education by Kimberly Burton Last Updated Nov 18, 2021 42 views this year
• Education Statistics by Jon Allinder Last Updated Feb 22, 2022 57 views this year
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services

Books and Articles about the Lit Review

The following articles and books outline the purpose of the literature review and offer advice for successfully completing one.

• Chen, D. T. V., Wang, Y. M., & Lee, W. C. (2016). Challenges confronting beginning researchers in conducting literature reviews. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2015.1030335 Proposes a framework to conceptualize four types of challenges students face: linguistic, methodological, conceptual, and ontological.
• Randolph, J.J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14(13), 1-13. Provides advice for writing a quantitative or qualitative literature review, by a Walden faculty member.
• Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606 This article presents the integrative review of literature as a distinctive form of research that uses existing literature to create new knowledge.
• Wee, B. V., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper?. Transport Reviews, 36(2), 278-288. http://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456 Discusses how to write a literature review with a focus on adding value rather and suggests structural and contextual aspects found in outstanding literature reviews.
• Winchester, C. L., & Salji, M. (2016). Writing a literature review. Journal of Clinical Urology, 9(5), 308-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415816650133 Reviews the use of different document types to add structure and enrich your literature review and the skill sets needed in writing the literature review.
• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971 Examines different types of literature reviews and the steps necessary to produce a systematic review in educational research.

• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Learning objectives.

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify the purpose of the literature review in  the research process
• Distinguish between different types of literature reviews

1.1 What is a Literature Review?

Pick up nearly any book on research methods and you will find a description of a literature review.  At a basic level, the term implies a survey of factual or nonfiction books, articles, and other documents published on a particular subject.  Definitions may be similar across the disciplines, with new types and definitions continuing to emerge.  Generally speaking, a literature review is a:

• “comprehensive background of the literature within the interested topic area…” ( O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015, p. 31 ).
• “critical component of the research process that provides an in-depth analysis of recently published research findings in specifically identified areas of interest.” ( House, 2018, p. 109 ).
• “written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study” ( Machi & McEvoy,  2012, p. 4 ).

As a foundation for knowledge advancement in every discipline, it is an important element of any research project.  At the graduate or doctoral level, the literature review is an essential feature of thesis and dissertation, as well as grant proposal writing.  That is to say, “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research…A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.” ( Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3 ).  It is by this means, that a researcher demonstrates familiarity with a body of knowledge and thereby establishes credibility with a reader.  An advanced-level literature review shows how prior research is linked to a new project, summarizing and synthesizing what is known while identifying gaps in the knowledge base, facilitating theory development, closing areas where enough research already exists, and uncovering areas where more research is needed. ( Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xiii )

A graduate-level literature review is a compilation of the most significant previously published research on your topic. Unlike an annotated bibliography or a research paper you may have written as an undergraduate, your literature review will outline, evaluate and synthesize relevant research and relate those sources to your own thesis or research question. It is much more than a summary of all the related literature.

It is a type of writing that demonstrate the importance of your research by defining the main ideas and the relationship between them. A good literature review lays the foundation for the importance of your stated problem and research question.

Literature reviews:

• define a concept
• map the research terrain or scope
• systemize relationships between concepts
• identify gaps in the literature ( Rocco & Plathotnik, 2009, p. 128 )

The purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that your research question  is meaningful. Additionally, you may review the literature of different disciplines to find deeper meaning and understanding of your topic. It is especially important to consider other disciplines when you do not find much on your topic in one discipline. You will need to search the cognate literature before claiming there is “little previous research” on your topic.

Well developed literature reviews involve numerous steps and activities. The literature review is an iterative process because you will do at least two of them: a preliminary search to learn what has been published in your area and whether there is sufficient support in the literature for moving ahead with your subject. After this first exploration, you will conduct a deeper dive into the literature to learn everything you can about the topic and its related issues.

Literature Review Tutorial

1.2 Literature Review Basics

An effective literature review must:

• Methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic
• Provide a firm foundation to a topic or research area
• Provide a firm foundation for the selection of a research methodology
• Demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge of advances the research field’s knowledge base. ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

All literature reviews, whether they are qualitative, quantitative or both, will at some point:

• Introduce the topic and define its key terms
• Establish the importance of the topic
• Provide an overview of the amount of available literature and its types (for example: theoretical, statistical, speculative)
• Identify gaps in the literature
• Point out consistent finding across studies
• Arrive at a synthesis that organizes what is known about a topic
• Discusses possible implications and directions for future research

1.3 Types of Literature Reviews

There are many different types of literature reviews, however there are some shared characteristics or features.  Remember a comprehensive literature review is, at its most fundamental level, an original work based on an extensive critical examination and synthesis of the relevant literature on a topic. As a study of the research on a particular topic, it is arranged by key themes or findings, which may lead up to or link to the  research question.  In some cases, the research question will drive the type of literature review that is undertaken.

The following section includes brief descriptions of the terms used to describe different literature review types with examples of each.   The included citations are open access, Creative Commons licensed or copyright-restricted.

1.3.1 Types of Review

1.3.1.1 conceptual.

Guided by an understanding of basic issues rather than a research methodology. You are looking for key factors, concepts or variables and the presumed relationship between them. The goal of the conceptual literature review is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to your study or topic and outline a relationship between them. You will include relevant theory and empirical research.

Examples of a Conceptual Review:

• Education : The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review. ( Dohn, 2010 ).
• Education : Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. ( Amundsen & Wilson, 2012 ).

1.3.1.2 Empirical

An empirical literature review collects, creates, arranges, and analyzes numeric data reflecting the frequency of themes, topics, authors and/or methods found in existing literature. Empirical literature reviews present their summaries in quantifiable terms using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Examples of an Empirical Review:

• Nursing : False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: An empirical review. ( Imberger, Thorlund, Gluud, & Wettersley, 2016 ).
• Education : Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review ( Mwakyusa & Mwalyagile, 2016 ).

1.3.1.3 Exploratory

Unlike a synoptic literature review, the purpose here is to provide a broad approach to the topic area. The aim is breadth rather than depth and to get a general feel for the size of the topic area. A graduate student might do an exploratory review of the literature before beginning a synoptic, or more comprehensive one.

Examples of an Exploratory Review:

• Education : University research management: An exploratory literature review. ( Schuetzenmeister, 2010 ).
• Education : An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. ( Rosario & Widmeyer, 2009 ).

1.3.1.4 Focused

A type of literature review limited to a single aspect of previous research, such as methodology. A focused literature review generally will describe the implications of choosing a particular element of past research, such as methodology in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Examples of a Focused Review:

• Nursing : Clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A focused literature review. ( Khunti, Davies, & Khunti, 2015 ).
• Education : Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature. ( Stainton, 1992 ).

1.3.1.5 Integrative

Critiques past research and draws overall conclusions from the body of literature at a specified point in time. Reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way. Most integrative reviews are intended to address mature topics or  emerging topics. May require the author to adopt a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about a topic.  For more description of integrative reviews, see Whittemore & Knafl (2005).

Examples of an Integrative Review:

• Nursing : Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: An integrative review. ( Franklin,  Bernhardt, Lopez, Long-Middleton, & Davis, 2015 ).
• Education : Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review. ( Brock & Ryan, 2016 ).

1.3.1.6 Meta-analysis

A subset of a  systematic review, that takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures to pool together data. Integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding, draw conclusions, and detect patterns and relationships. Gather data from many different, independent studies that look at the same research question and assess similar outcome measures. Data is combined and re-analyzed, providing a greater statistical power than any single study alone. It’s important to note that not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis but a meta-analysis can’t exist without a systematic review of the literature.

Examples of a Meta-Analysis:

• Education : Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. ( Capar & Tarim, 2015 ).
• Nursing : A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students. ( Lee, Lee, Gong, Bae, & Choi, 2016 ).
• Education : Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. ( Weinburgh, 1995 ).

1.3.1.7 Narrative/Traditional

An overview of research on a particular topic that critiques and summarizes a body of literature. Typically broad in focus. Relevant past research is selected and synthesized into a coherent discussion. Methodologies, findings and limits of the existing body of knowledge are discussed in narrative form. Sometimes also referred to as a traditional literature review. Requires a sufficiently focused research question. The process may be subject to bias that supports the researcher’s own work.

Examples of a Narrative/Traditional Review:

• Nursing : Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. ( Morris, King, Turner, & Payne, 2015 ).
• Education : Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. ( Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997 ).
• Education : Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. ( Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014 ).
• Nursing : Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: A narrative review, implications, and directions for future research. ( Williams & Skinner, 2003 ).

1.3.1.8 Realist

Aspecific type of literature review that is theory-driven and interpretative and is intended to explain the outcomes of a complex intervention program(s).

Examples of a Realist Review:

• Nursing : Lean thinking in healthcare: A realist review of the literature. ( Mazzacato, Savage, Brommels, 2010 ).
• Education : Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. ( Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen, & Dolmans, 2017 ).

1.3.1.9 Scoping

Tend to be non-systematic and focus on breadth of coverage conducted on a topic rather than depth. Utilize a wide range of materials; may not evaluate the quality of the studies as much as count the number. One means of understanding existing literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research; preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research on topic. May include research in progress.

Examples of a Scoping Review:

• Nursing : Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: A scoping review. ( Khanassov, Pluye, Descoteaux, Haggerty,  Russell, Gunn, & Levesque, 2016 ).
• Education : Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review. ( Vanstone, Hibbert, Kinsella, McKenzie, Pitman, & Lingard, 2013 ).
• Nursing : A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. ( Ridde, & Morestin, 2011 ).

1.3.1.10 Synoptic

Unlike an exploratory review, the purpose is to provide a concise but accurate overview of all material that appears to be relevant to a chosen topic. Both content and methodological material is included. The review should aim to be both descriptive and evaluative. Summarizes previous studies while also showing how the body of literature could be extended and improved in terms of content and method by identifying gaps.

Examples of a Synoptic Review:

• Education : Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review. ( Ghaicha, 2016 ).
• Education : School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future. ( Cuttance, 1981 ).

1.3.1.11 Systematic Review

A rigorous review that follows a strict methodology designed with a presupposed selection of literature reviewed.  Undertaken to clarify the state of existing research, the evidence, and possible implications that can be drawn from that.  Using comprehensive and exhaustive searching of the published and unpublished literature, searching various databases, reports, and grey literature.  Transparent and reproducible in reporting details of time frame, search and methods to minimize bias.  Must include a team of at least 2-3 and includes the critical appraisal of the literature.  For more description of systematic reviews, including links to protocols, checklists, workflow processes, and structure see “ A Young Researcher’s Guide to a Systematic Review “.

Examples of a Systematic Review:

• Education : The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review ( Hartmann, Braae, Pedersen, & Khalid, 2017 )
• Nursing : Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality. ( Pimpin, Wu, Haskelberg, Del Gobbo, & Mozaffarian, 2016 ).
• Education : The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. ( Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003 ).
• Nursing : Using computers to self-manage type 2 diabetes. ( Pal, Eastwood, Michie, Farmer, Barnard, Peacock, Wood, Inniss, & Murray, 2013 ).

1.3.1.12 Umbrella/Overview of Reviews

Compiles evidence from multiple systematic reviews into one document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address those interventions and their effects. Often used in recommendations for practice.

Examples of an Umbrella/Overview Review:

• Education : Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review. ( Fragknos, 2016 ).
• Nursing : Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. ( Seida, Ospina, Karkhaneh, Hartling, Smith, & Clark, 2009 ).

For a brief discussion see “ Not all literature reviews are the same ” (Thomson, 2013).

1.4 Why do a Literature Review?

The purpose of the literature review is the same regardless of the topic or research method. It tests your own research question against what is already known about the subject.

1.4.1 First – It’s part of the whole. Omission of a literature review chapter or section in a graduate-level project represents a serious void or absence of critical element in the research process.

The outcome of your review is expected to demonstrate that you:

• can systematically explore the research in your topic area
• can read and critically analyze the literature in your discipline and then use it appropriately to advance your own work
• have sufficient knowledge in the topic to undertake further investigation

1.4.2 Second – It’s good for you!

• You improve your skills as a researcher
• You become familiar with the discourse of your discipline and learn how to be a scholar in your field
• You learn through writing your ideas and finding your voice in your subject area
• You define, redefine and clarify your research question for yourself in the process

1.4.3 Third – It’s good for your reader. Your reader expects you to have done the hard work of gathering, evaluating and synthesizes the literature.  When you do a literature review you:

• Set the context for the topic and present its significance
• Identify what’s important to know about your topic – including individual material, prior research, publications, organizations and authors.
• Demonstrate relationships among prior research
• Establish limitations of existing knowledge
• Analyze trends in the topic’s treatment and gaps in the literature

1.4.4 Why do a literature review?

• To locate gaps in the literature of your discipline
• To avoid reinventing the wheel
• To carry on where others have already been
• To identify other people working in the same field
• To increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
• To find the seminal works in your field
• To provide intellectual context for your own work
• To acknowledge opposing viewpoints
• To put your work in perspective
• To demonstrate you can discover and retrieve previous work in the area

1.5 Common Literature Review Errors

Graduate-level literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic.  As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews are a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing.  We will explore these topics more in the next chapters.  Some things to keep in mind as you begin your own research and writing are ways to avoid the most common errors seen in the first attempt at a literature review.  For a quick review of some of the pitfalls and challenges a new researcher faces when he/she begins work, see “ Get Ready: Academic Writing, General Pitfalls and (oh yes) Getting Started! ”.

As you begin your own graduate-level literature review, try to avoid these common mistakes:

• Accepts another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
• Contrary findings and alternative interpretations are not considered or mentioned
• Findings are not clearly related to one’s own study, or findings are too general
• Insufficient time allowed to define best search strategies and writing
• Isolated statistical results are simply reported rather than synthesizing the results
• Problems with selecting and using most relevant keywords, subject headings and descriptors
• Relies too heavily on secondary sources
• Search methods are not recorded or reported for transparency
• Summarizes rather than synthesizes articles

In conclusion, the purpose of a literature review is three-fold:

• to survey the current state of knowledge or evidence 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.

A literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases, often working with a trained librarian or information expert. Keywords can be combined using the Boolean operators, “and”, “or” and sometimes “not”  to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a list of articles is generated from the keyword and subject heading search, the researcher must then manually browse through each title and abstract, to determine the suitability of that article before a full-text article is obtained for the research question.

Literature reviews should be reasonably complete, and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology or research design. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables, and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix.

A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.

The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions and may provide evidence to inform policy or decision-making. ( Bhattacherjee, 2012 ).

Read Abstract 1.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of literature review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Nursing : To describe evidence of international literature on the safe care of the hospitalised child after the World Alliance for Patient Safety and list contributions of the general theoretical framework of patient safety for paediatric nursing.

An integrative literature review between 2004 and 2015 using the databases PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library, and the descriptors Safety or Patient safety, Hospitalised child, Paediatric nursing, and Nursing care.

Thirty-two articles were analysed, most of which were from North American, with a descriptive approach. The quality of the recorded information in the medical records, the use of checklists, and the training of health workers contribute to safe care in paediatric nursing and improve the medication process and partnerships with parents.

General information available on patient safety should be incorporated in paediatric nursing care. ( Wegner, Silva, Peres, Bandeira, Frantz, Botene, & Predebon, 2017 ).

Read Abstract 2.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of lit review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Education : The focus of this paper centers around timing associated with early childhood education programs and interventions using meta-analytic methods. At any given assessment age, a child’s current age equals starting age, plus duration of program, plus years since program ended. Variability in assessment ages across the studies should enable everyone to identify the separate effects of all three time-related components. The project is a meta-analysis of evaluation studies of early childhood education programs conducted in the United States and its territories between 1960 and 2007. The population of interest is children enrolled in early childhood education programs between the ages of 0 and 5 and their control-group counterparts. Since the data come from a meta-analysis, the population for this study is drawn from many different studies with diverse samples. Given the preliminary nature of their analysis, the authors cannot offer conclusions at this point. ( Duncan, Leak, Li, Magnuson, Schindler, & Yoshikawa, 2011 ).

Test Yourself

See Answer Key for the correct responses.

The purpose of a graduate-level literature review is to summarize in as many words as possible everything that is known about my topic.

A literature review is significant because in the process of doing one, the researcher learns to read and critically assess the literature of a discipline and then uses it appropriately to advance his/her own research.

Read the following abstract and choose the correct type of literature review it represents.

Nursing: E-cigarette use has become increasingly popular, especially among the young. Its long-term influence upon health is unknown. Aim of this review has been to present the current state of knowledge about the impact of e-cigarette use on health, with an emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe. During the preparation of this narrative review, the literature on e-cigarettes available within the network PubMed was retrieved and examined. In the final review, 64 research papers were included. We specifically assessed the construction and operation of the e-cigarette as well as the chemical composition of the e-liquid; the impact that vapor arising from the use of e-cigarette explored in experimental models in vitro; and short-term effects of use of e-cigarettes on users’ health. Among the substances inhaled by the e-smoker, there are several harmful products, such as: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acroleine, propanal, nicotine, acetone, o-methyl-benzaldehyde, carcinogenic nitrosamines. Results from experimental animal studies indicate the negative impact of e-cigarette exposure on test models, such as ascytotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammation, airway hyper reactivity, airway remodeling, mucin production, apoptosis, and emphysematous changes. The short-term impact of e-cigarettes on human health has been studied mostly in experimental setting. Available evidence shows that the use of e-cigarettes may result in acute lung function responses (e.g., increase in impedance, peripheral airway flow resistance) and induce oxidative stress. Based on the current available evidence, e-cigarette use is associated with harmful biologic responses, although it may be less harmful than traditional cigarettes. (J ankowski, Brożek, Lawson, Skoczyński, & Zejda, 2017 ).

• Meta-analysis
• Exploratory

Education: In this review, Mary Vorsino writes that she is interested in keeping the potential influences of women pragmatists of Dewey’s day in mind while presenting modern feminist re readings of Dewey. She wishes to construct a narrowly-focused and succinct literature review of thinkers who have donned a feminist lens to analyze Dewey’s approaches to education, learning, and democracy and to employ Dewey’s works in theorizing on gender and education and on gender in society. This article first explores Dewey as both an ally and a problematic figure in feminist literature and then investigates the broader sphere of feminist pragmatism and two central themes within it: (1) valuing diversity, and diverse experiences; and (2) problematizing fixed truths. ( Vorsino, 2015 ).

Image Attributions

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students Copyright © by Linda Frederiksen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

LIBRARY HOURS:

See All Hours

One Moment...

See Average Occupancy

• Library Search
• Research & Subject Guides
• Library Databases
• Citation Guide
• Borrowing & Renewing
• Interlibrary Loan
• Library Instruction
• Room Reservations
• Course Reserves
• Library Purchase Request
• Open Educational Resources
• University Archives & Special Collections
• Endeavor: Faculty & Student Publications
• PA History Harvest
• Newspapers & News Sources
• Contact a Librarian
• Meet with a Librarian
• Find My Librarian
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Library Floor Maps
• Library Mission Statement
• Library Directory
• Friends of the Library
• Donate to the Library
• Library Account

Education Research Guide: How to Write a Literature Review

• Journal Articles
• Books for Children / Young Adults
• How to Write a Literature Review
• Library Session Survey

Literature Reviews Explained

Use the articles below to learn about:

• what a literature review is
• how to select and research a topic
• how to write a literature review
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The Writing Center: Literature Reviews
• OWL (Purdue University Online Writing Lab): Using APA to format your Literature Review

Synthesizing Explained

Synthesizing is a method of analyzing the main ideas and important information from your sources as you read and prepare to write a literature review. Review the resources below for sample synthesizing methods. Both examples have tables you can fill out as you read articles to help you organize your thoughts. 

• Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix: NC University Tutorial Center
• Matrix Example from the University of West Florida Libraries
• Synthesizing Cornelsen This article is included in "Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix" to illustrate synthesizing articles in the sample matrix.
• Synthesizing: Bruley This article is included in "Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix" to illustrate synthesizing articles in the sample matrix.

Sample Literature Reviews

Make sure you follow any instructions from you professor on how to format your literature review! Use the examples below to get ideas for how you might write about the sources you found in your research.

• Literature Review 1
• Literature Review 2
• Literature Review 3
• << Previous: Websites
• Next: Cite It >>
• Last Updated: May 10, 2024 1:02 PM
• URL: https://library.susqu.edu/education

Blough-Weis Library

514 University Avenue

Selinsgrove, PA 17870

[email protected] | 570.372.4160

LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

• Search the Library

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Skip to Guides Search
• Skip to breadcrumb
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer
• Skip to chat link
• Report accessibility issues and get help
• Go to Penn Libraries Home
• Go to Franklin catalog

Education: Literature Reviews

• Handbooks, Encyclopedias, Dictionaries
• Books and Searchable E-Book Collections
• Articles in Education Databases
• Articles in Subject Databases
• Articles in Multidisciplinary Databases
• Full-text Dissertations
• Open Access
• Publications, Reports, Working Papers
• Literature Reviews
• Research Methods
• How to Search Better
• Manage your Citations
• Journal Info / Metrics
• Author Citation Metrics

Getting Started on Literature Reviews

• "Reviewing the Literature" Project Planner SAGE Research Methods. Provides checklists and bullet points for the literature review process, with "Search for reources" links to relevant SAGE Research Methods fulltext books and book chapters.
• "Literature reviews" / Lawrence A. Machi & Brenda T. McEvoy Oxford Bibliographies : Education, 2016. An annotated bibliography identifying and describing books and articles on the theory of literature reviews, their variety, and how to write them.

Selected Books on Writing Literature Reviews

Search Databases for Literature Review Articles and Overview Publications

• ERIC (ProQuest) Filter search results for Document Type = 070 : Information Analyses and 130 : Reference Materials - Bibliographies. ERIC Digests, research syntheses produced by ERIC ceased after ERIC's reform that closed its research-monitoring clearinghouses in the early 2000s. The ERIC database continues to make available the 3,000+ ERIC Digest published in 1980-2003. They may be found in ERIC (ProQuest) using the search filter for Document type = 073
• APA PsycInfo PsycINFO has a Methodology limit, with values of Literature review, Systematic Review, or Meta-analysis.
• Web of Science (WOS) Don't be misled by "science" in the title. WOS also covers the humanities and social sciences. On the left, under Refine Results, Select REVIEWS under Document Types. This is a limit for literature reviews or overview articles. THis may not get all lit reviews. Consider also searching the TS field (Title, Abstract, Author Keyword, Keywords Plus®) with meta-analysis, metaanalysis, synthesis, overview.
• Scopus Do a search in Scopus for a keyword. Then refine the results by selected under "Document type" - review.
• PubMed Perform a search, then under Article Type on the right, see Reviews or Systematic Reviews.
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global‎: Full Collection Dissertations can sometimes be useful for review-type surveys of the literature on a specific field. Most often authors begin their study with a review of the literature in order to offer context for their contribution.

Selected Journals with Review Articles

• Review of Educational Research (RER) SAGE, for American Educational Research Association (AERA), 1931- . Publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education, including conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research.
• Review of Research in Education (RRE) SAGE, for AERA, 1973- . Each RRE annual volume is devoted to a single topic, with research syntheses and literature reviews.
• Educational Research Review Elsevier, for European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), 2006- .
• Campbell Systematic Reviews Wiley, for Campbell Collaboration, 2004- . CSR publishes finalized systematic reviews developed through the Campbell Collaboration. Subjects include education and child welfare.
• Educational Psychology Review An international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed integrative review articles, special thematic issues, reflections or comments on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners - all pertaining to the field of educational psychology.
• Annual Reviews AnnRev publishes literature-review journals in physical, life and social sciences. Includes anthropology, economics, linguistics, public health, psychology, and sociology. Education topics may be found in many of these discipline-specific journals.
• Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science SAGE, for AAPSS, 1890- . Penn's house journal for the social sciences, and one of the oldest US scholarly journals. Each issue presents research syntheses on a specific topic, with one issue per year focusing on education or child welfare.
• Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral sciences Wiley, 2015-201?. Review articles on new research fronts. Includes a recurring section on "Educational Institutions" .

Systematic Review Databases

• Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - open and searchable archive of systematic reviews and their data.
• Campbell Collaboration - Library of Systematic Reviews Systematic reviews in areas such as education, criminal justice, social policy and social care. (The Campbell Collaboration was formally established at a meeting at the University of Pennsylvania on 24-25 February 2000.)
• EPPI-Centre The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) is part of the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London. EPPI develops systematic reviews and developing review methods in social science and public policy.
• Cochrane Collaboration Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy. Since 2011, Cochrane has an official partnership with the WHO.
• What Works Clearinghouse - U.S. Department of Education
• << Previous: Publications, Reports, Working Papers
• Next: Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 8:23 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.upenn.edu/education

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students.

• University of La Verne
• Subject Guides

Literature Review Basics

• Tutorials & Samples
• Literature Review Introduction
• Writing Literature Reviews
• Primary & Secondary Sources

Literature Review Tutorials

• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Students What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? Find out here in this guide from NCSU libraries.
• Write a Lit Review from Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this guide to learn how to write a literature review, beginning with a synthesis matrix.
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide This guide will help you understand what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done. Also includes information on Annotated Bibliographies.
• Writing a Literature Review from the University of Toledo Covers what a lit review is, lit review types, writing a lit review and further readings.
• The Literature Review Process A guide from the University of North Texas on selecting a topic, searching the literature, plan before reviewing, reviewing the literature and writing the review.
• The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Permission granted to use this guide.

Sample Literature Reviews

• Business Literature Review Example One Sharing economy: A comprehensive literature review
• Business Literature Review Example Two Internet marketing: a content analysis of the research
• Education Literature Review Sample One Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review
• Education Literature Review Sample Two Issues and Challenges for Teaching Successful Online Courses in Higher Education: A Literature Review
• Gerontology Literature Review Sample One Attitudes towards caring for older people: literature review and methodology
• Gerontology Literature Review Sample Two Literature review: understanding nursing competence in dementia care
• Psychology Literature Review Sample One Psychological Correlates of University Students’ Academic Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
• Psychology Literature Review Sample Two Misuse of Prescription Stimulants Among College Students: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Morphological and Cognitive Effects on Brain Functioning
• Public Administration Literature Review Sample One Considering the Environment in Transportation Planning: Review of Emerging Paradigms and Practice in the United States
• Public Administration Literature Review Sample Two Assessing the impact of research on policy: a literature review
• Sociology Literature Review Sample One Employment Among Current and Former Welfare Recipients: A Literature Review
• Sociology Literature Review Sample Two Deployment and family functioning: A literature review of US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Technology Literature Review Sample One Social media and innovation: A systematic literature review and future research directions
• Technology Literature Review Sample Two Blockchain as a disruptive technology for business: A systematic review
• << Previous: Primary & Secondary Sources
• Last Updated: Jun 28, 2023 9:19 AM
• URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/litreviews

• Research Guides
• CECH Library

Education Basics

Literature review overview.

• Article and Media Sources
• Quick Stats and Reference
• OAE and Praxis Core
• Citation & Annotation

There are eight general steps in conducting an education literature review. Please follow the eight numbered boxes, starting below.

Please note that the general framework for this guide is derived from the work of Joyce P. Gall, M.D. Gall, and Walter R. Borg in Applying Educational Research: a Practical Guide (5th ed., 2005). Also, much of the information on framing the research question comes from Emily Grimm's Selected Reference Sources for Graduate Students in Education and Education Related Areas (1995).

Step 1: Frame Your Research Question(s)

Basic Questions

• What do I want to know?  For what purpose? Consider subject terms, synonyms, related concepts and approaches.
• What do I know already?
• Who else might have performed similar research and why? Consider individuals, institutions, governmental agencies and other groups.
• What summarizing or descriptive information is already available? Consider the secondary sources found below.

Time Questions

• For which time span(s) do I need information?
• Would recurrent or temporal events in education affect my research?  For example: school terms, budget hearings, conference proceedings, legislative sessions, policy decisions, elections, administrative procedural changes.

Limitation(s) Questions

• Do I have other limitations?  For example:  language, age group, grade level, type of student, type of school, type of district, geography, curricular area, or style of teaching.

Aspect Questions

• What aspects of education interest me?  For example:  financial, administrative, teaching, legislative, gender, parental, theoretical, research, developmental, practical or other.

Subjective Aspect Questions

• What are my values, prejudices, biases, and areas of ignorance in regard to my research question(s)?
• Will I let these prejudices limit my research?
• Will I let these prejudices influence my note taking, choice of vocabulary and indexing terms, selection of data, evaluations of the work of other researchers, inclusion of conflicting theories, reporting of data, or my conclusions?

Step 2: Contact Experts to Get Answers or for Guidance to Relevant Publications

Consider consulting other educators, faculty or government officials who may specialize in your research area.

You may also want to consult the American Educational Research Association SIG (Special Interest Group) website for the names of groups and individuals who have expertise in different educational areas.  AERA provides the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of individuals doing research in a variety of areas.

Step 3: Read Secondary Sources to Gain a Broad Overview of the Literature Related to Your Research Area

Use secondary sources to further define your research question and to expand your literature search.  Secondary sources include encyclopedias, handbooks, dictionaries, and thesauri. Secondary sources are resources that review research that others have done.  They provide a general overview, will give you ideas for key search terms, and often include useful bibliographies for further reading.

Here are some key secondary sources and books on doing educational research:

• Review of Educational Research The Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education, including conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research.
• Educational Psychology Review Educational Psychology Review is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed integrative review articles, special thematic issues, reflections or comments on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners.
• Doing educational research : a guide to first-time researchers CECH Prof Ed LB1028 .D65 2004
• Effective action research: developing reflective thinking and practice Electronic (2011)
• Encyclopedia of Education Electronic and Langsam Library Reference, LB 15 .E47 2003
• Encyclopedia of Special Education [electronic resource] : a Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and other Exceptional Individuals Electronic, 2007.
• Handbook of research on educational communications and technology CECH Library Reference, LB 1028.3 . H355 2008
• Handbook of research on multicultural education CECH Library Reference, LC 1099.3 .H35 2004
• Handbook of research on teaching CECH Library Reference, LB1028 .S39 2001
• How to design and evaluate research in education CECH Reserves LB1028 .F665 2012
• Methods in educational research: from theory to practice Electronic (2010)
• The Phi Delta Kappan [electronic resource] Electronic, Contains many articles that cite research and analyze practical implications.
• The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Education CECH Library Reference, LB 15 .R633 2008

Step 4: Select Preliminary Sources that Index Relevant Research Literature

Preliminary sources index primary research resources such as journal articles, conference proceeding papers, technical reports, government documents, dissertations and more.  The CECH Library has created several specialized library guides on topics such as special education, instructional design & technology, and teaching STEM related topics that list which resources are most helpful for doing research in these areas. See below for key databases in education:

Step 5: Identify Subject Terms, or Descriptors, and Use Them to Search Preliminary Sources

Choosing the most appropriate subject search terms, or descriptors, for searching indexes and catalogs can greatly influence your search results.  A good place to start is ERIC's thesaurus of descriptors:

Step 6: Read and Evaluate Primary Sources Discovered Through Indexes

For assistance in obtaining copies of primary sources, please consult your liaison librarian .

As you print out copies of articles, review copies of books or reports, remember to look in the sources for bibliographies, names of individuals or groups who have done research on the topic, and for additional subject terms to help you narrow or broaden your research.

Step 7: Classify the Publications You Have Reviewed into Meaningful Categories

As you review the sources you find, classify them into meaningful categories.  This will help you prioritize reading them and may indicate useful ways to synthesize what you discover.  You may want to create a simple code for the different categories.

Step 8: Prepare Your Literature Review Report

See the following resources for advice on preparing a literature review report:

• << Previous: OAE and Praxis Core
• Next: Citation & Annotation >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 11:57 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/edbasics

University of Cincinnati Libraries

PO Box 210033 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0033

Phone: 513-556-1424

Contact Us | Staff Directory

University of Cincinnati

Alerts | Clery and HEOA Notice | Notice of Non-Discrimination | eAccessibility Concern | Privacy Statement | Copyright Information

© 2021 University of Cincinnati

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students

(15 reviews)

Linda Frederiksen, Washington State University Vancouver

Sue F. Phelps, Washington State University Vancouver

Copyright Year: 2017

Publisher: Rebus Community

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Rebecca Appleton, Professor of Nursing, Marshall University on 5/7/24

It is very through in covering the steps of a well written literature review read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

It is very through in covering the steps of a well written literature review

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I have not read the entire book, but what I did read was very good.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

It is up to date, but doing a Literature Review is covered in a step-wise manner, includes writing the LR>

Clarity rating: 5

Very clear step-by-step approach

Consistency rating: 5

It is very consistent!

Modularity rating: 5

Chapters are orderly and succinct

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Strait forward order.

Interface rating: 5

I did not notice Interface issues.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No grammatical errors were noticed.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I did not notice any problems with cultural Insensitivity

I plan to use this in a Nursing Research class for Graduate Students, and I am trying a new approach to finding the best Research Evidence on a Nursing Topic. Can't wait to see if this help my graduate students understand research literature better.

Reviewed by Barbara Schneider, Professor, University of Texas at Arlington on 4/29/24

This textbook covers the range of topics important for a literature review, including formulating a research question, finding scholarly articles, evaluating sources, and synthesizing source content. The videos are great supplements to the text. read more

This textbook covers the range of topics important for a literature review, including formulating a research question, finding scholarly articles, evaluating sources, and synthesizing source content. The videos are great supplements to the text.

Overall, the content is accurate. Consider labeling Nursing as a health profession/discipline.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Much of the content remains relevant. Updated examples would be helpful to today's graduate students.

The textbook is clearly written.

Consistency rating: 4

In general, the text is consistent. There could be more consistency in the formatting of the references.

The modularity is an asset.

There is a logical flow to the topics.

The links to outside materials are helpful.

No grammatical errors were evident.

The examples seemed inclusive.

Those who are new to writing a literature review would find this book useful.

Reviewed by Yolanda Griffiths, Professor of Occupational Therapy, Drake University on 12/15/21

The authors were thorough and very organized in stepping readers through the process of conducting and writing a literature review. Each area is appropriately indexed and examples are provided in a variety of ways. The synthesis section is... read more

The authors were thorough and very organized in stepping readers through the process of conducting and writing a literature review. Each area is appropriately indexed and examples are provided in a variety of ways. The synthesis section is especially useful as students often do not understand what this means. Perhaps some content on plagiarism would benefit this section as well. The flow of the material easily guides users logically through each topic.

The content is accurate and unbiased. The content is presented in an easy to understand way with videos, and examples.

The relevance of the content is classic and the text should be pertinent for many years. The links included in the text are very useful and should be easy for authors to check periodically. Using a digital media is more relevant to today's students than print textbooks. Each section addresses a reasonable chunk of information.

The book is user friendly, written in an easy to understand manner, and graphics or links add to the understanding of the content. Definitions are clearly written. Such as clarifying the types of literature reviews will be useful for students. Providing a test yourself section at the end of sections allows the reader to check if any content was confusing or not clear.

The text is consistently laid out in a logical manner which helps to unpack content which may be new or unfamiliar to the reader/student.

The amount of content allocated to each chapter is appropriate and will be easy to assign readings. The chapter headings are clear and the embedded videos, charts and test questions enlighten each subunit. The hyperlinking in the table of contents helps to navigate the chapters well.

The organization of the content is logical and easy to understand the process of completing a literature review. The book is laid out much like a road map where students can see the big picture as well as the supporting parts to the process. The references by chapter are very useful.

The graphics were clear, and the non-serif font aids in eye fatigue. One recommendation is to lower the brightness of the bold blue text in the table of contents to reduce eye fatigue. There was no problem to play the videos and the audio was clear. All links worked well.

There were no grammatical errors. There were a few typos such as 1.3.1.8 needs a space between "A specific", 2.3 in the phrase "Articles by the type of periodical in which an article it is published" perhaps remove the word "it", in the table on page 41. under Nursing , the word clinical is spelled "Cclinical", remove the capital C.

No evidence of cultural bias or insensitivity.

I am very excited to use this textbook in my doctoral level occupational therapy class. The inclusion of concise explanations of PICO and SPICE will be very useful. This will be a wonderful resource for graduate students and being mindful of costs for textbooks is compassionate.

Reviewed by Susan Bassett, Instructor, Nursing Graduate Program, Eastern New Mexico University on 11/9/21

Each chapter presented a different aspect of doing a literature review. This was organized and orderly. The index/table of contents was very detailed which allowed the reader to easily use this book as a reference while conducting a literature... read more

Each chapter presented a different aspect of doing a literature review. This was organized and orderly. The index/table of contents was very detailed which allowed the reader to easily use this book as a reference while conducting a literature review.

The content appeared to be entirely accurate. It did a good job of combining information for both education and nursing students. The authors addressed pertinent points of research study development as well as the specific methodology of approaching a research-focused literature review.

The text was up-to-date in methodology, which should not change frequently. The many links to websites were very helpful and yet were basic enough that they should be relevant for years. If they do need updating, the are clearly presented and should be easily updated. The breakdown to very small "chunks" of information per section will help in easily updating specific parts of information.

The book presented a rather complex topic in an extremely straight-forward, easy to read, clear manner. Each small "chunk" of information was identified per section numbering which correlated with movement through the content. The writing was professional and yet not overwhelmed with discipline-specific terminology. Where potentially new terminology was presented, it was immediately followed with definitions and examples.

The book was well-organized and moved along the structure set out early in the book. Content was gradually unfolded, as divided per chapter. There was a bit of repetition (probably about three examples) where the authors attempted to tie information together. Although this stood out to a reader, it seemed more useful in organizing than detrimental in repetition.

The book was subdivided into chapters and then into many small modules of discrete information. It could easily be assigned in part. It could also readily be used as a reference for students to go back and easily find processes or pieces of information they might need later.

I found the continual clear and succinct organization of information to be a defining highlight of this book. When presenting early steps of the research process and then linking these steps with how to conduct a literature review and subsequenty organize and write a literature review, this book is presenting numerous procews steps that must work in tandem. This book did that in a clear and easily readable fashion.

The one feature that did distract me was within the bullet points of 1.3.1. "Types of Reviews". There was a mix of complete and incomplete sentences that worked to convey information succinctly, but distracted me as a reader.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

I did find several spelling and grammaticl errors (1.3.1.8, , 1.3.1.9, 2.1.1, 2.3, 2.3.1.1, , 2.3.1.4, 2.3 Table A., p. 41, p. 53, p. 54). Although small errors (a few letters or spacing) they should be corrected.

I did not find any mistakes in cultural appropriateness The content did repeatedly talk about bias reduction in the process of writing a literature review

I thought this book was very well-written and contained great information for my students. The links provided were very appropriate and helpful. The Table "Guide to searching for literature at various stages of the scholarly communication process” was particularly helpful. I will immediately begin using portions of the content in this book to support my research class. Additionally, I will recommend the entire book as a reference for the dedicated student (or one intending to go forward to a doctoral level of education in nursing). Thank you for collating all this information and helpful links into one clear, easily readable and understandable document.

Reviewed by Leah Nillas, Associate Professor, Illinois Wesleyan University on 9/6/21

This book addresses the basic steps in the process of writing a literature review research. Chapter 2 (What is a Literature Review?) needs to be retitled. I think Chapter 1 (Introduction) clearly defines and characterizes literature review as a... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

This book addresses the basic steps in the process of writing a literature review research. Chapter 2 (What is a Literature Review?) needs to be retitled. I think Chapter 1 (Introduction) clearly defines and characterizes literature review as a research category. Chapter 2 focuses more on the creation of information, information cycle, and selecting appropriate sources. Chapter 7 (Synthesizing Sources) and Chapter 8 (Writing the Lit Review) can still be improved to incorporate specific strategies in synthesizing research literature and examples of writing styles through analysis of a variety of published examples. Writing a synthesis is a challenging skill for most novice researchers.

Information shared is accurate. I did not notice any content error.

Main content is up-to-date. A few citations maybe dated but they are necessary in illustrating different examples of literature reviews. It will be easy to include additional relevant examples of research work that are published recently.

I like how this text is written. Tone is reader friendly and narrative is accessible to novice researchers.

Clearly consistent throughout the chapters.

Clear and purposeful "chunking" of information per chapter.

Readers can easily follow the organization of topics and content.

No obvious interface issues. Appropriate use of multimedia tools.

No grammatical errors.

Text is culturally sensitive. Additional readings, references, or examples can easily be added to incorporate research conducted by diverse authors or literature reviews which focus on diversity and inclusion issues in education and nursing.

This is a good introductory literature review text even for undergraduate education students. Clear discussion of the nature of the research and the writing process. The use of videos and images is helpful in providing multimodal approach in explaining topics or processes. Writing style and tone make the text accessible to novice researchers.

Reviewed by Rebecca Scheckler, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 7/6/20

Two missing topics were inter-library loan and how to avoid plagiarism in writing up the literature review. This second is such an important topic that it deserves its own chapter. read more

Two missing topics were inter-library loan and how to avoid plagiarism in writing up the literature review. This second is such an important topic that it deserves its own chapter.

It is accurate. I found no inaccuracies.

This book is very relevant. Every advanced undergraduate or graduate students requires such a book

I found the book clear. The videos interspersed within the book added much to the clarity. There are lots of good diagrams that add to the clarity. They are not all original but their sources are all cited. The section on boolean searches, usage of asterisks and quotes in searches is very helpful and appropriate although often left out of discussion of searches.

The book is consistent in terminology and framework.

The chapters were cohesive.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

I like the links to within the text to the references and other matter. What is needed are back links to the text from the references. I also would have liked links from the exercises to the answers of the exercises.

Interface rating: 4

See navigation links mentioned above. The grey literature link is broken.

I saw no grammatical problems. There are many bulleted lists rather than text which is appropriate to this topic.

There could be more attention to cultural context in the frequent examples.

I wondered why nursing and education were combined. They are similar in nature but not identical. separation them out into two books might be appropriate.

Reviewed by Lisa Shooman, Associate Professor, Worcester State University on 6/29/20

Overall, this book provides a very comprehensive and thorough roadmap for creating a literature review. The videos assist the reader in crystallizing the information presented in the text. There is an effective index and glossary that provide... read more

Overall, this book provides a very comprehensive and thorough roadmap for creating a literature review. The videos assist the reader in crystallizing the information presented in the text. There is an effective index and glossary that provide helpful navigation to the reader.

The content is detailed, clearly explained, error-free, and unbiased. My students would greatly benefit from the lucid information presented in this text to guide them with developing a literature review. I would be eager to adopt this book for my students.

The content is timely and will not be quickly out-of-date. The quiz questions at the end of each chapter are relevant and will aid students with the consolidation of the material. The online format allows for updating, and the version history at the end of the text clearly indicated that the book was updated recently.

The text is clear and not ridden with any excess jargon /technical terminology. Pictures, graphics, and videos further elucidate the text. There are helpful questions that stimulate thought and lists that help to organize information.

The internal consistency in the text is excellent. However, Chapter 1.1 and Chapter 2 have the same title and it would benefit the reader to have different titles that would highlight the differences between these two sections. Chapter 1.1 is an overview and Chapter 2 dives into more depth.

The text is efficiently divided into smaller reading sections that are demarcated by numbers. The subsections in each chapter can be assigned at different points in the course. The text is organized logically and systematically that assists the reader with comprehension and provides a roadmap for creating an effective literature review.

The entire text is presented coherently and concisely. The organization of the text takes the reader through the process of creating an effective literature review. It can be used by multiple health professions, although the length of the text is relatively short it includes a considerable depth of the material. Other disciplines that would benefit from using this test in their courses may include occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and language pathology students.

The interface of the text is simple and easy to follow. The cover of the text would benefit from photos, color, and graphic design to appeal to the modern digital reader.

No grammatical or spelling errors are noted.

No cultural biases existed in the text in any way. There are no individuals highlighted in the book, and due to the technical nature of the subject matter, the text is inclusive to a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. No offensive statements are included in this book.

The authors should consider including other health professionals in the title and provide examples that can relate to other health professionals throughout the text. Other health professionals that can benefit from reading this text include occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and language pathology students. Literature reviews are relevant for many health professionals in their master's and doctorate programs and the text could serve a wider audience.

Reviewed by Ellen Rearick, Assistant Professor, Framingham State University on 6/1/20

This text covers all areas and the process of the integrative review appropriately. It is an engaging text for graduate students new to these assignments. read more

This text covers all areas and the process of the integrative review appropriately. It is an engaging text for graduate students new to these assignments.

This text is well done, very accurate

This text is relevant. The updates needed regarding APA format should be relatively easy to implement.

This text is clear and provides users with definitions and examples of the variety of reviews.

Very well written using consistent terminology throughout.

The text's reading sections are easily accessible and users will find them organized. Each chapter and its sections are presented in the sequence of the process of an integrative review.

Very clear and logical order.

The navigation of this text was problem-free.

No grammatical errors noted.

No issues with cultural insensitivity noted.

This was a well-organized text using videos to reinforce content that would benefit any education or nursing graduate student new to the integrative review process.

Reviewed by Ruth Stoltzfus, Professor of Nursing; Dir., Grad Programs in Nursing, Goshen College on 6/1/19

This text provides everything a graduate student needs to write a literature review in a concise manner. If you look at the digital pdf, there are many strategies to help the reader learn the process - videos, diagrams, and also text. read more

This text provides everything a graduate student needs to write a literature review in a concise manner. If you look at the digital pdf, there are many strategies to help the reader learn the process - videos, diagrams, and also text.

I found no evidence of bias and no errors.

This book has long-term relevance. The content will not quickly out-date.

I really liked the way the textbook is structured. The author is concise which makes the textbook easy to read.

I found no inconsistencies in terminology or other aspects related to the content.

I will adopt this text for a research course I use and will likely assign only specific chapters. I plan to recommend the textbook to another faculty who teaches a comprehensive research course with the idea of assigning only specific sections to read..

The textbook begins with an introduction to the subject matter. Subsequent chapters develop specific aspects related to lit reviews. The textbook provides a nice "how to" for each element of a lit review. Chapters are also organized in a smooth, easy to follow format.

I only looked at the digital pdf and print pdf versions. The print pdf indicates that there are videos to watch, but of course since it is a print pdf, there is no linkage. I think this would be obvious to a savvy reader - that a print pdf will be limited in what the reader can access.

I found no grammatical errors in my quick read.

I found no evidence of cultural bias or insensitivity.

This is the first open textbook that I have encountered. I was expecting it to be flat and boring! However, it was neither of those. There were color diagrams, color photos, and even videos embedded in the textbook.

I have adopted this book for the Research Lit Review course that I am teaching soon. I am impressed!

Reviewed by Melissa Wells, Assistant Professor, University of Mary Washington on 5/1/19

This book helps students in education and nursing complete a literature review, which may be the first time these students are tackling such a task. The chapters break down the process into defining the special genre of a literature review;... read more

This book helps students in education and nursing complete a literature review, which may be the first time these students are tackling such a task. The chapters break down the process into defining the special genre of a literature review; providing tips to get started; suggesting where students can find literature to review; explaining how to evaluate sources; detailing the process of documenting sources; giving advice for synthesizing sources; and finally, putting all of these pieces together into a final literature review. Most significantly, the text provides specific examples of ideas presented in the context of both nursing and education, which makes the content directly relatable to the student's course of study. The conclusion recaps the main points of each chapter in bullet form. The text is lacking both an index and a glossary, which would be additions that could strengthen the text.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The text explains 11 different types of literature reviews that students may encounter or be asked to create. Also, the text is framed to work with multiple methodologies; for example, steps for writing a research question or a hypothesis to frame the literature review are provided. One inconsistency I noted was in diagram 6.2: the APA citation is incorrectly capitalized for the journal title (which should use sentence, not title, capitalization).

The text also includes external links to sources, such as a videos, which provide students with multiple modalities in which to digest the information. An example of a literature review for both education and nursing is provided at the end of the book; instead of embedding these in the text, the hyperlinks refer the reader to the external site. This will be easy to change to a new example in the future, but checks will need to be done to ensure that all such external sources remain actively accessible.

Each chapter opens with learning objectives to help frame the content with which the reader is about to engage. Throughout the text, the language is approachable and reader-friendly. For example, when the text explains more factual components (i.e., what makes a literature review or what the basics of an effective literature review include), this information is presented in bullet points with hyperlinks to the original sources.

Each chapter follows a similar construction, which makes it accessible to the reader. For example, chapters end with a "Practice" and "Check Yourself" section to apply new learning and self-check responses (an answer key is provided in an appendix). Examples in these exercises are either related to nursing or education, continuing with the stated theme of the text.

When I used this text with my own students, I assigned chapters in isolation, since they had already taken a research methods course and were applying that knowledge to create a research proposal in a specific area of study in my course.

The book is organized in such a way that logically walks the reader through the literature review writing process. Clear headings (which are hyperlinked in the table of contents) also allow the reader to jump to specific parts with which they need additional support.

The interface of this document offered a lot of flexibility. Options allowed users to access the text online, or as a download in multiple file types (EPUB, Digital PDF, MOBI, XHTML, Pressbooks XML, Wordpress XML, and Open Document). These formats provide the reader with an opportunity to pick the interface that works best for them.

I did not see any grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

No culturally insensitive/offensive content was noted. A variety of examples of research topics were included from both nursing and education. Of the images/video thumbnails embedded in the text that involved people, all depicted White people except for 2 images; therefore, more intentional selection of culturally diverse visuals would be helpful in future versions of this text.

I feel this text was helpful to my students as they wrote their own literature reviews. The only weakness in their papers that I noted was their organization of their literature review based on themes/topic, which was addressed in Chapters 7- 8. I now know to focus more on this part of literature review writing with future students. This text is approachable and field-specific, and I will be using it again!

Reviewed by Bernita (Bernie) Missal, Professor, Bethel University on 12/14/18

This book includes all areas that a graduate student needs to begin a literature review. However metasynthesis could have also been included in types of literature review. read more

This book includes all areas that a graduate student needs to begin a literature review. However metasynthesis could have also been included in types of literature review.

This book is accurate although missing qualitative research.

Although content is up to date, some of the article examples need to be updated. (Example: articles published in 1981 and 1992 need to be updated to more recent articles.)

The book is clear and easy to follow. Bullet points were used throughout the book with short paragraphs which helps the student.

Each chapter follows the same format with narrative followed by practice and test questions.

Clear subheadings are used throughout the book.

This book is presented in a logical way and easy for the student to follow.

Images are clear and appropriate for the content.

No specific grammar issues were seen.

It would be helpful for students to include additional examples of cultural studies throughout the book

This book is an excellent resource for graduate students. It has helpful information for the preparation and process for a literature review. Examples of written literature reviews in chapter 8 or in an appendix would be helpful for students.

Reviewed by Nancyruth Leibold, Associate Professor, Southwest Minnesota State University on 6/19/18

The text is overall comprehensive, yet it breaks the information up into manageable parts. See the table of contents for an overview of the topics. The text is very quantitative driven in that the focus is on reviewing quantitative studies. The... read more

The text is overall comprehensive, yet it breaks the information up into manageable parts. See the table of contents for an overview of the topics. The text is very quantitative driven in that the focus is on reviewing quantitative studies. The book included information about PICO statements, but did not include PICO(T) or the time variable, which is not always used in every case. Population was included in the PICO explanation, but a bit more information on the population or aggregate narrowing could improve the PICO section. These items do not hinder use of the book, but these items would need further inclusion by the faculty member using the text as specific to the discipline.

The content in the book is very accurate.

The content in the book is current and should not be obsolete within a short period of time. Any updates would be easy to add.

The text is clear and easy to understand.

The internal organization and terminology of the book is consistent and logical

The text is set up in small reading sessions. The videos and learning activities are well done and break up some of the content, so there is a variety of presentation. The tutorials, figures, practice and self-test areas are also fantastic in that they are quality and sprinkled throughout the text.

The topics in the book are presented in clear and organized fashion. I particularly like the upbeat and personal writing tone of the book. This tone makes it seem like the authors are speaking to me.

The text is free of any significant interface issues. The book is available in many formats. I used the book online and I did have one navigational problem and that is when clicking on a video, it does not open in a new tab and so the book is lost and have to start over going in the start to the book. One easy solution to this is to right click your mouse and then select open in new tab to watch videos. That way, your place in the book is not lost.

No grammar problems present.

The book is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way.

Overall, this is a well written textbook and I recommend it!

Reviewed by Marjorie Webb, Professor, Metropolitan State University on 6/19/18

From the Introduction to the Conclusion, the text covers the step-by-step process of conducting a literature review. The text includes topics such as, “Where to find the Literature” and “Synthesizing Sources” that will be useful to graduate... read more

From the Introduction to the Conclusion, the text covers the step-by-step process of conducting a literature review. The text includes topics such as, “Where to find the Literature” and “Synthesizing Sources” that will be useful to graduate nursing students.

The content in the text, including texts, links, and diagrams, is accurate and unbiased. Again, it will aid the graduate nursing student in the long process of conducting a literature review.

The text is current and this type of material does not become dated quickly. The authors did use internet links in the text which will need to be monitored periodically to ensure they are still available. Updates to the text will be relatively easy and straightforward. If media styles change, there may be some challenges to updating.

The text is clear and easy to read. Technical terminology is defined and/or explained.

The text is internally consistent.

The text is organized in sections which facilitates assigning readings based on the subject matter for the class time. It would be pretty easy to divide up this text into easily readable units based on headings and subheadings.

This text is structured well. The topics flow in an organized manner and really help the student see the process of a literature review. The authors discuss the both theory and purpose of the review and the day-to-day logistics of actually performing the review. The day-today organization is not always included in other texts.

The interface is well-done with no distractions.

There was no indication of cultural bias.

I think this text is appropriate for graduate nursing students. Some students struggle with the difference between writing about a topic (generally undergraduate writing) and synthesizing literature on a given topic (generally graduate writing). Chapters seven and eight focus on preparing the graduate student to make the jump to graduate-level writing and should really benefit new graduate students.

Reviewed by Susanna Thornhill, Associate Professor , George Fox University on 3/27/18

This book is fairly comprehensive and offers step-by-step instructions for conceptualizing/researching a literature review. The Table of Contents is well-organized to reflect the book's progression, from establishing the basics of why to write a... read more

This book is fairly comprehensive and offers step-by-step instructions for conceptualizing/researching a literature review. The Table of Contents is well-organized to reflect the book's progression, from establishing the basics of why to write a literature review and the various types of literature reviews, to getting started with formulating a research idea/question, finding and evaluating sources, synthesizing sources, and guidelines on writing the literature review, itself. I found this text to be a straightforward guide for my graduate students in education, and while I worried at first that the merging of education and nursing topics would prove distracting to my education students, I don't believe this was the case.

One thing that was not comprehensive in this book was discussion of qualitative research and methodologies as a valid means of conceptualizing research aims. I hoped for a more balanced discussion between methodological branches as it applied to literature reviews; this book overly favored quantitative methodologies and studies in terms of its direction to readers about how to conceptualize/choose a topic and design a research question in relation to it. Variables that cannot be measured are not inherently un-researchable, which is the conclusion put forth in this textbook. This might serve nursing students better than education students in terms of their discipline's requirements, but it still represents an element that could be improved.

Finally, while the background on what a literature review is, how to conceptualize research, and how to search for and synthesize research was all valuable, the chapter on actually writing the literature review was a bit thin, simply offering tips for introduction, body, and conclusion and some questions for self-evaluation. Some of the most difficult work for students writing a literature review is achieving proper focus, organization, hierarchy of themes, balance in treatment of related topics, etc. None of these issues were discussed in the chapter pertaining to the writing of a literature review.

I did not have any concerns about the book's accuracy. Content was accurate, albeit biased to quantitative and positivist views of research. I would have liked to see it include additional prompts to support students in conceptualizing and valuing qualitative research; this is an area where I had to supplement course readings with additional texts.

The only significant error I could discern in the text was a lack of an Answer Key corresponding to the questions posed at the end of each chapter.

Content is up-to-date and seems like it will hold meaning well over the next few years. The only things I anticipate might go out-of-date is technological information on things like citation managers, search guidelines, and database information. This is easily updatable with future versions of the text. In my view, ERIC is not the best database for educational research and I have confirmed this with educational librarians who support my students, yet it is the only one identified in this text as the best subject-specific source of educational research; this could be revised for additional relevance.

I noticed no issues with the book's clarity. The authors write in a clear and straightforward style, making the text easy to read. Overall, they did well writing for students across two disciplines by avoiding nursing or education-specific terms that would have been problematic to readers in the other discipline.

The book is internally consistent and did not have issues with terminology or framework.

No issues with the book's modularity. Chapter headings and sub-headings were appropriately paced and spaced. I assigned this textbook to my graduate students as a whole text that I wanted them to read at the beginning of a course, but it has been easy to refer them back to particular topics as the course has continued.

In future iterations of the book, I suggest hyperlinking the Answer Key to the exercises at the end of each chapter and/or listing the Answer Key in the Table of Contents for easy referral.

I found the book's organization to be straightforward and sensible. The Table of Contents offers a helpful snapshot of the scope of the book and the authors write in a direct and clear style, which contributes to an appropriate flow for the text.

I did not note any navigation problems with any links. All charts/images loaded well in my iBook app. The authors did a nice job of pulling relevant content and links in to support their ideas; it provided an easy way to seek more information if I wanted it, without feeling like the text was loaded down with unnecessary information.

I only found a few small typos in the text, with no grammar issues. The book is obviously written by two very detail-oriented librarians. I appreciated the clarity of the text and lack of errors.

The text was not culturally insensitive; a variety of topics across nursing and education were discussed as examples, which yielded a fairly balanced text regarding cultural considerations.

Reviewed by Alicia Rossiter, Assistant Professor, University of South Florida on 3/27/18

I believe the book gives a comprehensive overview on how to complete a literature view at the graduate level. It begins with an overview of the purpose of a literature review and moves through the steps to completing the review process. read more

I believe the book gives a comprehensive overview on how to complete a literature view at the graduate level. It begins with an overview of the purpose of a literature review and moves through the steps to completing the review process.

I believe the book was accurate and unbiased. It was easy to read but comprehensive.

Content within the text is relevant and supports the literature view process. It did discuss the various databases for searches which may need updating to include new sites, search engines but otherwise relevant and useful information.

The text is easy to read, provides appropriate examples, includes a section on putting the process into practice as well as a "test yourself" section to ensure the content is understood.

The text is consistent throughout in regards to terminology, framework, and set up.

The text is easy to read and content is leveled for the reader but not over simplified. Content is chunked into sections making it easy for the reader to digest the content. The chapters are well laid out and flow from chapter to chapter. Each chapter contains learning objectives, content sections, practice section, and test yourself section. Well organized and great visuals.

Topics are presented in a logical, clear fashion that flow from chapter to chapter and build as the reader moves through the process.

The text is free of interface issues. I could not get the videos to play but other visuals were appropriate and useful to support content.

The text contains no grammatical errors.

The text is not culturally offensive. There was no evidence of bias or cultural insensitivity.

I think this would be a great resource for graduate student learning to navigate the literature review process. It is easy to read, straightforward, and guides the individual through the process from start to finish. I will recommend this text to my graduate students in evidence-based practice and research courses as a recommended reference.

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: What is a Literature Review?
• Chapter 3: How to Get Started
• Chapter 4: Where to Find the Literature
• Chapter 5: Evaluating Sources
• Chapter 6: Documenting Sources
• Chapter 7: Synthesizing Sources
• Chapter 8: Writing the Literature Review

Ancillary Material

About the book.

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students is an open textbook designed for students in graduate-level nursing and education programs. Its intent is to recognize the significant role the literature review plays in the research process and to prepare students for the work that goes into writing one. Developed for new graduate students and novice researchers just entering into the work of a chosen discipline, each of the eight chapters covers a component of the literature review process. Students will learn how to form a research question, search existing literature, synthesize results and write the review. The book contains examples, checklists, supplementary materials, and additional resources. Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students is written by two librarians with expertise guiding students through research and writing assignments, and is openly licensed.

About the Contributors

Linda Frederiksen is the Head of Access Services at Washington State University Vancouver.  She has a Master of Library Science degree from Emporia State University in Kansas. Linda is active in local, regional and national organizations, projects and initiatives advancing open educational resources and equitable access to information.

Sue F. Phelps is the Health Sciences and Outreach Services Librarian at Washington State University Vancouver. Her research interests include information literacy, accessibility of learning materials for students who use adaptive technology, diversity and equity in higher education, and evidence based practice in the health sciences

Contribute to this Page

Educational Leadership: Literature Review Strategies

• Literature Review Strategies
• Search Tips

What's a Literature Review?

A Literature Review...

• Provides comprehensive discussion of the scholarly research that has already been done on a topic.
• Includes some summary of important articles on a topic.
• Includes comparison: between how different authors discuss the same topic and how the topic has been handled over time.
• Synthesizes previous ideas on a topic, but also looks for gaps in the literature: what needs to be investigated further?

What Should a Literature Review Do?

A Literature Review should...

• Relate directly and clearly to your thesis or research question.
• Synthesize and contextualize results, not just report them.
• Identify areas of controversy in the literature.
• Formulate questions that need further research.

Adapted from “The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It”, by Dena Taylor and Margaret Procter, University of Toronto: www.writing.utoronto.ca (file linked below)

• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It This two-page PDF handout created by Dena Taylor and Margaret Procter at the University of Toronto has excellent guidance on conducting a literature review.

Literature Review Search Strategies

Strategies for a literature review search...

• Comb through bibliographies of relevant journal articles and books. You'll probably start to see patterns: authors, journals, and themes that show up over and over.
• Find Full Text through the Library : If you find an article in a bibliography that you’d like to access, look for the journal name (not the article name), and follow the steps outlined under the Finding Full-text Material tab in our How to find Full Text Guide .
• Can't get the article you need in full text through PSU? Don't Despair: Try Interlibrary Loan !
• Find out who cited an article , and how many times it was cited, through Google Scholar . This will show you how influential an article was and gives you more articles and authors to investigate.
• Learn How to Gut a Book -- in other words, how to get the most out of a book in the most efficient manner (i.e. it may not be necessary to read an entire book, word for word, taking diligent notes in order to get the gist of the book for use in a literature review).

Journal Ranking, Publication Outlets, Scholarly Communication

What are the top journals in your field? Which journals are the best for your topic?

The following resources can help you answer the following questions, which can be helpful to consider when performing a literature review:

• SCImago Journal & Country Rank Journals and country scientific indicators based on data in the Scopus® database.
• Eigenfactor Free website ranking and mapping academic journals.

• Academic Publishing Information on authors' rights, copyright, open access, and more.

Cited Reference Search

How many times has one of the articles you're using in your literature review been cited?

The answer to that question can tell you not only how influential an article has been, but can lead you to more articles on your topic. Use the following to find out how many times the article you're using has been cited:

Getting Started With Research: Tutorials

Need more help getting started with research? Check out the Library's video tutorials and playlists  .

Please also feel free to contact a librarian .

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

This excellent overview of the literature review explains what a literature review and outlines processes and best practices for doing one. It includes input from an NCSU professor on what a literature review is and what it should do. (Shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US license, attributed to North Carolina State University Libraries).

Writing the Literature Review: Part 1

Here's another excellent tutorial on what a literature review is and how to write it, in two parts, from David Taylor at the University of Maryland University College's Writing Program.  https://youtu.be/2IUZWZX4OGI

Writing the Literature Review: Part 2

Here's part two of David Taylor's "Writing the Literature Review" tutorial, from the University of Maryland University College's Writing Program. https://youtu.be/UoYpyY9n9YQ

Google Scholar

Google Scholar has been customized by the PSU library to find some full-text articles at PSU!

https://stats.lib.pdx.edu/proxy.php?url=http://scholar.google.com

Google Scholar can be extremely helpful in finding out how many times an article has been cited and who cited an article . This can help you determine how important an article is and which other authors you may want to investigate.

Make sure you're checking your discipline's databases as well, for fuller, more complete scholarly coverage of the journal articles on your topic. 

PDX Scholar

It can be helpful to look at the work of your peers to get a sense of how certain kinds of writing and research is done, including the literature review.

You can look at the full text of past dissertations, research, and other scholarly work from PSU students and faculty in the library's digital repository, PDXScholar.

• PDXScholar Portland State University's Digital Repository, PDXScholar, preserves the University's research, unique resources, and other scholarly output with the goal of providing persistent, access to that work.
• << Previous: Citation
• Next: Writing >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 4:17 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.pdx.edu/edadmin

• EKU Libraries
• Research Guides

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Research Guide

• Literature Review
• Finding Peer-Reviewed Articles
• Searching Multiple Databases at Once
• Dissertations
• Annotated Bibliography
• APA Citation Help This link opens in a new window
• Zotero This link opens in a new window

Literature Review: an Overview for Graduate Students

Organize your notes on a Synthesis Matrix

As you read, you'll encounter various ideas, disagreements, methods, and perspectives which can be hard to organize in a meaningful way.

A synthesis matrix helps you record the main points of each source and document how sources relate to each other.

• Writing a Literature Review & Using a Synthesis Matrix (from NCSU Writing Center)

Sample literature review

• Sample literature review An example of a literature review in APA format from the Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Excelsior College. Includes annotations throughout the paper.
• Guide to Writing a Literature Review Noel Studio handout on writing a literature review.

Schedule a consultation

Need help with sources for your literature review?  I can meet with you in person, in an online chat, or on Zoom to discuss your research needs.

Email me at [email protected] to schedule an appointment. 

• << Previous: Statistics
• Next: Annotated Bibliography >>
• Last Updated: Feb 23, 2024 1:24 PM
• URL: https://libguides.eku.edu/educationalleadership

EO/AA Statement | Privacy Statement | 103 Libraries Complex Crabbe Library Richmond, KY 40475 | (859) 622-1790 ©

Educational Leadership Doctoral Program

• Background Sources & Research Methods
• Identifying Empirical Articles
• Writing a Literature Review
• Citing Sources

Literature Review Tips

• Literature Review and APA Tips

Literature Review Examples

To give you some examples of writing a literature review and an article analysis matrix to keep track of the themes of your articles, I have created a partial literature review and corresponding analysis matrix to demonstrate. My topic is the special education early intervention program called First Step to Success (FSS).

• Synthetic Writing/Literature Example (First Steps to Success)
• Article Analysis Spreadsheet Example (First Step to Success)
• Article Analysis Spreadsheet Example (First Step to Success - PDF Version)

The Process of Writing a Literature Review

Mastering synthetic writing is key to a successful literature review. Use these resources to learn how to analyze the articles you want to use for your literature review, keep track of common themes using an article analysis matrix, and how to convert the notes in the analysis matrix into a piece of synthetic writing.

Think of working on your literature review as a multi-step process:

• Identify a topic.
• Find research articles on that topic.
• Read and analyze each article. (Use the Individual Article Analysis Worksheet )
• Compare all of the themes addressed in the articles. (Use the Article Analysis Matrix )
• Use your notes from the article analysis matrix to decide how to organize your literature review (make an outline).
• Write your literature review by discussing one theme at a time--how is this theme covered in the literature?
• Your literature review will also need an introduction and a conclusion. Some students like to start with the introduction, while others find it is easier to write the introduction after they have written the body of their literature review.
• Don't forget to include References at the end of your paper (and to cite them properly within the text)!
• Individual Article Analysis Worksheet Use this to analyze each of your articles. Focus on questions #4 - #6. These will help you identify the major themes/main ideas in each article you read.
• Article Analysis Matrix After completing the Individual Article Analysis Worksheet for each of your articles, use this Article Analysis Matrix to compile all of the information you have gathered. Use the Example Article Analysis Matrix below as a guide to get started.

Synthetic Writing

A literature review is not the same as a research paper. The point of a literature review is to synthesize the research of others without making a new argument or scholarly contribution. A literature review is also not an annotated bibliography. You should not write about each study you are reviewing in turn, but instead write synthetically to highlight the current state of the literature.

Key Points to Consider:

• The purpose of a literature review is to report the current state of the topic. Literature reviewed should be relatively recent, unless you are delving into the history of the topic.
• Discuss different themes within your literature review rather than individual articles. It will help if you pull information from 2-3 articles for each theme you discuss.
• All works cited should be both in the text of the literature review and the bibliography
• Avoid passive voice (ex: It was found that...); Use active voice ("Smith (2013) reported that...")
• Report what the literature says, not what you think

Writing Your Literature Review

The sites below offer a range of considerations and steps for writing the literature review.

• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature From the University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.
• Literature Reviews From the UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center.
• Literature Review From the University of Houston-Victoria, Texas.
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It From the University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.
• Writing Literature Reviews From the Temple University Writing Center.
• Getting Started on Your Literature Review From the University of New South Wales Learning Centre.
• << Previous: Journals
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 18, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://library.ship.edu/eldp

Contact the Ezra Lehman Memorial Library

• Shippensburg on Facebook
• Shippensburg on Twitter
• Shippensburg on YouTube
• Shippensburg on Instagram

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Login | Register

• Editorial Team

An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies

Authors: Hongyan Yang (The University of Tennessee, Knoxville) , Rachel Wong (The University of Tennessee, Knoxville)

Literature Review

• Harvard Citation Style
• Vancouver Citation Style
• APA Citation Style
• Download RIS
• Download BibTeX

This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.

This literature review examines the implementation of e-portfolios in higher education, with a focus on the implementation process, potential barriers, and strategies for overcoming challenges. This review seeks to provide instructional designers and higher education instructors with design strategies to effectively implement e-portfolios. Through an analysis of seventeen studies, we identified six common steps in the implementation process, including identifying a purpose, stakeholders, and platform, conducting workshops, creating e-portfolios, and evaluating the project. The implementation process also raised eight concerns, including concerns related to technology, policy, pedagogy, artifact quality, privacy, student motivation, academic integrity, and teacher workload. To address these concerns, existing strategies suggest that successful implementation requires training and policy support, student-centered pedagogy, criteria for assessing artifacts, privacy and data protection, feedback, anti-plagiarism measures, and shared successful models.

Keywords: literature review, e-Portfolio, implementation, higher education

Accepted on 20 Apr 2024

Peer reviewed, creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 4.0, harvard-style citation.

Yang, H & Wong, R. () 'An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies', Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies . doi: 10.2458/itlt.5809

Show: Vancouver Citation Style | APA Citation Style

Vancouver-Style Citation

Yang, H & Wong, R. An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies. Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies. ; doi: 10.2458/itlt.5809

Show: Harvard Citation Style | APA Citation Style

APA-Style Citation

Yang, H & Wong, R. (, ). An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies. Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies doi: 10.2458/itlt.5809

Show: Harvard Citation Style | {% trans 'Vancouver Citation Style' %}

Non Specialist Summary

This article has no summary

Trends in mathematics education and insights from a meta-review and bibliometric analysis of review studies

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mustafa Cevikbas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7844-4707 1 ,
• Gabriele Kaiser 2 , 3 &
• Stanislaw Schukajlow 4  

1 Altmetric

Review studies are vital for advancing knowledge in many scientific fields, including mathematics education, amid burgeoning publications. Based on an extensive consideration of existing review typologies, we conducted a meta-review and bibliometric analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of and deeper insights into review studies within mathematics education. After searching Web of Science, we identified 259 review studies, revealing a significant increase in such studies over the last five years. Systematic reviews were the most prevalent type, followed by meta-analyses, generic literature reviews, and scoping reviews. On average, the review studies had a sample size of 99, with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines commonly employed. Despite certain studies offering nuanced distinctions among review types, ambiguity persisted. Only about a quarter of the studies explicitly reported employing specific theoretical frameworks (particularly, technology, knowledge, and competence models). Co-authored publications were most common within American institutions and the leading countries are the United States, Germany, China, Australia, and England in publishing most review studies. Educational review journals, educational psychology journals, special education journals, educational technology journals, and mathematics education journals provided platforms for review studies, and prominent research topics included digital technologies, teacher education, mathematics achievement, and learning disabilities. In this study, we synthesised a range of reviews to facilitate readers’ comprehension of conceptual congruities and disparities across various review types, as well as to track current research trends. The results suggest that there is a need for discipline-specific standards and guidelines for different types of mathematics education reviews, which may lead to more high-quality review studies to enhance progress in mathematics education.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Comprehensive literature reviews serve as foundational pillars for advancing scholarly discourse, offering critical insights into existing research and shaping future inquiries across disciplines. In the realm of academic writing, spanning from journal articles to dissertations, literature reviews are highly regarded for their capacity to synthesize knowledge, identify gaps, and provide a cohesive framework for understanding complex topics (Boote & Beile, 2005 ). Moreover, reviews play a significant role in academia by setting new research agendas and informing decision-making processes in practice, policy, and society (Kunisch et al., 2023 ).

As empirical and theoretical research burgeons in diverse fields, the need for literature review studies has become even more pronounced, facilitating a deeper understanding of specific research areas or themes (Hart, 2018 ; Nane et al., 2023 ). Additional factors contributing to the popularity of review studies in recent years include the rise of specialized review journals (Kunisch et al., 2023 ), challenges associated with conducting various types of empirical studies during the prolonged COVID-19 crisis (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023 ), and a competitive research climate wherein factors such as impact factors and citations hold significant weight (Ketcham & Crawford, 2007 ). Review studies are particularly attractive as they often garner a substantial number of citations, thereby enhancing researchers’ visibility and scholarly impact (Grant & Booth, 2009 ; Taherdoost, 2023 ).

The importance of review studies has been duly acknowledged in mathematics education, as evidenced by the inclusion of review papers in thematically oriented special issues of journals such as ZDM– Mathematics Education (Kaiser & Schukajlow, 2024 ), which has been originally founded as review journal. Several upcoming or already published special issues of ZDM– Mathematics Education , which emphasise ‘reviews on important themes in mathematics education’, highlight the importance of review studies as valuable contributions to the field.

The proliferation of literature reviews has increased interest in developing typologies to categorise them and understand different literature review approaches (Grant & Booth, 2009 ; Paré et al., 2015 ; Schryen & Sperling, 2023 ). Despite its significance, there remains a notable lack of research aimed at comprehensively understanding review studies within the field of mathematics education from a meta-perspective. In response to this gap, we conducted a systematic meta-review with the aim of providing an overview of different types of review studies in mathematics education over the past few decades and consolidating insights from multiple high-level review studies (Becker & Oxman, 2008 ; Schryen & Sperling, 2023 ). Meta-reviews offer concise yet comprehensive synopses and curated lists of pertinent reviews, adeptly addressing the perennial challenge of balancing thorough coverage with focused specificity (Grant & Booth, 2009 ).

In addition, we applied bibliometric analysis as a valuable tool for identifying research trends, progress, reliable sources, and future directions within the field. The bibliometric analysis aids in identifying hot research topics and trends (Song et al., 2019 ), assessing progress, identifying reliable sources, recognising major contributors, and predicting future research success (Geng et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, it helps researchers to pinpoint potential topics, suitable institutions for cooperation, and potential scholars for scientific collaboration (Martínez et al., 2015 ). By combining a meta-review and bibliometric analysis, we aim to offer a comprehensive overview of and deeper insights into state-of-the-art review studies within mathematics education.

Specifically, we seek to understand how the distribution and development of literature review studies in mathematics education have evolved over the years, examining factors such as publication years, publishers, review types, sample sizes, and the use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks. Additionally, we aim to assess adherence to review study guidelines and protocols, providing insights into the rigor and quality of research methodologies employed, particularly in light of the lack of clear guidance on producing rigorous and impactful literature reviews (Kunisch et al., 2023 ).

Furthermore, we endeavour to identify authors who have made contribution to the field of mathematics education through review studies, as well as those whose work is most frequently cited. We also identify co-authorship network analysis as understanding research networks allows researchers to identify potential collaborators and build partnerships with other scholars in various countries. Collaborative research endeavours can lead to enhanced research outcomes, broader dissemination of findings, and increased opportunities for funding and professional development. It can also highlight interdisciplinary connections and collaborations within and across fields, leading to innovative approaches and solutions to complex research questions (RQs) that transcend disciplinary boundaries.

Moreover, we analysed the distribution of common keywords across review studies, identifying focal subjects and thematic areas prevalent in mathematics education research. This analysis can provide valuable insights into key topics and trends shaping the field, guiding future research directions and priorities.

Lastly, we identified the most cited review papers in mathematics education and the journals in which they have been published, recognizing seminal works and influential publications that have contributed to the advancement of the field.

Overall, in light of the preceding discourse, we addressed the following RQs to uncover the characteristics of review studies, identify research trends, and delineate future research directions in mathematics education:

How can the distribution and development of review studies in mathematics education over time be characterised according to the number of manuscripts, publishers, review types, sample sizes, the use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks, and adherence to review study guidelines and protocols?

Which authors have contributed the largest number of review studies in mathematics education, and which authors’ review papers are most frequently cited in the literature?

From which countries are the authors of the review studies in mathematics education?

Which author keywords can be identified in the review studies in mathematics education, how are these keywords distributed across the analysed review studies, and which focal topics do these keywords indicate?

What are the most cited review papers in mathematics education, and in which journals have they been published?

2 Literature review studies and review typologies– background information

In this chapter, we provide a thorough analysis of different typologies for review studies, as we seek to elucidate the primary characteristics of various review studies conducted within mathematics education (Sect.  2.1 ). This effort led to the identification of 28 review types presented in Table  1 , which were used in the current study’s literature search processes to access existing review studies and the analysis of identified studies in the field of mathematics education. Furthermore, we discuss the advancement of guidelines and protocols, highlighting their role in shaping the conduct of review studies (Sect. 2.2). Finally, we conclude the chapter by underscoring the importance and potential impact of meta-reviews and bibliometric analyses in the context of mathematics education (Sect. 2.3).

2.1 Literature review typologies

Researchers have defined and emphasized different review types with distinct features, objectives, and methodologies. To address the challenge of ambiguous review categorisations, we conducted an extensive search and analysis of the literature on Web of Science (WoS) using the search strings ‘typology of reviews’ and ‘taxonomy of reviews’ to search the titles of studies. We focused particularly on influential theoretical, conceptual, and review papers discussing the taxonomy and typology of review studies and recent advances driven by scholars across diverse fields.

2.1.1 Seminal work by Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) on the discourse of literature review typologies

The categorisation of literature reviews has been profoundly influenced by the seminal work of Grant and Booth ( 2009 ), on which typologies of literature reviews are often based. Their paper garnered significant attention, with over 10,304 citations as of 20 April 2024 according to Google Scholar. Originally in the field of health information theory and practice, these authors founded their work on earlier approaches, notably Cochrane’s ( 1979 ) approach. Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) claimed that the developed typology could standardise the diverse terminology used. They distinguished 14 review types, which we summarise below, highlighting the main scope and search methodologies (Grant & Booth, 2009 , pp. 94–95):

A critical review ‘goes beyond mere description of identified articles and includes a degree of analysis and conceptual innovation’; no formalised or systematic approach is required because the aim of such a review is ‘to identify conceptual contributions to embody existing or derive new theory’.

A generic literature review incorporates ‘published materials that provide examination of recent of current literature’; comprehensive searching may or may not be necessary.

A mapping review/systematic mapping is used to ‘categorize existing literature’ and identify gaps in the research literature. The completeness of a search is important, but no formal quality assessment is needed.

A meta-analysis is a ‘technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results’; a comprehensive search is conducted based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

A mixed-studies review/mixed-methods review incorporates ‘a combination of review approaches, for example combining quantitative with qualitative research… and requires a very sensitive search’.

An overview is a generic term describing a ‘summary of the… literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics’; it may or may not include comprehensive searching and quality assessment.

A qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis is a ‘method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies’, and it may involve selective sampling.

A rapid review comprises an ‘assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research’; a characteristic of such a review is that the ‘completeness of searching is determined by time constraints’.

A scoping review is a ‘preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature’, with the ‘completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints’.

A state-of-the-art review ‘tend[s] to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches’ and ‘aims for comprehensive searching of current literature’.

A systematic review ‘seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesise research evidence’ and should be comprehensive and based on inclusion/exclusion criteria.

A systematic search and review ‘combines [the] strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process’, typically addressing broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’ based on ‘exhaustive, comprehensive searching’.

A systematised review ‘include[s] elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review’, ‘typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment’; it ‘may or may not include comprehensive searching’.

An umbrella review ‘specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document’ via ‘identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies’. ‘Primary studies’ refer to original research studies or individual studies conducted by researchers to gather data first-hand.

Booth with colleagues later expanded the typology by introducing the concept of a review family construct and amalgamating various types of reviews for further refinement, such as traditional reviews, systematic reviews, review of reviews, rapid reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and purpose-specific reviews (for details, see Sutton et al., 2019 ).

2.1.2 Further development of the review typologies

Many classifications for review studies have been developed, and in the following section, we present more recent approaches. Paré et al. ( 2015 ), in another highly cited study (2,059 Google Scholar citations as of 20 April 2024) considered seven recurrent dimensions: the goal of the review, the scope of the review questions, the search strategy, the nature of the primary sources, the explicitness of the study selection, quality appraisal, and the methods used to analyse/synthesise the findings. Based on these dimensions, they formulated nine different literature review types: narrative reviews, descriptive reviews, scoping/mapping reviews, meta-analyses, qualitative systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, critical reviews, theoretical reviews, and realist reviews.

In Paré et al.’s ( 2015 ) classification, the review categories that differ from Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) classification are theoretical reviews, realist reviews, narrative reviews, and descriptive reviews, which we therefore describe them briefly. A theoretical review draws on conceptual and empirical studies to develop a conceptual framework or model using structured approaches, such as taxonomies, to discover patterns or commonalities. The aim of a realist review (also called a meta-narrative review) is to formulate explanations; such reviews ‘are theory-driven interpretative reviews which were developed to inform, enhance, extend, or alternatively supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision making’ (Paré et al., 2015 , p. 188). The purpose of a narrative review is to survey the existing literature on a particular subject or topic without necessarily seeking generalisations or cumulative insights from the material reviewed (Davies, 2000 ). Typically, such reviews do not detail the underpinning review processes or involve systematic and exhaustive searches of all pertinent literature. This category resembles Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) description of ‘literature reviews’ and overlaps with Samnani et al.’s ( 2017 ) narrative reviews, literature reviews, and overviews, resulting in a somewhat ambiguous typology. The aim of a descriptive review is to identify patterns and trends across a set of empirical studies within a specific research field, encompassing pre-existing propositions, theories, methodological approaches, or findings. To accomplish this objective, descriptive reviews collect, structure, and analyse numerical data that reflect the frequency distribution of research elements.

MacEntee ( 2019 ), Samnani et al. ( 2017 ), Schryen et al. ( 2020 ), and Taherdoost ( 2023 ) corroborated Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) and Paré et al.’s ( 2015 ) classifications, identifying various common review categories (see Table  1 ). In Samnani et al.’s ( 2017 ) classification, a distinct review type based on the previously mentioned categories is meta-synthesis , the aim of which is to provide explanations for phenomena, in contrast to meta-analysis, which focuses on quantitative outcomes.

Later, Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ) introduced a slightly revised typology of literature review studies, which they applied to a meta-review of operations research. Their study distinguished nine types of literature reviews, newly introduced categories included tutorial reviews, selective reviews, algorithmic reviews, computational reviews, and meta-reviews. The objective of a tutorial review is to offer a research-oriented summary of principles, mathematical fundamentals, and concepts, aiming to inspire and direct future research endeavours. The authors’ emphasis on foundational aspects has often provided a launching pad for research advances. A selective review typically has a limited scope because it is not based on a thorough search of all relevant literature. This type of review concentrates on specific segments of the literature, such as journals, time periods, methodologies, or issues, to delve deeper into specific questions and phenomena. An algorithmic review focuses on advances in algorithms and frameworks in the literature that address a spectrum of problems. It employs either selective or comprehensive search strategies, predominantly examining algorithm-related sources. A computational review investigates algorithms and/or parameterisations proposed in the literature, largely considering implementations and computational studies, measurement efficiency, effectiveness, and different forms of robustness. Finally, Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ) defined a meta-review as an overview of systematic reviews or a systematic review of reviews and pointed out that a meta-review can also be called an umbrella review (which is the case by Grant and Booth), again confirming the fuzzy nature of the currently available typologies. According to Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ), meta-reviews primarily aim to furnish descriptive overviews of literature reviews, serving as tertiary studies that integrate evidence from multiple (qualitative or quantitative) reviews into unified and user-friendly documents (Becker & Oxman, 2008 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast to the previously mentioned perspectives, Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ) argued that meta-reviews are not limited to addressing specific research questions but can also address a wide range of enquiries.

Chigbu et al. ( 2023 , pp. 5–6) emphasised that there ‘is a continuum of literature types’ (p. 4) and distinguished twelve different types of literature reviews, six of which were not covered by the classifications provided by previously mentioned studies: integrated reviews, interpretative reviews, iterative reviews, semi-systematic reviews, and bibliometric reviews. According to their approach, an integrative review builds ‘new knowledge based on the existing body of literature following a rationalist perspective’, an interpretative review ‘interprets what other scholars have written to put into specific perspectives’, and an iterative review is an ‘algorithm-based approach performed to collate all studies in a specific field of research’. Moreover, a meta-synthesis review examines and analyses qualitative study findings and is often employed to clarify specific concepts. Additionally, a semi-systematic review analyses the data and findings of other studies to address specific research inquiries, using a partial systematic review methodology. Lastly, a bibliometric review systematically examines the literature on a specific subject or research discipline by quantitatively measuring indicators such as authors, citations, journals, countries, and years of publications.

As previously noted in this paper, this detailed description of review types is instrumental in facilitating our investigation of various review studies in the realm of mathematics education.

2.2 Advancements in guidelines and protocols for review studies

Various researchers have developed guidelines, protocols, and statements to assist authors in conducting, evaluating, and reporting their review studies. This academic endeavour has predominantly focused on enhancing the rigour and transparency of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and, more recently, scoping reviews. For instance, the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) model, originally conceived to support evidence-based healthcare, serves as a cornerstone for establishing review criteria, crafting research questions and search strategies, and delineating the characteristics of included studies or meta-analyses (Richardson et al., 1995 ). In response to the observed deficiencies in reporting standards within meta-analyses, an international consortium introduced the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUOROM) statement in 1996, primarily to enhance the reporting quality of meta-analyses involving randomised controlled trials (Moher et al., 1999 ). Subsequently, Moher et al. ( 2009 ) updated these guidelines, which are now known as the PRISMA guidelines, and incorporated various conceptual and methodological advances in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, Shea et al. ( 2007 ) introduced the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist to evaluate methodological quality and guide the conduct of systematic reviews, while Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) developed the search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis (SALSA) framework to analyse and characterise review types. Most recently, Page et al. ( 2021 ) updated the PRISMA guidelines, providing updated reporting standards that reflect advances in methods for identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesising studies, with the aim of promoting more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An extension of PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, known as PRISMA-ScR, aids readers in understanding relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items for reporting scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018 ). Despite the value of these efforts, further studies are warranted, particularly comprehensive guidelines for each type of review studies.

2.3 Literature reviews in mathematics education

The preceding section delineates various types of review studies, underscoring their key methodological attributes. Within the realm of mathematics education, akin to other disciplines, literature review studies, particularly systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, received considerable attention (Cevikbas et al., 2022 ; Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023 ; Kaiser & Schukajlow, 2024 ). However, the understanding of the prevailing characteristics of review studies in mathematics education, including prevalent review types, trends, gaps, and avenues for future improvement, remains limited.

Meta-reviews can offer a promising avenue for pinpointing research gaps, evaluating evidence quality, and informing policy and intervention strategies and guiding evidence-based decision-making processes by synthesizing findings from multiple review studies (Schryen & Sperling, 2023 ). In addition to meta-reviews, the bibliometric analyses serve to ascertain the scope of prior research, discern contemporary review trends, identify literature gaps, and propose future research agendas (Chigbu et al., 2023 ). While meta-reviews provide a comprehensive assessment of the literature, bibliometric analyses aid in systematically screening literature on a specific subject, topic, or research discipline by quantitatively measuring various indicators such as authors, citations, journals, countries, and years of publication. These methodological approaches hold promise for instituting a systematic, transparent, and reproducible review process, thereby augmenting the overall quality of reviews in mathematics education. Bibliometric techniques serve as valuable tools in literature reviews, guiding researchers by pinpointing influential works and impartially mapping the research landscape prior to in-depth exploration (Zupic & Cater, 2015 ).

Despite their significance, meta-reviews and bibliometric analyses remain seldom within the domain of mathematics education, signifying a substantial gap in the literature. Our comprehensive literature review underscores an urgent need for meta-review studies encompassing literature review studies in the realm of mathematics education. Additionally, while no bibliometric analysis study specifically focusing on review studies in mathematics education was identified, several bibliometric studies in mathematics education on various topics were noted, such as mathematics anxiety (Radevic & Milovanovic, 2023 ), problem-solving (Suseelan et al., 2022 ), and teacher noticing (Wei et al., 2023 ).

Overall, there exists a compelling need for meta-reviews enriched by bibliometric analyses to explore the current state of literature review research in mathematics education, and the current study aims to address this gap in a timely manner.

3 Methodology

3.1 literature search and manuscript selection process.

In this study, following the latest PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ), we aimed to conduct a systematic review of previous review studies in mathematics education. Specifically, we employed the meta-review (umbrella review) method supplemented by bibliometric analyses. We processed the manuscript selection under three stages: identification, screening, and included.

3.1.1 Identification

On 10 January 2024 (last access), we conducted an extensive literature search using the WoS electronic database, which includes publications in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and is widely acknowledged as a primary source of review and bibliometric data that meet high quality standards (Korom, 2019 ). WoS facilitates effective literature searches, supports various information purposes, and aids research topic mapping, trend monitoring as well as scholarly activity analysis (Birkle et al., 2020 ).

To comprehensively identify potentially relevant review studies in mathematics education, we developed an inclusive search query targeting specific terms in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of papers. The query comprised terms that we extracted from the typologies of literature reviews described in Chap. 2, particularly the more general, commonly used types of reviews:

( TOPIC ) ((literature review*OR literature survey* OR systematic review* OR rapid review* OR scoping review* OR critical review* OR meta-analysis OR narrative review* OR umbrella review* OR meta review* OR meta-review OR bibliometric review OR bibliometric analysis OR mapping review OR mixed-methods review OR integrative review OR interpretative review OR iterative review OR meta-synthesis OR descriptive review OR theoretical review OR realist review OR selective review OR algorithmic review OR computational review)) AND ( TOPIC ) ((math* OR geometry OR algebra OR calculus OR probability OR statistics OR arithmetic).

Based on these search strings, we conducted an online search that initially yielded 63,462 records.

3.1.2 Screening

In this stage, we applied data cleaning filters based on the manuscript inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table  2 ). First, we electronically filtered the identified records based on language, resulting in the retention of 61,787 papers published in English. Subsequently, we narrowed down the selection to 10,098 papers using the following five categories of research areas within the WoS: ‘education/educational research, psychology, social sciences other topics, mathematics, or science technology other topics’. Following this categorisation, we further refined the dataset by excluding non-review papers and accessing 3,344 records within the ‘review article’ and ‘early access’ categories of the WoS database. We categorised records lacking a final publication date that had undergone peer review and acceptance as ‘early access’. Notably, to comprehensively capture publication trends, we imposed no restrictions on the publication years of the studies. In the subsequent phase, a meticulous manual screening of the titles, abstracts, and keywords of 3,344 papers led to the identification of 357 studies in mathematics education.

3.1.3 Included

Ultimately, after an extensive review of the full-text versions of initially identified 357 papers, 259 eligible review articles remained for analysis as these papers fulfilled our criteria comprehensively (see the Appendix for the list of included studies; see Fig.  1 for the flow diagram of the entire manuscript selection process). Subsequently, as detailed below, the data analysis process commenced with the inclusion of these eligible review papers in mathematics education.

Flow diagram of the manuscript selection process

3.2 Data analysis

After incorporating 259 studies into this meta-review and bibliometric analysis, we compiled the identified records into a marked list on WoS. Subsequently, we exported the records into Excel, EndNote, and plain text file formats for analysis. The analysis consisted of content analysis and bibliometric analysis (see Fig.  2 , adapted from Wei et al., 2023 ).

For the content analysis, we meticulously organised the records using EndNote reference management software and Excel worksheets. We scrutinised the full-text versions of all included articles, coding them based on (1) publication year, (2) publisher, (3) review type, (4) number of included studies (sample size), (5) guidelines and protocols for the article selection process, and (6) the theoretical and conceptual framework of the studies.

Our coding manual, informed by prior studies (Cevikbas et al., 2022 , 2024 ), guided this process (see appendix for a sample of the coding manual). After completing the content analysis coding procedure, 20% of the papers ( n  = 52) were double-coded based on the initial coding protocol. The intercoder reliability, gauged at 0.92, signifies the presence of a coding system that exhibits satisfactory reliability (Creswell, 2013 ). Any discrepancies were addressed through discussions among the coders until consensus was reached.

For the bibliometric analysis, we employed VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20), which is widely recognised and extensively used in various fields, including the educational sciences (van Eck & Waltman, 2010 ). Chigbu et al. ( 2023 ) pointed out that the WoS database plays a pivotal role in facilitating bibliometric analyses across various disciplines. These analyses help establish trends in the development and application of knowledge within specific subjects and disciplines.

In our study, the bibliometric network presented in the results chapter consists of nodes and edges, with nodes representing entities such as publications, journals, researchers, or keywords. Edges denote relationships between pairs of nodes, indicating not only the presence or absence of connections but also conveying the intensity or strength of relationships (van Eck & Waltman, 2010 ). For distance-based approaches, the positioning of nodes in a bibliometric network reflects their approximate relatedness based on proximity.

Utilising VOSviewer software, we conducted (1) co-authorship analysis (authors and countries) to elucidate collaboration patterns and contributions, (2) co-occurrence analysis (focusing Author Keywords) to scrutinise knowledge structures and the distribution and development of key research topics in mathematics education, and (3) citation analysis to delve deeper into research influences and citation networks, drawing insights from the documents and sources.

This multifaceted approach allowed us to gain a comprehensive understanding of the bibliometric landscape and unravel collaborative structures, thematic foci, and the influence of key works on mathematics education.

Analytical process for this study

In this chapter, we present the key results of the meta-review and bibliometric analyses divided into two main categories: an overview of the review studies in mathematics education based on the content analysis, addressing RQ1, and the results of the bibliometric analysis, addressing RQ2 – RQ5.

4.1 Overview of review studies in mathematics education (RQ1)

To discern the research trends and essential attributes of review studies in mathematics education, we conducted a content analysis within our meta-review to examine the 259 included review studies. Our analysis encompassed publication years, publishers, review types, guidelines, protocols used, sample sizes, and the theoretical and conceptual frameworks employed in these review studies. A general overview of the included studies is presented in Table  3 .

Our literature search with no restriction on the publication years yielded review studies published between 1996 and 2023, with a notable increase within the last five years (2019–2023, see Fig.  3 ).

Distribution of publications from 1996 to 2023

The analysis showed that the Springer Group is the primary publisher of review articles in mathematics education, followed by Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Sage, Frontiers, Wiley, MDPI, and the American Psychological Association (APA) (see Table  4 ). Other publishers published the remaining review articles ( n  = 43). This result may be attributed to the predominance of mathematics education journals published by Springer within the WoS database.

To explore the prevailing types of review studies in mathematics education, we scrutinised the review methodologies of the included studies, considering the review types presented earlier in Table  1 . The findings revealed that researchers conducted (according to their own classification) 10 different types of reviews in mathematics education as outlined in Fig.  4 .

Types of review studies Note: *systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( n  = 6), systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses ( n  = 3), meta-analyses and narrative reviews ( n  = 2), and meta-analysis and critical review ( n  = 1)

Our analysis did not yield further review types in mathematics education. Time-related analysis showed that recent studies were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, literature reviews, and scoping reviews, whereas early examples of review studies in mathematics education were primarily narrative or critical reviews or were not explicitly classified according to review type by their authors. Figure  4 shows that some researchers ( n  = 18) described their studies as literature reviews using Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) generic term, without providing further details about the type of review.

To comprehend the methodologies employed by researchers to conduct reviews and select eligible studies, we conducted an analysis of the guidelines and protocols the researchers used. The findings revealed that the PRISMA guidelines were the most frequently employed ( n  = 121), aligning with the distribution of review types—PRISMA guidelines are basically recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Page et al., 2021 ). For scoping reviews, the guidelines developed by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) were the most prevalent and were used in seven studies. In six instances, researchers applied various guidelines (e.g. PICO or SALSA guidelines) sourced from the literature. Almost half of the studies ( n  = 125) did not specify the use of guidelines for conducting literature searches and selecting eligible studies. Additionally, three studies aimed to provide protocols for conducting review studies. Furthermore, seven studies were preregistered as review studies, following the Open Science Framework (OSF) and/or the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) protocol.

A prevalent discourse among researchers in review studies revolved around determining the most suitable number of studies to include in reviews. Our results revealed that the sample sizes of the included studies (i.e. the number of primary studies) in the field of mathematics education ranged from 8 to 3,485. Unfortunately, this information was not reported in 19 review articles. In the remaining 240 review articles, the average was 99 included studies, with an overall total of 23,761. Most of the studies ( n  = 202) had sample sizes of less than 100, with an average of 34 (see Table  5 ). Although we harboured concerns that the review studies identified in this investigation might not have been aptly named and conceptualised by their authors, we deliberately refrained from addressing this issue because it fell outside the scope of our study. While including a substantial number of studies is common and potentially suitable for bibliometric analyses and meta-analyses, conducting a systematic review, scoping review, or narrative review that critically analyses exceptionally high volumes of studies may pose challenges. In this meta-review, for example, we observed that five articles included more than 1,000 studies in the review process. Two studies, enriched by bibliometric analysis, took this approach, while another study was identified by the authors as a scoping review with a sample size of 2,433. Additionally, two studies were labelled as systematic reviews with sample sizes of 1,968, and 3,485, respectively.

Finally, we conducted a content analysis to scrutinise the theoretical and conceptual frameworks underpinning the included review studies in mathematics education. The findings revealed that out of 259 review studies, only 61 incorporated any theoretical or conceptual framework. Notably, a subset of studies ( n  = 14) was based on technology-related conceptual frameworks, such as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), frameworks pertaining to augmented and virtual reality, embodied design, artificial intelligence, big data, and the European Framework for the Digital Competence for Educators (DigCompEdu). Another prevalent category ( n  = 10) relied on frameworks related to the knowledge and competence of individuals (e.g. teachers and/or students), encompassing models such as the competence as continuum framework, TPACK, the didactic-mathematical knowledge and competencies model, mathematical content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, mathematical knowledge for teaching, teacher noticing competence, and an integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theories (e.g. ecological theory of human development, bioecological model of human development, ecological systems theory, and ecological dynamics—a blend of dynamic-systems theory and ecological psychology) were employed by researchers in five review studies in mathematics education. In a limited subset of the studies, social and cultural theories (e.g. sociocultural theory, social learning theory, and cultural activity theory ( n  = 3)), cognitive theories (e.g. cognitive developmental theory ( n  = 2)), affective theories (e.g. self-determination theory and expectancy-value theory ( n  = 2)), linguistic theories ( n  = 2), and constructivist theories ( n  = 2) were used as frameworks. Additionally, researchers used conceptual frameworks concerning computational thinking ( n  = 2) and engagement ( n  = 3) alongside a few less frequently reported frameworks.

4.2 Results of the bibliometric analysis (RQ2–RQ5)

To identify productive and most cited authors, important journals, and countries of origin of the authors, along with the underlying research collaborations between researchers and countries, as well as research trends and key topics of review studies in mathematics education, we conducted a bibliometric analysis based on co-authorship, co-occurrence, and citations.

4.2.1 Co-authorship analysis

We conducted a co-authorship analysis according to authors and countries within the units of analysis.

Co-authorship and author analysis

The bibliometric analysis, using VOSviewer, revealed that 761 authors contributed to mathematics education, each of whom conducted at least one review study. The review papers were predominantly authored through collaboration, with most being written by two authors (30,2%), followed by three authors (20,2%), four authors (19,4%), a single author (10,1%), five authors (8,9%), six authors (6,2%), seven authors (3,5%), eight authors (1,6%), and nine authors (0,4%). These results showed that researchers primarily collaborate with their colleagues in conducting review studies—a practice vital for reducing workload and enhancing the quality of analyses—with the advantage of incorporating the various perspectives of different authors.

Table  6 highlights the top 17 authors who published a minimum of three review papers each. Notably, Lieven Verschaffel is the only scholar present in both lists of prolific and highly cited authors. The researchers listed in Table  7 , except Lieven Verschaffel, contributed to the field with a single review study. Consequently, while these researchers rank among most cited authors, the low total link strength (TLS) values indicate their limited collaboration with other scholars. The TLS was automatically calculated by VOSviewer and represents the overall intensity of co-authorship connections between a particular researcher and others. According to the co-authorship analysis, it is also noteworthy that many of the highly cited authors’ review studies typically date back over ten years, which is expected as citations tend to accumulate gradually over time. The results from the detailed citation analyses provided in Sect. 4.2.3.

Upon examining the research domains of prolific and highly cited authors, we found a diverse range of topics spanning mathematics education, psychology, educational psychology, special education, and neuroscience. This diversity highlights the interdisciplinary nature of research in mathematics education, with contributions to the literature review studies from psychologists and special education and neuroscience scholars alongside mathematics educators.

Figure  5 shows a co-authorship network map for the authors of the included review studies based on the TLS. We set the minimum number of documents for an author as one, which encompassed 761 authors who contributed to review papers in mathematics education. This bibliometric co-authorship analysis yielded 51 clusters, each containing a minimum of five items (researchers). The prominent co-authorship clusters included a green cluster (led by Lieven Verschaffel), a blue cluster (led by Gabriele Kaiser and Mustafa Cevikbas), a red cluster (led by Nelson Gena), and a yellow cluster (led by Diane P. Bryant). Nelson Gena had the highest number of collaboration links, with a TLS of 26, followed by Lieven Verschaffel (TLS = 22), Gabriele Kaiser (TLS = 16), Soyoung Park (TLS = 16), Tassia Bradford (TLS = 13), Diane P. Bryant (TLS = 12), Johannes König (TLS = 12), Mikyung Shin (TLS = 12), Min Wook Ok (TLS = 12), Bert de Smedt (TLS = 10), Fred Spooner (TLS = 10), Jihyun Lee (TLS = 10), Mustafa Cevikbas (TLS = 10), Rosella Santagata (TLS = 10), Sarah R. Powell (TLS = 10), and Thorsten Scheiner (TLS = 10).

Co-authorship and author networks

Co-authorship and country analysis

We conducted a co-authorship–country analysis, setting the minimum number of documents for a country as one, and identified 50 countries. This selection resulted in five clusters, each containing a minimum of five items (countries).

The most prominent cluster was the green cluster, encompassing eight countries from various global regions: the United States (US; TLS = 30), Germany (TLS = 23), Australia (TLS = 21), China (TLS = 11), South Korea (TLS = 6), Sweden (TLS = 4), New Zealand (TLS = 2), and Jordan (TLS = 1). The US dominated research collaborations both within this cluster and overall.

The red cluster included nine countries, predominantly Nordic and European countries: Norway (TLS = 13), Finland (TLS = 7), Belgium (TLS = 6), the Netherlands (TLS = 6), Lithuania (TLS = 1), Portugal (TLS = 1), Luxembourg (TLS = 1), Scotland (TLS = 1), and Israel (TLS = 1).

The yellow cluster contained seven countries: Canada (TLS = 7), Malaysia (TLS = 7), Denmark (TLS = 3), Libya (TLS = 2), Singapore (TLS = 2), Indonesia (TLS = 1), and the United Arab Emirates (TLS = 1).

The blue cluster primarily highlighted European collaborations and included seven countries: England (TLS = 22), Switzerland (TLS = 4), Italy (TLS = 3), France (TLS = 3), Greece (TLS = 1), Chile (TLS = 1), and Saudi Arabia (TLS = 1).

Lastly, the purple cluster represented a network of predominantly South and North American countries featuring, among others, Brazil (TLS = 6), Ireland (TLS = 5), Mexico (TLS = 4), Ecuador (TLS = 2), and Cuba (TLS = 2)(See Fig. 6 ).

Co-authorship and country networks

4.2.2 Co-occurrence analysis

To explore the research hotspots within mathematics education, we ran a keyword co-occurrence analysis using Author Keywords.

Co-occurrence analysis based on author keywords

The author keyword co-occurrence analysis indicated that our repository contained 691 keywords (see Fig.  7 , left side), of which 23 met the minimum occurrence threshold of five occurrences ( n  = 5) (see Fig.  7 , right side). In the figure, the size of a node corresponds to the frequency of a keyword co-selected in review studies in mathematics education. The distance between any two keywords reflects their relative strength and topic similarity. Nodes within the same colour cluster indicate similar topics among these publications.

The red cluster comprises 11 closely related items, including ‘mathematics, meta-analysis, mathematics achievement, intervention, scoping review, bibliometric analysis, review, technology, learning disabilities, children, and math anxiety’. The green cluster emerges as the second prominent cluster, featuring 8 interrelated items such as ‘mathematics education, systematic review, systematic literature review, literature review, teacher education, education, teaching, and flipped classroom’. Lastly, the blue cluster consists of 4 items, namely ‘math, science, early childhood, and identity’.

Co-occurrence analysis of author keywords

Notably, the most frequently cited author keyword was ‘mathematics education’ ( n  = 55), followed by ‘systematic review’ ( n  = 44), ‘mathematics’ ( n  = 41), ‘meta-analysis’ ( n  = 34), ‘systematic literature review’ ( n  = 14), ‘literature review’ ( n  = 11), ‘teacher education’ ( n  = 9), ‘mathematics achievement’ ( n  = 8), ‘intervention’ ( n  = 6), ‘education’ ( n  = 6), ‘teaching’ ( n  = 6), ‘science’ ( n  = 6), ‘scoping review’ ( n  = 5), ‘bibliometric analysis’ ( n  = 5), ‘review’ ( n  = 5), ‘math’ ( n  = 5), ‘technology’ ( n  = 5), ‘flipped classroom’ ( n  = 5), ‘early childhood’ ( n  = 5), ‘children’ ( n  = 5), ‘identity’ ( n  = 5), ‘learning disabilities’ ( n  = 5), and ‘math anxiety’ ( n  = 6).

The keywords chosen by the authors highlighted the focus areas of reviews in mathematics education, emphasising themes such as mathematics achievement, teacher education, interventions, technology, and technology-enhanced approaches (e.g. flipped classrooms), special education, and early childhood education. Furthermore, the author keywords reflected the prevalent review types in mathematics education, specifically systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, they highlighted the interdisciplinary nature of reviews in mathematics education, encompassing both mathematics education and science education.

Furthermore, we conducted distinct author keyword co-occurrence analyses for review studies published within the periods of 2019 to 2023 and those preceding 2019, aiming to discern temporal trends in author keywords, particularly in recent years. The analysis yielded 606 keywords for the 2019–2023 period and 144 keywords for the period before 2019 (see Table  8 for the most popular 15 author keywords). A noteworthy disparity in prevalent keywords was observed between the two temporal segments. While predominant keyword regarding the review types prior to 2019 was meta-analysis, followed by literature review and systematic review, over the past five years, additional keywords such as scoping review and bibliometric analysis emerged, signalling an augmentation in the diversity of review types and methodologies. The findings indicated a notable increase in the popularity of systematic reviews over the past five years.

4.2.3 Citation analysis

To explore the most cited publications and journals in mathematics education, we conducted a citation analysis based on the units of analysis in documents and sources.

Citation and document analysis

The analysis of the 259 review papers in mathematics education included in this study indicated that they received a total of 7,050 citations between 1996 and 2023, averaging 251.79 citations per year and 27.22 citations per paper. Notably, 67% of these citations were received in the last five years (2019–2023).

The threshold for the minimum number of citations of documents was set at one, which 221 review studies out of 259 met. Figure  8 visualises the network between these review papers with the largest citation links and Table  9 shows the most cited documents. Not all the studies listed in Table  9 are among the top 10 studies with the highest TLS. Among them, only Gersten et al. ( 2009 ), Cheung and Slavin ( 2008 ), and Slavin and Lake ( 2008 ) are within the top 10 review studies in mathematics education with the highest TLS. While highly cited documents are influential in terms of direct references, the TLS metric provides additional insights into the collaborative relationships and connections between researchers and their work, which may not always correlate perfectly with citation counts as seen in our findings.

Our results showed that the largest number of citation links were for meta-analyses and systematic review studies. The most prominent review type among the most cited studies listed in Table  9 is meta-analysis ( n  = 6), followed by literature review ( n  = 2), systematic review ( n  = 1), and narrative review ( n  = 1). This result indicates the potential of meta-analysis studies in terms of citation performance. Most of these review studies were primarily published in high-ranking educational review journals ( n  = 6). Other review papers published in teacher education ( n  = 2), psychology ( n  = 1), and behavioural science and neuroscience journals ( n  = 1). These ten most cited review articles were all published in SSCI journals over a decade ago. Regarding research topics in the most cited papers, the dominant topics were mathematics achievement, content knowledge, working memory, learning disabilities, and educational technologies.

Specifically, we analysed the citation trends of the most cited 10 review papers over time and separately for the first five years after publication and the past five years (2019–2023). The results indicate a significant increase in the citations review studies have received in the last five years. We found that eight out of the ten most cited papers received more citations in the past five years (2019–2023) than in the first five years after their publication. The analysis revealed that the average annual citations for each paper ranged from 7 to 30. While the majority of these review studies ( n  = 8) received the least citations in the year of their publication, they received the most citations on average approximately 12 years after publication. This indicates that the peak citation period for review articles in mathematics education extends beyond the first decade following their publication.

Additionally, we investigated the ‘Enriched Cited References’ feature, which provides insight into why an author cited a particular reference; this beta enhancement is only available in selected journals (Clarivate, 2024 ). These references are presented to aid readers in quickly assessing sections of a review paper, allowing them to identify the most closely related or impactful references and infer their purpose. Articles containing enriched cited references are marked with the following labels (Clarivate, 2024 ):

Previously published research that contextualizes the current study within an academic domain.

References that supply the datasets, methodologies, concepts, and ideas directly utilized by the author or upon which the author’s work relies.

References introduced because the current study engages in a more thorough discussion.

References cited by the current study as yielding similar results. This may encompass methodological similarities or, in certain instances, replication of findings.

References noted by the current study as presenting contrasting results. This may also involve disparities in methodology or sample differences, influencing the outcomes.

The results, displayed in Table  10 , pertain to the classification of references based on the Enriched Cited References analysis conducted automatically by WoS. These results suggest that the most cited review studies in mathematics education were predominantly utilized by researchers to establish the background for their own research. Furthermore, these reviews also frequently employed to shape the discussion within the papers. In addition, some researchers utilize the mentioned most cited review studies to establish a conceptual, theoretical, or methodological basis. While the limited number of the studies cited these reviews to support their findings, they were not used to present opposing evidence. This suggests a reliance on existing literature review studies to inform, validate, or potentially challenge new research within the field.

Citation and source analysis

We conducted a citation source analysis and present the citation network map for the journals in Fig.  9 , listing the top 15 journals in Table  11 based on the citation and TLS metrics to represent the frequency of citations between articles in any two journals. The threshold for the minimum number of documents citing a source was one, and 103 records met the minimum number of citations of a source, also set at one. The network map shown in Fig.  9 indicates prominent clusters. The red cluster included 23 items (mostly special education, educational psychology, and educational review journals). The blue cluster included 16 items (predominantly educational psychology, educational technology, and educational review journals). The green cluster comprised 17 items (including mathematics and mathematics education journals, educational technology journals, and educational psychology journals).

The number of articles and the distribution of journals across various research fields were as follows: 25 educational sciences journals (43 papers), 20 psychology and educational psychology journals (41 papers), 15 special education journals (32 papers), 12 mathematics education journals (52 papers), 10 educational review journals (41 papers), 9 educational technology journals (28 papers), 3 mathematics journals (14 papers), and 9 other journals (8 articles).

Our findings indicate that ZDM– Mathematics Education ( n  = 16) has, so far, published the most review studies focusing on mathematics education, which is not unexpected due to the origin of the journal as a review journal publishing only special issues, for which a review article is compulsory in each issue. This was followed by Frontiers in Psychology ( n  = 14), Educational Research Review ( n  = 13), and Mathematics ( n  = 10) (see Table  11 for the top 15 journals).

The results highlighted that the most frequently cited papers were often published in specific educational review journals (e.g. Review of Educational Research , Educational Research Review , and Educational Psychology Review ), psychology and educational psychology journals (e.g. Frontiers in Psychology , Educational Psychology Review , European Journal of Cognitive Psychology , and Psychological Bulletin ), special education journals (e.g. Exceptional Children , Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , Learning Disability Quarterly , and Remedial and Special Educati on), educational technology journals (e.g. Computers & Education , Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , and Education and Information Technologies ), and mathematics and mathematics education journals (e.g. ZDM– Mathematics Education , Educational Studies in Mathematics , and Mathematics ).

Although the most visible mathematics education journals in citation network map were ZDM– Mathematics Education and Educational Studies in Mathematics (see Fig.  9 ), as mentioned earlier, twelve mathematics education journals provided platforms for review studies. These were ZDM– Mathematics Education ( n  = 16), Educational Studies in Mathematics ( n  = 5), International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education ( n  = 5), International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology ( n  = 5), International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education ( n  = 3), Mathematics Education Research Journal ( n  = 3), International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education ( n  = 3), International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology ( n  = 3), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education ( n  = 2), Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education ( n  = 1), Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik ( n  = 1), and Research in Mathematics Education ( n  = 1).

5 Discussion, conclusions, and limitations

In this study, we conducted a meta-review of literature review studies in mathematics education, enriched by a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. This paper significantly contributes to scholarly discourse by unravelling nuanced research trends, the most common review methodologies, and prevalent theoretical approaches in review studies in mathematics education. Based on content and bibliometric analysis, it delves into the research foci, providing an understanding of the relevant academic landscape. Additionally, it illuminates intricate connections among researchers, countries, and journals, elucidating collaborative networks in mathematics education research.

5.1 Insights from the meta-review and implications

The findings revealed a significant increase in the number of literature reviews in mathematics education, particularly in the past five years; 79% of the reviews we examined were published during this period. Multiple factors may have contributed to this surge, including researchers’ increased publication output during the pandemic (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023 ; Nane et al., 2023 ), challenges in collecting empirical data during the pandemic crisis (Uleanya & Yu, 2023 ), the relatively high citation rates associated with literature review studies, the growing prestige of educational review journals based on their increased impact factors (Miranda & Garcia-Carpintero, 2018 ), and the publication of review-oriented special issues in mathematics education journals.

Our findings revealed a prevalence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, researchers also conducted diverse types of reviews, including scoping reviews, critical reviews, narrative reviews, theoretical reviews, and tutorial reviews. This methodological diversity is important as the advantages of one method can potentially overcome the disadvantages of another and combining different approaches can mitigate disadvantages (Taherdoost, 2023 ). Furthermore, our study revealed that rapid reviews, meta-reviews, umbrella reviews, mapping reviews, mixed-methods reviews, integrative reviews, interpretative reviews, iterative reviews, meta-syntheses, descriptive reviews, realist reviews, selective reviews, algorithmic reviews, and computational reviews indexed in WoS were not represented in mathematics education. The well-established PRISMA guidelines offer a defined framework for systematic reviews and meta-analyses to assist researchers in conducting reviews while adhering to quality and transparency criteria (Moher et al., 2009 ; Page et al., 2021 ). This adherence may have encouraged researchers to undertake such reviews, and future advancements in the development of specific guidelines and methodologies for each review type may further motivate researchers to conduct other types of reviews in mathematics education more frequently.

There were nuanced overlaps between the review types, leading to ambiguous distinctions. For instance, the structural similarity between systematic reviews and scoping reviews has led to misunderstandings. Munn et al. ( 2018 ) confirm inconsistency and confusion regarding the differentiation between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and offered guidelines for this decision-making process: a systematic review is preferable when addressing specific questions regarding the feasibility, appropriateness, significance, or efficacy of a specific treatment or practice. However, if the authors intend to demarcate the research field and explore its potential size and scope, a scoping review is more appropriate. Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) and Munn et al. ( 2018 ) clarified that a scoping review is preparation for a systematic literature review, not a deep study for a systematic literature review. The diverse taxonomies proposed by researchers have contributed to this complexity, with some employing various terms for similar review characteristics, and others applying the same terms to studies with distinct review attributes. Consequently, a consensus regarding the categorisation of review studies, both in a broad context and specifically in mathematics education, remains elusive. We also observed instances of researchers labelling their reviews inaccurately. However, we refrained from judging the appropriateness of these terminologies as they fall outside the scope of our study and may be difficult to justify due to the ambiguity of the current typologies. Borges Migliavaca et al. ( 2020 ) expressed a similar concern, highlighting substantial disparities in review studies concerning their conceptualisation, conduct, reporting, risk of bias assessment, and data synthesis. They called for the evidence synthesis community to promptly develop guidance and reporting standards for review studies. Future researchers could potentially examine inconsistencies in the conducting of review studies and their categorisation in mathematics education. In this study, we distilled the various existing types of review studies to provide clear explanations of the main review types and to help researchers and readers understand the key characteristics of various review studies (see Chap. 2).

An additional noteworthy consideration pertains to the sample sizes of review studies. A prevalent discourse considers the appropriate number of studies to be included in a review, but establishing such a minimum or maximum number may be challenging and not appropriate because this depends on various contextual factors, such as the research area, topic, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and applied protocols. For example, in technical terms, a systematic review can be conducted with as few as two studies or as many as a thousand. A review study with a small sample (e.g. two or three studies) may be due to the literature search methods used or insufficient number of existing studies in a particular field, suggesting a limited demand for such a review. As previously noted, the primary function of review studies is to inform readers in the relevant field about published studies to address the challenge posed by an increasing number of studies and to identify trends and research gaps (Fusar-Poli & Radua, 2018 ). Conversely, although it is technically feasible to include a substantial number of studies in a review (e.g. 1,000 or 2,000), conducting a comprehensive analysis (e.g. content analysis) of such a large dataset can present major time, cost, storage, memory, bias, and security challenges (Cohen et al., 2015 ). Nevertheless, the findings of our study provide insight into this issue. Notably, the sample size of the studies we analysed varied from 8 to 3,485, with an average of 99. Notably, most of these studies (78%) had sample sizes of less than 100, with an average of 34. Although this observation does not serve as a prescriptive recommendation, it offers valuable insights into the typical sample sizes with which mathematics education researchers have tended to work in the past.

Furthermore, as evidenced by our findings, literature reviews may serve various purposes, such as assessing the use of theoretical models or conceptual and methodological approaches, or advancing new theories, concepts, or research models through critical appraisal of previous research within a specific subject area (Cooper, 1988 ). However, our findings also indicate that it is not common in practice to use or develop a theoretical or conceptual framework in mathematics education review studies. Only 24% of the reviewed studies explicitly reported employing a specific framework, and very few sought to formulate a framework based on the literature under scrutiny. The results highlighted the researchers’ interest in frameworks related to technology, knowledge, and competence models. A few studies incorporated grand theories, such as constructivism, sociocultural theory, and cognitive development theory.

It is remarkable that despite focusing on mathematics education, there is a notable scarcity of review studies employing content-specific frameworks in mathematics education, such as those centred on problem-solving, reasoning, and mathematical thinking. Only a minority of the studies used frameworks related to mathematical modelling and mathematical content knowledge. This observation may reflect a gap in the literature, suggesting a need for greater integration of domain-specific frameworks into review studies in mathematics education to enhance the depth and specificity of the studies. Moreover, this trend prompts a critical examination of potential underlying factors. One plausible explanation lies in the interdisciplinary nature of review studies in mathematics education, which draws contributions from diverse fields including psychology, educational technology, special education, and neuroscience. The diverse disciplinary backgrounds of the researchers may influence their preferences for frameworks that are not necessarily specific to mathematics education but rather draw from broader fields.

5.2 Insights from the bibliometric analyses and implications

The bibliometric analysis revealed contributions to mathematics education, with 761 authors from 50 countries conducting review studies. In future studies, researchers may consider conducting detailed analyses of how these initiatives have influenced the landscape of mathematics education, examining their specific impacts on various subfields, and assessing their overall influence.

Our findings reveal a notable participation in literature review studies within mathematics education by scholars from diverse backgrounds, including educational psychologists, mathematics educators, and specialists in special education and neuroscience. This multidisciplinary engagement underscores the broader interest of researchers beyond the field of mathematics education. Notably, co-authorship connections within US institutions were the most extensive. The leading countries that published review studies included the US, Germany, China, Australia, and England. A robust network emerged among researchers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, emphasising collaboration opportunities that warrant exploration by African and South American researchers.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses stood out as the predominant review types in mathematics education, both in terms of the number of publications and citation counts. Systematic reviews offer rigorous and comprehensive syntheses of existing literature on specific research questions, providing valuable insights, identifying gaps in knowledge, and informing evidence-based decision-making in various fields. Moreover, meta-analyses enhance statistical power, resolve conflicting findings, and offer more precise estimates of effect sizes by combining data from various sources. However, there is a discernible need to diversify the types of reviews conducted in mathematics education.

The findings underscore a significant surge in both the quantity of review studies and their citation counts within mathematics education especially over the recent five-year period (2019–2023). This trend suggests a prevalent practice among authors to draw upon previously published reviews to contextualize their own studies, frequently engaging in discussions and citing references to corroborate or challenge existing findings. Such reliance on established literature highlights the discipline’s emphasis on leveraging prior knowledge to inform and substantiate new research endeavours.

The most cited review papers were associated with specific educational review journals, educational psychology journals, special education journals, educational technology journals, and mathematics education journals, further highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of impactful research in the field. The results revealed that ZDM– Mathematics Education , Educational Studies in Mathematics , International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , and International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology were the key mathematics education journals committed to publishing review studies. The performance of these journals, particularly in recent years, reflects the escalating significance of review studies in mathematics education. Nevertheless, the limited visibility of some mathematics education journals in publishing review studies could be attributed, among other factors, to their restricted representation in the WoS database or to the overall small number of studies published yearly in particular mathematics education journals.

Prominent research topics in mathematics education review studies are digital technologies, technology-enhanced approaches (e.g. flipped classrooms), teacher education, mathematics achievement, early childhood education, and learning disabilities. Recent technological advances, including artificial intelligence and augmented/virtual reality, may soon attract mathematics education researchers’ attention to emerging technologies (Cevikbas, Bulut et al., 2023 ; Cevikbas, Greefrath et al., 2023 ). In addition to technology-enhanced mathematics education and special education, researchers have also explored the cognitive and affective aspects of learning and teaching mathematics.

In short, the absence of high-quality research syntheses may impede theoretical and conceptual advances within mathematics education (Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Therefore, future researchers may endeavour to develop discipline-specific standards and guidelines for conducting various types of review studies in mathematics education. Moreover, they could focus on expanding the content of mathematics education journals to accommodate a greater number of review studies. The scientific influence of review journals may also provide an opportunity to establish a dedicated review journal with a pronounced focus on mathematics education.

5.3 Limitations and conclusion

Finally, we want to point out that in this comprehensive meta-review, enriched by bibliometric analysis, we meticulously compiled and scrutinised the largest dataset of reviews in mathematics education available within the WoS database. Although this was a substantial sample ( n  = 259) that was reasonably representative of published review studies in mathematics education, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. Our search was confined to WoS, and we specifically focused on review articles published in English. It is worth noting that the characteristics of review studies published in journals, international handbooks, or conference proceedings not indexed in WoS or published in a language other than English could potentially differ from those we examined. In addition, despite studies indexed in WoS theoretically being of high quality, we identified inconsistencies and variability in the review studies we examined, and it is possible that a more extensive search would have yielded different results.

In conclusion, we advocate producing high-quality review papers that adeptly synthesise available knowledge to improve professional practice (Templier & Paré, 2015 ). Such efforts may further advance mathematics education and contribute to the continuous improvement of teaching and learning activities, despite the demanding nature of comprehensive review studies.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 (1), 19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, L. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2008). Overviews of reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 607–631). Wiley.

Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies , 1 (1), 363–376.

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

Borges Migliavaca, C., Stein, C., Colpani, V., et al. (2020). How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 20 , 96.

Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Can flipped classroom pedagogy offer promising perspectives for mathematics education on pandemic-related issues? A systematic literature review. ZDM–Mathematics Education , 55 , 177–191.

Cevikbas, M., Kaiser, G., & Schukajlow, S. (2022). A systematic literature review of the current discussion on mathematical modelling competencies: State-of-the-art developments in conceptualizing, measuring, and fostering. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 109 (2), 205–236.

Cevikbas, M., Greefrath, G., & Siller, H. S. (2023). Advantages and challenges of using digital technologies in mathematical modelling education–a descriptive systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education , 8 , 1142556.

Cevikbas, M., Bulut, N., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Exploring the benefits and drawbacks of AR and VR technologies for learners of mathematics: Recent developments. Systems , 11 (5), 244.

Cevikbas, M., König, J., & Rothland, M. (2024). Empirical research on teacher competence in mathematics lesson planning: Recent developments. ZDM–Mathematics Education , 56 , 101–113.

Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review , 9 , 88–113.

Chigbu, U. E., Atiku, S. O., & Du Plessis, C. C. (2023). The science of literature reviews: Searching, identifying, selecting, and synthesising. Publications , 11 (1), 2.

Clarivate (2024). Citation context in Web of Science . URL.

Cochrane, A. L. (1979). 1931–1971: A critical review with particular reference to the medical profession. In G. Teeling Smith, & N. Wells (Eds.), Medicines for the year 2000 (pp. 2–12). Office of Health Economics.

Cohen, B., Vawdrey, D. K., Liu, J., Caplan, D., Furuya, E. Y., Mis, F. W., & Larson, E. (2015). Challenges associated with using large data sets for quality assessment and research in clinical settings. Policy Politics & Nursing Practice , 16 (3–4), 117–124.

Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society , 1 (1), 104–126.

Google Scholar  

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research , 66 (3), 227–268.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design; choosing among five approaches . Sage.

Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education , 26 (3–4), 365–378.

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education , 34 , 12–25.

DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2004). The role of working memory in mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology , 16 (3), 353–386.

Friso-van den Bos, I., Van der Ven, S. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review , 10 , 29–44.

Fusar-Poli, P., & Radua, J. (2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health , 21 (3), 95.

Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 19 (2), 229–247.

Geng, Y., Chen, W., Liu, Z., Chiu, A. S., Han, W., Liu, Z., & Cui, X. (2017). A bibliometric review: Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the residential sector. Journal of Cleaner Production , 159 , 301–316.

Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research , 79 (3), 1202–1242.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26 (2), 91–108.

Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination (2nd edition). Sage.

Kaiser, G., & Schukajlow, S. (2024). Literature reviews in mathematics education and their significance to the field. ZDM–Mathematics Education , 56 , 1–3.

Ketcham, C. M., & Crawford, J. M. (2007). The impact of review articles. Laboratory Investigation , 87 (12), 1174–1185.

Korom, P. (2019). A bibliometric visualization of the economics and sociology of wealth inequality: A world apart? Scientometrics , 118 , 849–868.

Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2023). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods , 26 (1), 3–45.

Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review , 22 , 215–243.

MacEntee, M. I. (2019). A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care. Gerodontology , 36 (4), 303–312.

Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College Record , 111 (2), 295–338.

Martínez, M. A., Cobo, M. J., Herrera, M., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). Analyzing the scientific evolution of social work using science mapping. Research on Social Work Practice , 25 (2), 257–277.

Miranda, R., & Garcia-Carpintero, E. (2018). Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers. Journal of Informetrics , 12 (4), 1015–1030.

Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999). Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet , 354 , 1896–1900.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Plos Medicine , 6(7), e1000097.

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 , 1–7.

Nane, G. F., Robinson-Garcia, N., van Schalkwyk, F., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2023). COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: Growth, open access and scientific fields. Scientometrics , 128 (1), 345–362.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ , 372 (71), 1–9.

Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management , 52 (2), 183–199.

Radevic, L., & Milovanovic, I. (2023). Current trends in math anxiety research: A bibliometric approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10424-4 .

Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club , 123 (3), A12–A13.

Samnani, S. S., Vaska, M., Ahmed, S., & Turin, T. C. (2017). Review typology: The basic types of reviews for synthesizing evidence for the purpose of knowledge translation. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan , 27 (10), 635–641.

Schryen, G., & Sperling, M. (2023). Literature reviews in operations research: A new taxonomy and a meta review. Computers & Operations Research , 106269.

Schryen, G., Wagner, G., Benlian, A., & Paré, G. (2020). A knowledge development perspective on literature reviews: Validation of a new typology in the IS field. Communications of the AIS , 46 , 134–186.

Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., & Bouter, L. M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 7 , 1–7.

Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research , 78 (3), 427–515.

Song, Y., Chen, X., Hao, T., Liu, Z., & Lan, Z. (2019). Exploring two decades of research on classroom dialogue by using bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education , 137 , 12–31.

Suseelan, M., Chew, C. M., & Chin, H. (2022). Research on Mathematics Problem solving in Elementary Education conducted from 1969 to 2021: A bibliometric review. IJEMST , 10 (4), 1003–1029.

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 36 (3), 202–222.

Taherdoost, H. (2023). Towards nuts and bolts of conducting literature review: A typology of literature review. Electronics , 12 (4), 800.

Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 37 (1), 6.

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine , 169 (7), 467–473.

Uleanya, C., & Yu, K. (2023). Data collection in times of pandemic: A self-study and revisit of research practices during a crisis. Sage Open , 13 (1), 21582440231160698.

van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics , 84 (2), 523–538.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly , 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.

Wei, Y., Zhang, Q., Guo, J., & Chen, M. (2023). Learning to teach through noticing: A bibliometric review of teacher noticing research in mathematics education during 2006–2021. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 10 (1), 1–15.

Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (3), 429–472.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Institute of Educational Sciences, Unter den Linden 6, 10099, Berlin, Germany

Mustafa Cevikbas

Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 8, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

Gabriele Kaiser

Nord University, Bodø, Norway

Institute of Mathematics Education and Computer Science Education, Universität Münster, Henriette-Son Str. 19, 48149, Münster, Germany

Stanislaw Schukajlow

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Cevikbas .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The electronic supplementary material includes the list of the reviewed studies and a sample of the coding manual.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cevikbas, M., Kaiser, G. & Schukajlow, S. Trends in mathematics education and insights from a meta-review and bibliometric analysis of review studies. ZDM Mathematics Education (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01587-7

Download citation

Accepted : 02 May 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01587-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bibliometric analysis
• Critical review
• Literature review
• Mapping review
• Mathematics education
• Meta-review
• Narrative review
• Systematic review
• Scoping review
• Theoretical review
• Tutorial review
• Umbrella review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 11 May 2024

Effectiveness of simulation-based interventions on empathy enhancement among nursing students: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

• Mi-Kyoung Cho 1 &
• Mi Young Kim 2  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  319 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

86 Accesses

Metrics details

This study aimed to secure and analyze evidence regarding the enhancement of nursing students’ empathy through simulation-based interventions. It comprehensively analyzed self-reported emotions and reactions as primary outcomes, along with the results reported by nursing students who experienced simulation-based interventions, including empathy.

This systematic literature review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of simulation-based interventions on enhancing empathy among nursing students. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The following details were considered: population, nursing students; intervention, simulation-based interventions targeting empathy enhancement; comparators, control groups without intervention or those undergoing general non-simulation-based classes; and outcomes, self-reported empathy.

In the systematic review of 28 studies, it was found that the use of simulation-based interventions among nursing students led to an increase in empathy, albeit with a small effect size. This was demonstrated through a pooled, random-effects meta-analysis, yielding an effect size (Hedge’s g) of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.57, p  = 0.001). The results of meta-regression and subgroup analysis significantly increased in empathy for studies published after 2019 (Hedge’s g = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.73, p  < 0.001), quasi-experimental research design (Hedge’s g = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.74, p  < 0.001), more than 60 participants (Hedge’s g = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.59, p  = 0.034), and simulation-based interventions in nursing education (Hedge’s g = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.65, p  < 0.001).

Conclusions

Considering factors such as variations in sample size, research approaches, and the effects of independent studies on empathy, this systematic literature review and meta-analysis suggests that simulation-based education can significantly improve nursing students’ overall empathy skills.

Peer Review reports

In modern society, concerns are growing regarding empathy deficits, which lead to issues such as indifference and apathy in workplace relationships—aggravating even in common social situations [ 1 ]. Empathy is a complex concept comprising an affective component of feeling and recognizing emotions from others’ perspectives and a cognitive component of understanding others’ emotions [ 2 ]. Highly empathetic professionals in health-related fields foster a high level of communication with patients, leading to positive outcomes in patient care, such as better self-care, higher patient satisfaction, and faster recovery times [ 3 , 4 ]. Although empathy is essential for healthcare workers, studies have demonstrated that it is not taught sufficiently during training in numerous fields, including medicine, nursing, dentistry, and pharmacy [ 5 , 6 ].

Empathy plays a crucial role in healthcare, as evidenced by its strong correlation with the quality of care provided to patients. When patients perceive that nurses empathize with them, they tend to feel they are receiving care tailored to their needs [ 7 ]. Therefore, improving empathy is necessary for enhancing the quality of nursing care. Efforts have been made to develop programs that foster empathy through education and training [ 8 ]. Adequate levels of empathy are essential for nursing students as they are future nurses. However, research has indicated that nursing students have lower levels of empathy than other healthcare workers do [ 9 , 10 ].

Empathy is defined as the ability to place oneself in the same position as another person and to understand and accept their position and perspective [ 11 ]. Training that enhances empathy includes simulation-based learning that recreates realistic clinical situations [ 12 ]. Additionally, healthcare can be simulated in various ways, including virtual patients, manikins, role-playing, gaming, and simulating hypothetical or disease situations [ 13 ]. Simulations in healthcare most often allow students to function in the role for which they are training, though there is evidence students’ empathy increases when they function in the role of patients because they are encouraged to understand patients’ perspectives, emotions, and experiences [ 14 ]. Whether students function in professional or patient roles during simulation, post-simulation debriefing helps students translate their simulation experiences. Post-simulation debriefing sessions have been shown to help students learn how to translate their simulation experiences into appropriate empathetic behaviors and attitudes toward patients in the real world [ 14 ]. Previous systematic reviews have included studies focusing on specific simulation methods, such as role-play or virtually simulated patients, dementia-specific virtual reality scenarios, clinical simulations with dramatization, and simulation equipment for older-adult-specific scenarios [ 15 ]. Since its emergence, improving empathy in healthcare has been the subject of several studies and meta-analyses [ 16 ]. Through a meta-analysis and effectiveness evaluation study on various simulation-based programs aimed at nursing students, both future and current medical professionals, we investigated the elements of simulation that contribute to empathy enhancement. Our study identified key elements crucial for designing effective simulation education programs, which can be reflected upon in practice. By analyzing the components of simulation-based education that impact empathy enhancement, we can identify crucial elements to enhance empathy when implementing this approach.

Simulation is becoming more prevalent as an educational approach for instilling empathy in pre-service health professional students [ 17 ]. As these various forms of simulation are applied to improve empathy, a systematic review and analysis of nursing students are needed to determine their effectiveness and the factors that should be considered. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can consider differences in sample sizes, variations in research approaches, and the effects of interventions in independent studies while integrating the results of the included studies. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis will enable an assessment of the overall effectiveness of simulation-based education in improving empathy among nursing students. This study aims to provide a foundation for simulation-based interventions by conducting a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to examine their effectiveness in improving empathy among nursing students.

Study design

This systematic literature review and meta-analysis followed the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design (PICO-SD) framework to determine the effectiveness of simulation-based interventions in improving empathy among nursing students.

Eligibility criteria and outcome variables

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 18 ]. This was prepared by referring to the PRISMA 2020 checklist ( https://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist.aspx , accessed May 16, 2023). In line with this study’s purpose, a systematic literature search was conducted. The inclusion criteria were as follows: the study population (P) included nursing students who received simulation training; the intervention (I) included nursing education using simulation to promote empathy; the control I group comprised those who did not receive the simulation intervention as a comparison group; and for outcomes (O), the primary outcome was empathy, while the secondary outcomes wereempathic communication, interpersonal relationships, and competency. The first post-intervention value was used to calculate the effect size. The study design (SD) involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies that included manuscripts published in English or Korean from May 1971 to April 2023. Only studies that reported means, standard deviations, and concrete sample sizes were included to merge the effect sizes for the primary and secondary outcomes. The exclusion criteria were as follows: studies that included students other than nursing students, interventions that were not simulations, measured variables that were not graphically represented such that effect sizes could not be merged, studies that only presented p-values or the number of participants in each group, studies with mean and standard deviation not available, and duplicate studies. Quasi-experimental studies with a single-group pretest-posttest design were excluded.

Search strategies

Data were retrieved from eight electronic databases or e-journals, specifically PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, World of Science, SCOPUS, PQDT, and Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), for articles published in English and Korean from May 1971 to April 2023. The search protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration no. CRD42023423747, available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ) on May 16, 2023. The search formula used was Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and text words from titles and abstracts, and the search was conducted from April 24, 2023, to June 3, 2023. The terms used in the search were (“Simulation Training”[MeSH Terms] OR “simulate*”[All Fields]) OR (“psychodrama”[MeSH Terms] OR “psychodrama*”[All Fields] OR “role-play*”[All Fields]) for interventions, and (“Empathy”[MeSH Terms] OR “empath*”[All Fields] OR “Emotional Intelligence”[MeSH Terms] OR “Emotional Intelligence”[All Fields]) for results. The data collection process for the articles included in the analysis was based on a systematic review. A literature search was conducted by two authors (MYK and MKC) with the guidance of a meta-analysis expert.

Quality assessment

The quality of the selected articles was independently assessed by two authors (MYK and MKC) using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist (Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials, Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. In the initial quality assessment, no discrepancies were observed across most items. However, divergence arose regarding the clarity of blinding of outcome assessors to study participants. Upon thorough discussion, we agreed that a score would be assigned only if the methodology section of a study explicitly stated that outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. The JBI RCT Checklist comprises the following 13 items: randomization, allocation concealment, pre-homogeneity verification, blinding (participants, interventors, and assessors), identical conditions other than experimental treatment, description of dropouts, analysis based on randomization, equivalence of outcome measures, appropriateness of outcome variable measures and statistical analysis methods, and appropriateness of the study design [ 19 ]. The JBI Quasi-Experimental Studies Checklist comprises the following nine items: certainty of cause and effect, pre-homogeneity verification, exposure to the same environment outside of the intervention, presence or absence of a control group, pre- and post-intervention effect measures, description of dropouts, equivalence of outcome measures, appropriateness of outcome variable measures, and statistical analysis methods [ 20 ]. The checklist scored “yes” as 1 and “unclear,” “no,” and “not applicable” as 0 for each item. Discrepancies in the quality assessment of the studies were resolved through consultation with a meta-analysis expert and discussions between the two authors (MYK and MKC) (Table  1 ).

Selection process

The two authors (MYK and MKC) shared the search formula, searched for data independently, and shared the bibliographic information of the articles retrieved from domestic and foreign core electronic databases and journals in an Excel file. Duplicate articles were removed by sorting by title and author using the Microsoft Excel filtering function. Based on this search strategy, relevant articles were identified through titles and abstracts, after which the full texts of the selected articles were reviewed.

Data analysis and statistical methods

The article characteristics were presented as frequencies, means, and standard deviations, and statistical analyses of effect size pooling methods were performed Z-test and p-value using MIX 2.0 Pro Ver. 2.0.1.6 (BiostatXL, Mountain View, CA, USA). As the effect sizes were continuous variables, and the number of participants in each study was small, Hedge’s g, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the weight of each effect size were obtained using the inverse of variance [ 22 ]. The overall effect (Hedges’ g) was calculated using a pooled, random-effects model to account for between-participant variations in individual studies and heterogeneity among studies. The effect sizes indicated by Hedge’s g values of 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 were classified as small, medium, and large effects, respectively [ 23 ]. The studies’ heterogeneity was assessed by calculating Higgin’s I 2 value, which represented the true variance or variance ratio across studies to the total observed variance. It was interpreted as heterogeneous if I 2 was greater than 50%. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias in the selected studies was tested using funnel plots, Begg’s test, Egger’s regression test, and the trim-and-fill method with a correction for Hedge’s g [ 24 ].

Study selection

This study followed the PRISMA guidelines during the study selection process, as illustrated in Fig.  1 . A total of 1,265 articles were retrieved from each database in Step 1. Furthermore, 578 articles were extracted by excluding duplicate studies (686) and one retracted article in Step 2, and 81 articles were extracted by excluding studies that did not fulfill the inclusion and exclusion criteria in Step 3. Finally, after a thorough review and full-text reading, 25 articles meeting our search criteria were identified for inclusion. Notably, Layton’s (1979) study was distinguished by its comparison of experimental and control groups across four distinct simulation interventions. Given the unique structure of this study, each simulation intervention was treated as a separate unit of analysis, thereby extending the total number of analyzed studies to 28. In this study, the participants of the studies included in the meta-analysis were undergraduate nursing students, and a total of 2,598 participated. The data extraction form was compiled by extracting the author, year of publication, presence or absence of IRB, number of participants, research design, experimental group’s intervention type, intervention session, session time, control group’s intervention, post-test measurement time, delayed measurement, and outcome variables. The primary variable, empathy score, and the secondary variables, empathic communication, interpersonal relationships, and competency were coded as the mean, standard deviation, and number of samples of the first post-test or the difference value of the post-pretest for both the experimental and control groups after the intervention.

PRISMA flow diagram

Study characteristics

The analysis included 28 studies, with 15 published in 2019 or later, 23 with IRB reviews before the study. The research design for simulation-based interventions included 14 RCTs: 13 with 60 or more participants, 13 simulated-based learning, 15 role-plays, and 21 studies with usual or no interventions for the control group. Simulation-based learning encompasses a variety of structured activities designed to mirror real or potential scenarios in educational settings, facilitating practice and skill development. These activities enable participants to augment their understanding, expertise, and mindset, while also providing opportunities to analyze and address realistic situations within a simulated environment [ 25 ]. Role-playing entails the enactment of specific roles within defined contexts. For instance, it may encompass a situated teaching program where patients portray themselves and articulate their experiences within a psychiatric nursing practice setting, or a role-playing training regimen conducted within an operating room situation. The intervention time or session was more than 1 h, the outcome was measured immediately after the intervention, the outcome was followed up, pre-briefing was conducted, and debriefing was conducted in study ID: 24, 11, 12, 26, 10, 6, and 14 studies. The majority of the control group adheres to a Traditional curriculum. This curriculum typically includes conventional empathic skill training through lectures, seminars, individual presentations at meetings, discussions, and similar formats. In contrast, for the experimental group, simulation involves a sequence of processes (such as orientation, pre-briefing, SP simulation performance, debriefing, and feedback). Typically, this process occurs once rather than being repeated. The impact is evaluated following the completion of this singular series of processes. The predominant empathy scale utilized was The Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Health Profession-Student (JSE-HP-S), with various other assessment tools also employed to measure empathy.

The primary outcome was empathy, which was assessed in all 28 studies. Empathic communication, interpersonal relationships, and competency were measured in study ID: 5, 6, and 9 studies, respectively (Appendix 1 ). When the sample size is small, Cohen’s d may exaggerate the effect size of an individual study. Therefore, the adjusted effect size, referred to as Hedge’s g [ 25 ], was provided along with 95% Confidence Intervals. Hedge’s g was calculated by entering the mean, standard deviation, and number of samples of each study’s experimental and control groups into the Mix Pro 2.0 program.

Risk of bias in studies

The average quality assessment score for RCTs was 8.18 (SD 0.75, range: 7–9), and the average quality assessment score for quasi-experimental studies was 8.00 (SD 1.11, range: 6–9). Among the internal validity assessment items for the RCT studies, “Q2. Was the allocation to treatment groups concealed?” for bias related to selection and allocation, and “Q5. Were those delivering the treatment blinded to the treatment assignment?” for bias related to administration of intervention or exposure, and “Were outcome assessors blind to treatment assignment?” for bias related to the assessment, detection, and measurement of the outcome were not reported in any study. Furthermore, “Q4. Were participants blinded to the treatment assignments?” was reported in only one study, and “Q12. Was an appropriate statistical analysis used?” was used to measure the validity of the statistical conclusions in three studies. Most items (Q1-5, Q7-9) that assess the quality of quasi-experimental studies have been reported. “Q6. Was the follow-up complete, and if not, were the differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analyzed?” were reported in only seven studies (Table  1 ).

Effect of simulation-based intervention on empathy

Layton’s (1979) study was distinguished by its comparison of experimental and control groups across four distinct simulation interventions. Each simulation intervention was treated as a separate unit of analysis, thereby extending the total number of analyzed studies to 28. The effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model and presented as Hedge’s g, 95% CI, weight, and a synthesis forest plot (Fig.  2 ). Using a simulation-based intervention among nursing students significantly increased empathy, with a total effect size of Hedge’s g = 0.35, which was a small effect based on Brydges’ criteria for interpreting effect sizes. The effect sizes indicated by Hedge’s g values of 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 were classified as small, medium, and large effects, respectively [ 26 ]. The heterogeneity test revealed a Higgins I 2 value of 84.8%, indicating a high degree of heterogeneity among merged studies. Therefore, subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted for exploratory and descriptive heterogeneity analyses.

The effect of simulation-based intervention on empathy. Notes. ES: Effect size; CI: Confidence interval. Superscripts a, b, c, and d were Layton’s (1979) study divided by intervention

In the subgroup analyses, a significant increase in empathy was reported in the studies published after 2019 (Hedge’s g = 0.52, 95% CI:0.31, 0.73), IRB-approved studies (Hedge’s g = 0.39, 95% CI:0.15, 0.62), quasi-experimental studies (Hedge’s g = 0.51, 95% CI:0.27, 0.74), simulation-based interventions (Hedge’s g = 0.43, 95% CI:0.22, 0.65), and studies with no control group intervention or with usual interventions (Hedge’s g = 0.30, 95% CI:0.08, 0.53). The same was reported in studies with the intervention time per session not reported or less than 1 h (Hedge’s g = 0.42, 95% CI:0.20, 0.63), studies measuring the outcome right after the intervention (Hedge’s g = 0.38, 95% CI:0.16, 0.60), studies adopting no follow-up measurements for verifying the intervention’s long-term effects (Hedge’s g = 0.45, 95% CI:0.22, 0.68), and studies performing debriefing after simulation (Hedge’s g = 0.48, 95% CI:0.18, 0.78), compared to the studies that did not. Additionally, the effect sizes for the number of participants, pre-briefing, and quality assessment score were statistically significant (Table  2 ).

Univariate meta-regression analysis was performed to determine the potential impact of study heterogeneity on effect size, which revealed that the following variables had statistically significant effects—specifically, year of publication, IRB-approved studies, the number of participants, study design, intervention type, control group intervention, and intervention time per session (Table  3 ). The exclusion sensitivity test excluded one study from each of the 28 studies and compared the merged effect size to the original effect size to determine the impact of the estimated effect size [ 24 ]. Examining the magnitude and statistical significance of the combined effect sizes of the simulation-based interventions indicated that Hedge’s g was small, ranging from 0.31 to 42, the 95% CI (0.10 to 0.23, 0.52 to 0.61) did not include zero, and all were statistically significant. The effect size was not significantly different from that of Hedge’s g (0.35), including all 28 studies, and all studies were statistically significant. Therefore, the meta-analysis was considered robust (Table  4 ).

Effect of an intervention program on secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes were empathic communication, interpersonal relationships, and competency, all of which were statistically significant. After the program, empathic communication with Hedge’s g = 1.35 (95% CI:0.25, 2.45), interpersonal relationship with Hedge’s g = 0.52 (95% CI:0.21, 0.84), and competency with Hedge’s g = 0.75 (95% CI:0.24, 1.26), indicating medium to large effect sizes (Table  5 ).

Publication bias

Funnel plot analysis was conducted to assess publication bias, which revealed that the individual effect sizes (blue circles) of the 28 included studies were skewed to the right, indicating some degree of publication bias (Fig.  3 ). For further analysis of publication bias, using the trim-and-fill method, the number of articles that should be added to the study was identified as nine [ 27 ]. The corrected effect size of the 37 articles was 0.04 (95%CI: -0.19, 0.26). The effect size of empathy was smaller after correction than before, but the difference was not statistically significant after correction. Moreover, the results of different methods used to detect publication bias differed. Nonetheless, the results obtained using the trim-and-fill method, which is particularly effective in illustrating publication bias in continuous variables, indicated publication bias in this study (Appendix 2 ).

Funnel plot of simulation-based interventions for empathy. Notes. Precision = 1/standard error, 0.05; limit line = 95% confidence limit

A random-effects on the results of 28 studies was performed to quantify the influence of simulation on empathy among undergraduate nursing students. The impact of the simulation-based program on empathy showed a small effect size, specifically with an effect size of 0.35. Despite variance within studies and heterogeneity in effects between studies, it was observed that the vast majority of nursing students agree that simulation increases empathy and that empathy is greater after simulation than before. The high I2 indicates significant heterogeneity, which consequently reduces the precision of summary estimates.

This aligns with previous primary research, indicating that to empathize with others beyond oneself, it’s essential to understand the other person’s perspective or position. Moreover, research suggests that such empathy can be cultivated through education [ 28 ]. This finding is also consistent with a previous study reporting that learning could improve empathy and a meta-analysis finding that empathy training improved empathy [ 17 , 29 , 30 ]. This study corroborates earlier primary research findings suggesting that empathy training ought to incorporate real-life experiences via imagination and simulations, with a focus on understanding the unobservable mental processes of others [ 31 ].

Based on a meta-regression analysis evaluating empathy [ 17 ], the factors influencing improvements in empathy are discussed below. Initially, upon scrutinizing the content of recent simulations (since 2019), they delineate as follows: Publication years after 2019 had a more significant impact on empathy than publication years before 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced prelicensure nursing education, resulting in extensive disruptions that potentially affect the learning and engagement outcomes of nursing students [ 31 ]. These results reflect the diversification and sophistication of simulation education. This is because, reportedly, nursing schools in Korea have been educating and evaluating core nursing skills designated by the Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education as curricular and extracurricular programs to improve the clinical performance of nursing students, with an increasing number of simulation classes based on clinical scenarios similar to the clinical environment since the 2000s [ 32 ]. Since 2019, simulations have been conducted systematically and actively. Thus, the impact on empathy was significantly greater after 2019.

The causes of heterogeneity in characteristics are as follows: The effect on empathy was notably stronger with IRB approval, implying that undergoing an IRB review may signal a scientifically and ethically robust study design. Ensuring scientifically sound design and impact evaluation is crucial, even with the same program. Concerning study design, empathy’s impact was more pronounced in quasi-experimental studies compared to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Rigorous designs, as seen in certain RCTs with multiple controls, might lead to conservative estimates of simulation effects on empathy due to tight control. Conversely, quasi-experimental studies conducted in natural learning environments suggest empathy impacts may stem from factors beyond simulation. However, further validation through research is needed. Moreover, empathy’s impact was significantly higher with 60 or more participants, likely due to increased effect power. Hence, repeated studies with sufficient participant numbers are essential for evaluating empathy improvements.

By program type, scenario-based simulations had a more significant impact on empathy than role-playing, which is in line with a previous study suggesting that role-play is usually based on a simple situation [ 33 ]. By contrast, the simulation was based on a structured scenario that allowed participants to indirectly experience the care recipient’s condition, thereby matching another person’s mind with their mental state. Moreover, role-playing has been found to contribute to empathy, as reported in a previous study in which nursing students’ critical thinking and emotional intelligence increased significantly after learning digital storytelling problem-based learning through role-playing, and a case study containing the care recipient’s disease experience and overall clinical situation [ 34 ]. More elaborate settings, assumptions, and preparations for the situation are needed to enable students to experience what being in the situation feels like rather than merely playing a role, which is expected to allow students to be more immersed cognitively and emotionally engaged with the target situation.

The intervention duration was significantly longer for four weeks or more than four weeks than for non-reported or less than four weeks, suggesting that the intervention should be at least four weeks in line with the idea that empathy is formed through continuous and steady learning [ 1 ]. This finding indicates that empathy cannot be improved through a short period of experience or training. Instead, empathy, as a process of integrating experiences and existing perceptions, is formed over time.

Other variables whose effects on empathy were not statistically significant were as follows: There were no significant differences in the time per intervention session, whether the outcome measurement time was immediate or delayed, outcome follow-up, prebriefing, debriefing, or quality score. In typical simulation training, prebriefing and debriefing are considered essential and reflective. Nevertheless, this study found no significant effect of pre-or debriefing on empathy, suggesting that the simulation context in which empathy is provided is essential, considering the nature of empathy. However, further studies on this topic are required. Furthermore, in this study, empathy was assessed using a variety of measurement tools. We also recommend that future analyses take into account the specific measurement tools employed.

The findings of this study affirm that simulation-based education, when employed across diverse clinical contexts such as women’s health, operating room scenarios, psychiatric nursing, and geriatric nursing, constitutes a fundamental approach for fostering empathy among nursing students. Among the myriad approaches aimed at enhancing empathy among medical students, the implementation of “patient simulation”—involving students in a curriculum that mirrors real patient encounters—has been noted as effective [ 35 ]. Furthermore, previous studies examining the relationship between proficiency and person-centered care competence have consistently demonstrated a positive correlation between empathy and competence in delivering person-centered care [ 36 , 37 ].

In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of research exploring the impact of simulation-based education on empathy. Our findings indicate that simulation-based training across diverse scenarios can indeed enhance empathy levels. Specifically, focusing on immersive simulations conducted for a minimum duration of four weeks, spanning a range of authentic clinical contexts, proved to be particularly effective. Moreover, our study underscores the holistic nature of empathy, revealing its interconnectedness with other nursing competencies. As such, further research in this domain is warranted to deepen our understanding and refine instructional methodologies.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Study Design

Randomized Controlled Trials

Research Information Sharing Service

Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

Medical Subject Headings

Joanna Briggs Institute

Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Health Profession-Student

Shin HJ, Cho MO. Influence of critical thinking disposition and empathy ability on self- leadership of nursing students. J Korean Assn Learn Cent Curric Instr. 2023;23(2):115–27. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2023.23.2.115 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Hatfield E, Rapson R. Emotional contagion and empathy. In: The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. 2009. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0003 .

Hojat M, Louis DZ, Markham FW, Wender R, Rabinowitz C, Gonnella JS. Physicians’ empathy and clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):359–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3182086fe1 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Menendez ME, Chen NC, Mudgal CS, Jupiter JB, Ring D. Physician empathy as a driver of hand surgery patient satisfaction. J Hand Surg Am (Am Ed). 2015;40(9):1860–e51862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.06.105 .

Nunes P, Williams S, Sa B, Stevenson K. A study of empathy decline in students from five health disciplines during their first year of training. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:12–7. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4d47.ddb0 .

Ferri P, Guerra E, Marcheselli L, Cunico L, Di Lorenzo R. Empathy and burnout: an analytic cross-sectional study among nurses and nursing students. Acta Biomed. 2015;86(Supplemento 2):104–15.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ryu HR, Bang KS. A validation study of the Korean version of the Jefferson empathy scale for health professionals for Korean nurses. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2016;46(2):207–14. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2016.46.2.207 .

Ozcan CT, Oflaz F, Sutcu Cicek H. Empathy: the effects of undergraduate nursing education in Turkey. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57(4):493–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00832.x .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Williams B, Brown T, Boyle M, McKenna L, Palermo C, Etherington J, Williams B, Brown T, Boyle M, McKenna L, Palermo C, Etherington J. Levels of empathy in undergraduate emergency health, nursing, and midwifery students: a longitudinal study. Adv Medical Educ Pract. 2014;5:299–306. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S66681 .

Williams B, Brown T, McKenna L, Boyle MJ, Palermo C, Nestel D, Brightwell R, McCall L, Russo V. Empathy levels among health professional students: a cross-sectional study at two universities in Australia. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014;5:107–13. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S5756 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Roger D, Hudson C. The role of emotion control and emotional rumination in stress management training. Int J Stress Manag. 1995;2:119–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01740298 .

Bas-Sarmiento P, Fernández-Gutiérrez M, Baena-Baños M, Correro-Bermejo A, Soler-Martins PS, de la Torre-Moyano S. Empathy training in health sciences: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102739 . Article Unsp 102739.

Harris KB, McCarty D, Wilson JA, Nealy KL, Waghel R, Coleman M, Battise D, Boland C. The use of a disease state simulation assignment increased students’ empathy and comfort with diabetes nutrition counseling. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018;10(9):1272–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.06.017 .

Bearman M, Palermo C, Allen LM, Williams B. Learning empathy through simulation: a systematic literature review. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(5):308–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000113 .

Eost-Telling C, Kingston P, Taylor L, Emmerson L. Ageing simulation in health and social care education: a mixed methods systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(1):23–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14577 .

Brunero S, Cowan D, Chaniang S, Lamont S. Empathy education in post-graduate nurses: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;112:105338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105338 .

Bearman M, et al. Learning empathy through simulation: a systematic literature review. Simul Healthc. 2015;105:308–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000113 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA group preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J. 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 .

JBI. 2020 ( https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools accessed on 16 May 2023).

Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, Klugar M, Tufanaru C, Leonardi-Bee J, Aromataris E, Munn Z. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):494506. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00430 .

Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global ( https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools accessed on 16 May 2023).

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley; 2009.

Book   Google Scholar  

Sterne JA, Egger M, Moher D. Addressing Reporting Biases. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: 2nd ed. Higgins JP, Green S. Eds.; Version 5.1.0 (Updated March 2011); The Cochrane Collaboration: London, UK. 2011.

Pilcher J, et al. Simulation-based learning: it’s not just for NRP. Neonatal Netw. 2012;31(5):281–8. https://doi.org/10.1891/0730-0832.31.5.281 .

Brydges CR. Effect size guidelines, sample size calculations, and statistical power in gerontology. Innov Aging. 2019;3(4):igz036.

Bown MJ, Sutton AJ. Quality control in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40(5):669–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.07.011 .

Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56:455–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x .

Jeong JO, Kim S. The effect of an empathy education program on nursing students’ empathy ability, interpersonal ability, and caring. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2019;25(3):344–56. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2019.25.3.344 .

Levett-Jones T, Cant R, Lapkin S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of empathy education for undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;75:80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.01.006 .

Patel S, Pelletier-Bui A, Smith S, Roberts MB, Kilgannon H, Trzeciak S, Roberts BW. Curricula for empathy and compassion training in medical education: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0221412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221412 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yeo H. Predictors of empathy for nursing students. J Korea Acad-Indust coop Soc. 2017;18(1):177–84. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.1.177 .

Martin B, Kaminski-Ozturk N, O’Hara C, Smiley R. Examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on burnout and stress among U.S. nurses. J Nurs Regul. 2023;14(1):4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(23)00063-7 .

Kim SY. The effect of subjective happiness, ethical sensitivity, Empathy ability on personality in nursing students. J Digit Converg. 2022;4737–45. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2022.20.4.737 .

Kim KM. Effects of grit, empathy, and awareness of the nursing profession on clinical performance of nursing students. J Korean Assn Learn Cent Curric. 2022;22(16):47–58. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2022.22.16.47 .

Chang HK, Do YJ. Problem-based learning using digital storytelling: examining intelligence, critical thinking disposition, clinical competence, and metacognition. J Korean Assn Learn Cent Curric. 2021;21(8):853–66. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2021.21.8.853 .

Chen JT, LaLopa J, Dang DK. Impact of patient empathy modeling on pharmacy students caring for the underserved. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(2):40. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj720240 .

Park E, Choi J. Attributes associated with person-centered care competence among undergraduate nursing students. Res Nurs Health. 2020;43(5):511–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22062 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIT) (No. 2022R1F1A1076248).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nursing Science, Chungbuk National University, 1 Chungdae-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju, Korea

Mi-Kyoung Cho

College of Nursing, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, South Korea

Mi Young Kim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.‑K.C. and M.Y.K.; data curation, M.‑K.C.; formal analysis, M.‑K.C.; investigation, M.Y.K.; methodology, M.‑K.C. and M.Y.K.; writing—M.‑K.C. and M.Y.K. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mi Young Kim .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable. This paper constitutes a literature review and does not involve human subjects; therefore, it is exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cho, MK., Kim, M.Y. Effectiveness of simulation-based interventions on empathy enhancement among nursing students: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Nurs 23 , 319 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01944-7

Download citation

Received : 21 January 2024

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 11 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01944-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Simulation-based interventions
• Nursing students
• meta-analysis

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]