teaching literature review

Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library

View All Hours | My Library Accounts

Research and Find Materials

Technology and Spaces

Archives and Special Collections

Teaching and Learning Research Guide

• Children's & YA Literature
• Conduct a Literature Review
• Keep Current
• Citation Style Guides & Management Tools This link opens in a new window

Literature Review Overview

A literature review involves both the literature searching and the writing. The purpose of the literature search is to:

• reveal existing knowledge
• identify areas of consensus and debate
• identify gaps in knowledge
• identify approaches to research design and methodology
• identify other researchers with similar interests
• clarify your future directions for research

List above from Conducting A Literature Search , Information Research Methods and Systems, Penn State University Libraries

A literature review provides an evaluative review and documentation of what has been published by scholars and researchers on a given topic. In reviewing the published literature, the aim is to explain what ideas and knowledge have been gained and shared to date (i.e., hypotheses tested, scientific methods used, results and conclusions), the weakness and strengths of these previous works, and to identify remaining research questions: A literature review provides the context for your research, making clear why your topic deserves further investigation.

Before You Search

• Select and understand your research topic and question.
• Identify the major concepts in your topic and question.
• Brainstorm potential keywords/terms that correspond to those concepts.
• Identify alternative keywords/terms (narrower, broader, or related) to use if your first set of keywords do not work.
• Determine (Boolean*) relationships between terms.
• Begin your search.
• Review your search results.
• Revise & refine your search based on the initial findings.

*Boolean logic provides three ways search terms/phrases can be combined, using the following three operators: AND, OR, and NOT.

Search Process

The type of information you want to find and the practices of your discipline(s) drive the types of sources you seek and where you search.

For most research you will use multiple source types such as: annotated bibliographies; articles from journals, magazines, and newspapers; books; blogs; conference papers; data sets; dissertations; organization, company, or government reports; reference materials; systematic reviews; archival materials; curriculum materials; and more. It can be helpful to develop a comprehensive approach to review different sources and where you will search for each. Below is an example approach.

Utilize Current Awareness Services  Identify and browse current issues of the most relevant journals for your topic; Setup email or RSS Alerts, e.g., Journal Table of Contents, Saved Searches

Consult Experts   Identify and search for the publications of or contact educators, scholars, librarians, employees etc. at schools, organizations, and agencies

• Annual Reviews and Bibliographies   e.g., Annual Review of Psychology
• Internet   e.g., Discussion Groups, Listservs, Blogs, social networking sites
• Grant Databases   e.g., Foundation Directory Online, Grants.gov
• Conference Proceedings   e.g., American Educational Research Association Online Paper Repository
• Newspaper Indexes   e.g., Access World News, Ethnic NewsWatch, New York Times Historical
• Be sure to follow the tips in the "Finding Empirical Studies" box on the right side of the page if you need to find an empirical study.
• Citation Indexes   e.g., ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Educational Administration Abstracts, PsycINFO
• Specialized Data   e.g., GEMS ( Growth and Enhancement of Montana Students) , IPEDS ( Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System)
• Book Catalogs – e.g., local library catalog or discovery search, WorldCat
• Library Web Scale Discovery Service  e.g., OneSearch
• Web Search Engines   e.g., Google, Yahoo
• Digital Collections   e.g., Archives & Special Collections Digital Collections, Digital Public Library of America
• Associations/Community groups/Institutions/Organizations   e.g., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Montana Office of Public Instruction, National Education Association

Remember there is no one portal for all information!

Database Searching Videos, Guides, and Examples

ProQuest (platform for ERIC, PsycINFO, and Dissertations & Theses Global databases, among other databases) search videos:

• Basic Search
• Advanced Search
• Search Results

ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)

• Comprehensive guide to the database, including Sample Searches
• Searchable Fields
• Comprehensive guide to the database
• Education topic guide
• Child Development topic guide
• Performing Basic Searches
• Performing Advanced Searches
• Search Tips

If you are new to research , check out the Searching for Information tutorials and videos for foundational information.

Finding Empirical Studies

In ERIC : Check the box next to “143: Reports - Research” under "Document type" from the Advanced Search page

In PsycINFO : Check the box next to “Empirical Study” under "Methodology" from the Advanced Search page

In OneSearch : There is not a specific way to limit to empirical studies in OneSearch, you can limit your search results to peer-reviewed journals and or dissertations, and then identify studies by reading the source abstract to determine if you’ve found an empirical study or not.

Summarize Studies in a Meaningful Way

The Writing and Public Speaking Center at UM provides not only tutoring but many other resources for writers and presenters. Three with key tips for writing a literature review are:

• Literature Reviews Defined
• Tracking, Organizing, and Using Sources
• Organizing and Integrating Sources

If you are new to research , check out the Presenting and Organizing Information tutorials and videos for foundational information. You may also want to consult the Purdue OWL Academic Writing resources or APA Style Workshop content.

• << Previous: Children's & YA Literature
• Next: Keep Current >>
• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 1:47 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.umt.edu/teach

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• 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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Teaching Literature Reviews

Here we provide recommendations on how to teach literature reviews to both undergraduate and graduate students, drawing from various sources and articles on what literature reviews are and how students can write them (included at the end for you to review as further reading). Literature reviews, like all kinds of writing, are best taught in their specific disciplinary contexts, although there are some overall principles about them that we focus on below.

First , some important questions to keep in mind as you think about literature reviews in your courses:

• Why are you assigning literature reviews? Think about your   learning outcomes . What do you want students to be able to do by the end of the course, and how does a literature review fit in? Does it need to be a formal “literature review” for the kinds of thinking and engagement you want students to demonstrate?
• How much   prior experience   does your class have with literature reviews? Where else in their education might they have learned about it? (This can also be a great survey to send out to students, or a conversation to have with the full class)
• What   kind   of literature review are you working with—a   stand-alone literature review   as an assignment, or a literature review   nestled within a larger paper ? There are some nuances between these types, and it can be helpful for you as the instructor to determine what it is you want students to do and demonstrate in the assignment as well as learn more about their prior knowledge of it.

Next , here are some recommendations we have for you to keep in mind as you teach and discuss literature reviews with your   undergraduate students .

1. Discuss what a literature review is . A literature review is a synthesis and critical analysis of a body of research related to a particular topic or question. It can be stand-alone or part of a larger body of work, like a research paper. It consists of multiple voices from a body of scholarship and discusses them together. Helping students realize this and how it differs from plain summary is an important and productive place to start.

2. Explain the purpose of literature reviews . In academic contexts, we write literature reviews for specific reasons, including to:

• Generate new insights about how a particular topic is currently and has been previously understood by the existing literature
• Provide context for a new study, research, report or grant
• Provide justification for the new study, research, or grant

All writing is writing in particular; that is, we write things (including literature reviews) for specific purposes and to respond to specific needs. Helping students learn about why they and others write literature reviews in your specific context is thus beneficial to explicitly discuss.

3. Break up and teach the different parts of a literature review . For literature reviews that are part of a larger study, there are typically three major parts to them:

• Big picture problem being explored
• What has been said on the subject
• Author’s goals and intervention

Students could benefit from learning about working on each part separately, perhaps first understanding and thinking about what their big picture problem is before focusing on what it is they want to be able to do. It’s easy for the different parts of the literature review to blend together into one unit, but it can be helpful for students to conceptually think about each part and section.

4. Scaffold the literature review into manageable steps, or “chunks.”   This recommendation directly builds from the last one. We know from the research on learning theory that students learn best when learning smaller pieces of a whole that further connect (Ambrose et al., 2011). To that end, students benefit from working on smaller pieces of a literature review across time. One assignment earlier on in the semester might be asking students to identify sources and determine who exactly is in conversation with one another on a given topic. A follow-up assignment could be asking students to write two paragraphs showing how the sources are writing about the same theme and building from (or diverging from) each other. Then, they could write more directly about how it is they want to intervene. For an example of this kind of smaller-step assignment, see the   reverse genealogy assignment   from one of our Faculty Writing Fellows Kate de Medeiros or insight on   how to introduce students to research   from Faculty Writing Fellow Elizabeth Hoover.

5. Help students create a reading matrix . A crucial part of writing literature reviews is reading a large amount of scholarship. As part of your scaffolding efforts, consider asking students to keep a running matrix about readings that includes information like main argument or hypothesis, method(ology), and themes; the organization of a matrix can help students distill and keep track of important information pertinent to a review of the literature. For examples, see ideas from   this article using Excel   or the sample chart in   this resource on literature reviews .

6. Conduct a literature review genre analysis in class . Especially for students brand new to the idea of a literature review, it can be extremely helpful to walk them through multiple student examples (at least 3, preferably more like 4 or 5) where you ask students to identify patterns they see across the examples. We know from the research that students learn better if they can see something for themselves rather than being told something, so consider asking your students to look at examples of literature reviews and answer the following questions about them:

• What conditions call for the genre? (why do we write it?)
• What sort of content is typically contained in this genre? (what is here?)
• What form does this genre take? (what does it look like?)
• What makes this genre what it is? (and what is not here?)

Students can then discuss together as a whole group and compare what they’ve said for each answer, building their knowledge of literature reviews together.

7. Contrast synthesis and summary skills . Learning the difference between summarizing and synthesizing is a notable challenge for students learning how to write literature reviews. Building from the previous suggestion, it could be helpful to have students look at examples of summary and synthesis and explicate the difference between the two, and then write out perhaps a concrete list of things one does when synthesizing that doesn’t appear in summary (and vice versa). This could be a quick class activity or a homework assignment.

8. Encourage revision . Revision is a key part of any writing task but especially when writing literature reviews tied to larger projects. It may take a few times to get right, and many of us in our own scholarly work often go back and add to/revise literature reviews as we write. Consider asking students to revisit their literature review at a later stage of the writing process, after they’ve completed a full draft and have moved on to other stages of writing (for larger projects).

Additional recommendations for teaching literature reviews to graduate students

We also wanted to provide some recommendations specifically for teaching literature reviews to   graduate students , who often interact with scholarship in different ways than undergraduate students. Literature reviews look different for students at the graduate-level, who are entering more specialized, academic conversations and often work on larger projects that require more engagement with research and scholarly conversations. The following recommendations are made with that specific context in mind.

1. Help students think about the scope . Is this literature review just for one course/project, or might they use this review as a starting point for a larger project like a thesis or dissertation? Does this literature end in the course/lab, or can it live and extend elsewhere? Graduate students experience these longer-form types of writing for the first time, so they need extra support determining scope, including how much literature to cover in a review and what needs to be there now and what can be added later.

2. Frame literature reviews as scholarly conversations . Drawing from threshold concepts of writing (Adler-Kassner and Wardle, 2015) as well as work from Kamler and Thomson (2014), doctoral writing is a social practice that engages in conversation with many scholars. Kamler and Thomson propose pitching literature reviews as hosting a dinner party and inviting selected literatures/scholars, noting that one can't invite everyone and that they carve their own territory in who to invite and what to cover. There’s an important nuance between being too quiet as the host where the guests do all the talking as well and overpowering the guests and not giving them a chance to explain themselves. Helping students conceive of literature reviews in these ways can be a helpful way for them to cross some important thresholds in their thinking.

3. Encourage experimentation with citation software . At the graduate level, students read a lot of research that can be useful to them later and keeping it organized is essential to alter writing about it. Encourage students to try many of the citation softwares available to them, such as Zotero and Mendeley.

4. Play around with concept mapping . We know from the research on graduate education that conceptual frameworks (which are connected to literature reviews) are a threshold concept for graduate students (Kiley & Wisker, 2009), meaning it’s something they will struggle with and that takes time and acclimation. Concept mapping is one proposed way to help students visually see and connect the ideas and theories they are studying to see how they come together to inform their own work. You can read   this article for ideas about mindmapping software , or check out   Lucidchart   for a free account.

5. Incentivise the thinking process . Writing literature reviews and developing conceptual frameworks for understanding graduate research takes a lot of time and thinking that can often be and feel invisible to graduate learners. Much of the learning that occurs when writing these documents happens off the page, so it could be helpful to assign thought process-type assignments that encourage students to reflect on the current state of their thinking and how they see ideas blending together. This could be paired with assigning mindmaps, as well as reading matrices, to help students see the fuller-picture.

6. Break down your own process . Especially when working with master’s or doctoral students who seek to write academic publications or pursue a career in academia, it can be helpful for them to learn from their mentors and instructors their own processes and struggles when working on literature reviews (and other genres). Students appreciate seeing the “curtain pulled back,” so to speak, and could benefit from their instructor working through how they work through literature reviews in their own work, and from perhaps seeing some of the messier, less-polished parts that we noted above is a very important part of the process.

Resources/Further Reading

For students on how to approach literature reviews:

• “ Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper ” from University of Southern California Libraries
• “ Literature Reviews ” from the Howe Writing Center
• “ Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix ” from Florida International University Writing & Speaking Tutorial Services
• “ Literature Review: A Self-Guided Tutorial ” from Williams College Libraries
• Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A Systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research.   Informing Science Journal , 9, 181-212.

For faculty on teaching literature reviews:

• Ambrose, S. Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works:   Seven research-based principles for smart teaching . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Casanave, C., & Li, Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing dissertations and papers for publication.   Publications , 3, 104–119.
• Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write:   Pedagogies for supervision . London, UK: Routledge.
• Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing.   Higher Education Research and Development , 28(4), 431–441.
• Pickering, C., Grignon, J., Steven, R., Guitart, D., & Byrne, J. (2015). Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews.   Studies in Higher Education , 40(10), 1756–1769.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914907 .

Howe Writing Across the Curriculum Programs

The mission of the Howe Writing Across the Curriculum Programs is to ensure that all Miami faculty and graduate teaching assistants can effectively include writing as a means to support learning in their courses and programs.

Popular Destinations

• Faculty Writing Fellows
• University Libraries
• Academic Integrity

151 S. Campus Ave King Library Oxford, OH 45056 [email protected] 513-529-6100

2022 Writing Program Certificate of Excellence

2022 Exemplary Enduring WAC Program

501 E. High Street Oxford, OH 45056

• Online: Miami Online
• Main Operator 513-529-1809
• Office of Admission 513-529-2531
• Vine Hotline 513-529-6400
• Emergency Info https://miamioh.edu/emergency

1601 University Blvd. Hamilton, OH 45011

• Online: E-Campus
• Main Operator 513-785-3000
• Office of Admission 513-785-3111
• Campus Status Line 513-785-3077
• Emergency Info https://miamioh.edu/regionals/emergency

4200 N. University Blvd. Middletown, OH 45042

• Main Operator 513-727-3200
• Office of Admission 513-727-3216
• Campus Status 513-727-3477

7847 VOA Park Dr. (Corner of VOA Park Dr. and Cox Rd.) West Chester, OH 45069

• Main Operator 513-895-8862
• From Middletown 513-217-8862

Chateau de Differdange 1, Impasse du Chateau, L-4524 Differdange Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

• Main Operator 011-352-582222-1
• Email [email protected]
• Website https://miamioh.edu/luxembourg

217-222 MacMillan Hall 501 E. Spring St. Oxford, OH 45056, USA

• Main Operator 513-529-8600

Initiatives

• Miami THRIVE Strategic Plan
• Miami Rise Strategic Plan
• Boldly Creative
• Annual Report
• Moon Shot for Equity
• Miami and Ohio
• Majors, Minors, and Programs
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Employment Opportunities
• University Safety and Security
• Parking, Directions, and Maps
• Equal Opportunity
• Consumer Information
• Land Acknowledgement
• Privacy Statement
• Title IX Statement
• Report an Accessibility Issue
• Annual Security and Fire Safety Report
• Report a Problem with this Website
• Policy Library

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

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.

Literature Reviews

• Introduction
• Tutorials and resources
• Step 1: Literature search
• Step 2: Analysis, synthesis, critique
• Step 3: Writing the review

If you need any assistance, please contact the library staff at the Georgia Tech Library Help website . 

Literature review tutorials

There are many helpful Literature Review video tutorials online. Here is an excellent, succinct (10 min) introduction to how to succeed at a literature review:

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students from NC State University Libraries on Vimeo .

For a longer, high quality in-depth look at how literature reviews come together, see this set of  literature review tutorials  from RMIT University.

Literature review resources

We recommend these resources for more information.

This literature review tutorial is from SAGE Research Methods, which has additional resources for learning about literature reviews.

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Step 1: Literature search >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 11:21 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.gatech.edu/litreview

Learning and Teaching: Literature Review

• Course Texts
• Action Research
• TESOL, Literacy, and Culture

Literature Review

• Citation Resources
• Award-Winning Book Lists This link opens in a new window
• Publishing Your Work This link opens in a new window
• Remote Access Guide This link opens in a new window

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

1. Definition

Not to be confused with a book review, a literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

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

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

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

In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:

• Provenance—What are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
• Objectivity—Is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness—Which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.

All of the above information was obtained from UC Santa Cruz University Library http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/write-a-literature-review

Selected LitReview Resources at Copley

• << Previous: TESOL, Literacy, and Culture
• Next: Citation Resources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 8, 2023 2:34 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sandiego.edu/educ

• The Chicago School
• The Chicago School Library
• Research Guides

Conducting a Literature Review

• Introduction

What is a Literature Review?

Goals of the literature review, types of literature reviews, recommended reading.

• Planning Your Literature Review
• Choose Keywords
• Decide where to search
• Formulate Your Search Strategy
• Utilize Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• Using Ai for Searching the Literature
• Evaluate, Synthesize & Analyze the Literature
• Write a Literature Review

A literature review surveys, summarizes, critically analyzes, compares, and synthesizes multiple scholarly works, or published knowledge on a particular topic or specific subject area.

Literature can include peer-reviewed or scholarly  articles, books/ ebooks, conference proceedings, theses/ dissertations, documents published by governmental agencies and non-profit organizations, and other forms of gray literature.

Conducting a literature review is part of the research process and serves to establish a base of knowledge and overview of the principal works on a specific area of research as well as identify important themes, discoveries, areas of consensus and debate, changes over time, and provide a foundation for further research.

A literature review may be written to:

•     Synthesize past and current literature on a topic
•     Identify a problem in a field of research  
•     Show how the literature relates to one another
•     Place your work in the the context of other related research

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

•     A thesis or dissertation
•     A grant proposal
•     A research paper assigned in a course 
•     An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

The following are common types of literature reviews:

Narrative or Traditional Review

The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

Systematic Review

The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find.

Meta-analysis

This type of review utilizes quantitative methods to combine the results of independent studies and synthesize summaries and conclusions which can be used to evaluate therapeutic effectiveness, plan new studies, etc.

Meta-synthesis

A meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic.

Further Reading on Different Types of Literature Reviews

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods . Systematic Reviews, 1, 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

The library has a number of books on conducting and writing literature reviews. The following are some recommended ebooks available in the library:

Books on Conducting Systematic Literature Reviews:

• Next: Planning Your Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 9:03 AM
• URL: https://library.thechicagoschool.edu/litreview

• Schools & departments

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff, including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

• summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
• identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
• highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

This article was published on 2024-02-26

• Library Search
• View Library Account
• The Claremont Colleges Library
• Research Guides
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Getting Started With Research
• Finding Scholarly Articles
• Finding Books & Papers
• Finding Education Data & Testing Resources

What is a Literature Review?

Basics of a literature review, types of literature reviews.

• Citing Your Information (Attribution)

A Literature Review is a systematic and comprehensive analysis of books, scholarly articles and other sources relevant to a specific topic providing a base of knowledge on a topic. Literature reviews are designed to identify and critique the existing literature on a topic to justify your research by exposing gaps in current research .  This investigation should provide a description, summary, and critical evaluation of works related to the research problem and should also add to the overall knowledge of the topic as well as demonstrating how your research will fit within a larger field of study.  A literature review should offer critical analysis of the current research on a topic and that analysis should direct your research objective. This should not be confused with a book review or an annotated bibliography both research tools but very different in purpose and scope.  A Literature Review can be a stand alone element or part of a larger end product, know your assignment.  Key to a good Literature Review is to document your process. For more information see:

Planning a Literature Review .

There are many different ways to organize your references in a literature review, but most reviews contain certain basic elements.

• Objective of the literature review - Clearly describe the purpose of the paper and state your objectives in completing the literature review.
•   Overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration – Give an overview of your research topic and what prompted it.
• Categorization of sources – Grouping your research either historic, chronologically or thematically
• Organization of Subtopics – Subtopics should be grouped and presented in a logical order starting with the most prominent or significant and moving to the least significant
• Discussion – Provide analysis of both the uniqueness of each source and its similarities with other source
• Conclusion   - Summary of your analysis and evaluation of the reviewed works and how it is related to its parent discipline, scientific endeavor or profession

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

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

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

• << Previous: Finding Education Data & Testing Resources
• Next: Citing Your Information (Attribution) >>
• : Aug 31, 2023 2:11 PM
• URL: https://libguides.libraries.claremont.edu/education

Teaching the literature review: A practical approach for college instructors

• Jonathan Cisco University of Missouri

Instructors across the disciplines require their students to write literature reviews. Although numerous sources describe the literature review process, instructors and students face difficulty when approaching the structure of a literature review. This paper presents a straightforward, efficient approach for teaching students how to write a literature review. Developed over the course of three years at a university writing center, this lesson received substantial support from students across the disciplines. This paper reflects on one group of students’ experiences while writing literature reviews in a political science course, showing that students demonstrated a sense of confidence and direction after the lesson. University professors, writing center staff, and content-discipline instructors in higher education classrooms can alleviate their students’ anxiety about literature reviews by using this lesson in their classrooms.

Author Biography

Jonathan cisco, university of missouri.

Birkenstein, C., & Graff, G. (2008). Point of view: In teaching composition, ‘Formulaic’ is not a four-letter word. Style, 42(1), 18-21.

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to- one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.

Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Feak, C. B., & Swales, John. M. (2009). Telling a research story: writing a literature review. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Fullmer, P. (2012). Assessment of tutoring laboratories in a learning assistance center. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(2), 67-89.

Galvan, J. L. (1999). Writing literature reviews: a guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak.

Garrard, J. (2011). Health sciences literature review made easy: the matrix method (3rd ed.). Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, N.J.: Aldine Transaction.

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2006). They say, I say. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Grogan, J. (2011). The appreciative tutor. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), 80-88.

Gruenbaum, E. (2012). Common literacy struggles with college students: Using the reciprocal teaching technique. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(2), 110-116.

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2009). The literature review: six steps to success. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Melles, G. (2005). Familiarizing postgraduate ESL students with the literature review in a WAC/EAP engineering classroom. Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning, and Academic Writing, 2, 14.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Pan, M. L. (2008). Preparing literature reviews: qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

Poe, R. E. (1990). A strategy for improving literature reviews in psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 17, 54-55.

Reinheimer, D., & McKenzie, K. (2011). The impact of tutoring on the academic success of undeclared students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 22-36.

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: Sage.

Riley, P. (1997). Literature reviews: obtaining perspective. Classroom Teachers and Classroom Research, 4, 49-54.

Rocco, T S., & Hatcher, T. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–60.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and research. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 5-16.

Zorn, T., & Campbell, N. (2006). Improving the writing of literature review through a literature integration exercise. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(2), 172-183.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

OJS hosted by the University of Calgary .

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: Feb 20, 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

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Resources

• SoTL Research Methodology

What is a Literature Review?

Selected titles on literature reviews, what is a systematic review, how do slrs differ from traditional literature reviews, how can librarians help with slrs, selected library resources, acknowledgements.

• Find Articles
• Find Journals
• Find Assessments
• Drawing Conclusions from the Data
• Professional Organizations and Conferences
• UC Resources & Contacts

SoTL inquiries, like any scholarship, require substantive engagement with related theoretical and empirical literature. This literature plays an important role in shaping research questions and study design. Later, this literature can also be helpful for interpreting results.

SoTL literature reviews often draw from several bodies of knowledge, including those related to a) the project’s central issue or question, b) the academic discipline, and c) teaching and learning more generally. Because of this, SoTL inquiries often take scholars into unfamiliar territory. This page offers a general overview of literature reviews, while the Find Articles , Find Journal s, and Find Books section of the research guide provide guidance for locating literature relevant to SoTL.

A systematic literature review (SLRs; also known as systematic review or as systematic overview, evidence summary, integrative review, or research synthesis) is a summary of the research literature that is focused on a single question.

The systematic review process has been developed to minimize bias and ensure transparency . Methods should be adequately documented so that they can be replicated .

Key components of a systematic review include :

• systematic and extensive searches to identify all the relevant published and unpublished literature
• study selection according to predefined eligibility criteria
• assessment of the risk of bias for included studies
• presentation of the findings in an independent and impartial manner
• discussion of the limitations of the evidence and of the review.

With traditional literature reviews (also known as narrative reviews or critical reviews), the goal is to discover what's already known about a topic and perhaps to identify areas where gaps in the research exist, which can lead to new studies in order to further the state of knowledge on the topic.

Traditional literature reviews rarely contain a comprehensive list of documents on a topic. The findings of literature reviews may be biased due to incomplete literature searching and/or to selective inclusion of documents in order to support an author's opinion.

SLRs, however, are frequently conducted in order to create or revise policy or to make a decision, and therefore an attempt is made to identify and assess all relevant literature on a topic, so that any action(s) taken will be based on the best available evidence.

Librarians can

• recommend subscription research databases and sources for grey literature.
• identify subject matter experts whom researchers could contact to learn about any in-progress research
• help develop or provide feedback on researchers' search strategies,including appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria
• provide training on bibliographic management systems (e.g., RefWorks)ffor storing and organizing citations de-duping research results
• assist researchers in setting up publication alerts or in conducting cited reference searching to find other documents on a topic
• help researchers with "snowball searching," in which a given document's reference list is used to identify other relevant documents.

Contact your subject librarian .

• Systematic Reviews (e-journal)

The following resources were used for this page:

Keeping Up With... Systematic Literature Reviews

Systematic Reviews: the process (Duke University)

Writing a Literature or Systematic review: A guide to writing a Systematic review (Australian Catholic University)

• << Previous: SoTL Research Methodology
• Next: Find Articles >>
• Last Updated: Mar 11, 2024 11:55 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/SoTL

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

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
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• 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 2693 views this year
• Keyword Searching: Finding Articles on Your Topic by Lynn VanLeer Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 14262 views this year
• Google Scholar by Jon Allinder Last Updated Aug 16, 2023 8866 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 307 views this year
• Tests & Measures in Education by Kimberly Burton Last Updated Nov 18, 2021 17 views this year
• Education Statistics by Jon Allinder Last Updated Feb 22, 2022 20 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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Teaching the literature review: A practical approach for college instructors

2014, Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal

Instructors across the disciplines require their students to write literature reviews. Although numerous sources describe the literature review process, instructors and students face difficulty when approaching the structure of a literature review. This paper presents a straightforward, efficient approach for teaching students how to write a literature review. Developed over the course of three years at a University Writing Center, this lesson received substantial support from students across the disciplines. This paper reflects on one group of students’ experiences while writing literature reviews in a political science course, showing that students demonstrated a sense of confidence and direction after the lesson. University professors, writing center staff, and content-discipline instructors in higher education classrooms can alleviate their students’ anxiety about literature reviews by using this lesson in their classrooms.

Related Papers

Sarah Quinton

Abstract Writing a literature review yields many academic benefits. It is an appropriate route for management students to learn academic skills, such as how to search databases and to search off line, and to improve practical and theoretical knowledge. It enables theory development unimpeded by the practical obstacles of gaining access to people and organisations to collect data. It requires the development of expertise in research methods, numeracy, attention to detail, and in the analysis and interpretation of data.

PS: Political Science & Politics

Rachid Benkaddour

Paul Wiseman

This paper presents a framework which supports undergraduate students undertaking a literature review and has been used to good effect over the last three years. The framework divides the task of writing a literature review into seven steps which if followed will guide the student through the process; a task that many undergraduate students find challenging and stressful. By providing this support the framework also alleviates the demands upon the project supervisor and reduces tutorial fatigue.

QUEST JOURNALS

Literature review and writing form the basis of research to which it is indispensable. Its systematic process however, remains mysterious, complex and problematic especially to postgraduate students most of whom undertake research for the first time at graduate level. This paper explored the challenges, strengths and mysteries with which literature review and writing was undertaken by graduate students at both master's and Doctoral levels. The paper used primary sources to gather data from graduate students' theses and proposals. Data from those sources revealed how literature review and writing showed different patterns depending on the nature of the research, and the specific objectives of the study. Similarly, different approaches were found to be suitable to different research contexts and methods. The challenges in writing and reviewing literature mainly springs from the failure to clearly define the research problem which propels clarity in the presentation of literature.

Alfi Rahman

This Study Guide explains why literature reviews are needed, and how they can be conducted and reported. Related Study Guides are: Referencing and bibliographies, Avoiding plagiarism, Writing a dissertation, What is critical reading? What is critical writing? The focus of the Study Guide is the literature review within a dissertation or a thesis, but many of the ideas are transferable to other kinds of writing, such as an extended essay, or a report. After reading your literature review, it should be clear to the reader that you have up-to-date awareness of the relevant work of others, and that the research question you are asking is relevant. However, don't promise too much! Be wary of saying that your research will solve a problem, or that it will change practice. It would be safer and probably more realistic to say that your research will 'address a gap', rather than that it will 'fill a gap'.

Mohammed I S

Literature review and writing form the basis of every academic research and writing, and it is most significant and indispensable to every academic research work. Its systematic process of writing has, however, been mysterious, complex, messy and boring, especially to inexperienced researchers and postgraduate students. This study explored the mysteries and ease with academic literature, writing and review. The study used secondary source to gather data and for the analysis, and found that academic literature writing and review comprise of different patterns and systems, dependent upon the nature and character of the research, the writing in contexts and its specific objectives; there are different types of literature and writing in academics, and while no one way is universally accepted by all at the same time, different approaches are required for different types of review and writings. The difficulty in understanding, reviewing and writing of literature mainly emanates from failure right from the inception to clearly identify what precisely the reviewer wants and how to go about looking for it in a systematic and comprehensive manner. Reviewing and writing of academic literature is a herculean task and for it to be successful there must be focus, specific objectives, adequate and timely provision and access to relevant materials. With proper understanding, it can be mastered and made easy. The study is essential for academics and post graduate students who must undergo literature review and writing at varying stages, especially at critical, stipulated and limited times.

Ignacio Illan Conde

Global Language Review

Fasih Ahmed

As an integral part of dissertations and theses, research scholars in different disciplines require to write a comprehensive chapter on &quot;literature review&quot; that establishes the conceptual and theoretical foundations of an empirical research study. This, however, poses an intellectual challenge to produce a critical review of the published research on a given topic. Therefore, this paper addresses the students problems of writing the literature review in a thesis or dissertation at the graduate and postgraduate levels. It explains the process and steps of reviewing literature for a thesis chapter. These steps include; a) critical reading and note-taking, b) writing a summary of the reviewed literature, c) organization of literature review, and d) the use of a synthesis matrix. The last part of the paper offers suggestions on how to write critically and make the researcher&#39;s voice explicit in the chapter.

Eliud Kitime

Literature review has been a key feature in any research writing industry. It has been understood differently depending on the profession, subject matter and even attitude of the reviewer himself or herself. Such variation has made research to be seen as complex issue vide literature review. This article has been devised to expound the understanding of the literature review in relation to undertaking research skills for students. Its aim is to make sure students get easy way of understanding and doing literature review for their research. Henceforth it equips students with wisdom of reviewing literatures for betterment of their research, thesis or dissertation. Understanding review of literature needs focus and keenness for better evaluation of grasping what they portray. This is because to review literature paves the way for scope, focus, modus operandi, objectives and way forward for your research. Therefore failure to understand literature review and its necessity creates good environment research failure. The article shall describe how literature review is understood as well as strength and weaknesses in such understanding. Rationale behind literature review is worthy of consideration and articulation. The main issue is to grasp the knowledge of what literature review contains because it has been major failure of many students for different levels of education while pursuing their research course until its finality. It is wise for understanding common mistakes in the literature review for purpose of knowing students weakness. This will help promulgating principles for rectifying mistakes and proposing way forward for better pursuing and acquaintance of the research writing skills.

HUMANUS DISCOURSE

Humanus Discourse

The importance of literature review in academic writing of different categories, levels, and purposes cannot be overemphasized. The literature review establishes both the relevance and justifies why new research is relevant. It is through a literature review that a gap would be established, and which the new research would fix. Once the literature review sits properly in the research work, the objectives/research questions naturally fall into their proper perspective. Invariably, other chapters of the research work would be impacted as well. In most instances, scanning through literature also provides you with the need and justification for your research and may also well leave a hint for further research. Literature review in most instances exposes a researcher to the right methodology to use. The literature review is the nucleus of a research work that might when gotten right spotlights a work and can as well derail a research work when done wrongly. This paper seeks to unveil the practical guides to writing a literature review, from purpose, and components to tips. It follows through the exposition of secondary literature. It exposes the challenges in writing a literature review and at the same time recommended tips that when followed will impact the writing of the literature review.

RELATED PAPERS

Andres Martinez

ESSAM H A S S A N IBRAHIM

Aayushee Gupta

Tessa Kelder

Economía industrial

Dinesh Khanduja

Microbiology

Hannah Wexler

Engineering and Technology Journal

Noel Florencondia

Indian Journal of Human Genetics

Kanjaksha Ghosh

Markus Talvio

REVISTA CIENCIAS PEDAGÓGICAS E INNOVACIÓN

paola cortez

Cardiovascular Diabetology

Clothilde Roche

irene alabia

Neurochemical Research

Khoa Nguyễn

Vladimira Vuletić

Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation

Milos Zarkovic

Psicología Educativa

Revista de Psicología Educativa

Presentation

Najwa Serhan

Sustainability

Nasim shah Shirazi

ComTech: Computer, Mathematics and Engineering Applications

haris setiya budi

Dg. Caya Caya

Benjamin Gogos

Jurnal Abdimas ADPI Sains dan Teknologi

Eka Yuli Susanti

The Holocene

David Fisher

Journal of Public Health

ourohiré millogo

Ingeniería y Competitividad

alvaro bernal norena

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching: An examination of the search, experience, and credence qualities of SET

Higher Education Evaluation and Development

ISSN : 2514-5789

Article publication date: 6 December 2018

Issue publication date: 22 January 2019

Competition among higher education institutions has pushed universities to expand their competitive advantages. Based on the assumption that the core functions of universities are academic, understanding the teaching–learning process with the help of student evaluation of teaching (SET) would seem to be a logical solution in increasing competitiveness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The current paper presents a narrative literature review examining how SETs work within the concept of service marketing, focusing specifically on the search, experience, and credence qualities of the provider. A review of the various factors that affect the collection of SETs is also included.

Relevant findings show the influence of students’ prior expectations on SET ratings. Therefore, teachers are advised to establish a psychological contract with the students at the start of the semester. Such an agreement should be negotiated, setting out the potential benefits of undertaking the course and a clear definition of acceptable performance within the class. Moreover, connections should be made between courses and subjects in order to provide an overall view of the entire program together with future career pathways.

Originality/value

Given the complex factors affecting SETs and the antecedents involved, there appears to be no single perfect tool to adequately reflect what is happening in the classroom. As different SETs may be needed for different courses and subjects, options such as faculty self-evaluation and peer-evaluation might be considered to augment current SETs.

• Higher education
• Student expectations
• Service marketing
• Teacher evaluation
• Teaching and learning process

Ching, G. (2018), "A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching: An examination of the search, experience, and credence qualities of SET", Higher Education Evaluation and Development , Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-04-2018-0009

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018, Gregory Ching

Published in Higher Education Evaluation and Development . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

For the past number of years, the increasing number of degree providing institutions has dramatically changed global higher education ( Altbach et al. , 2009 ; Usher, 2009 ). This rising number of higher education institutions has actually led to increased competition among universities ( Naidoo, 2016 ). Furthermore, with cutbacks in government funding for higher education ( Mitchell et al. , 2016 ), differentiation is essential for universities to distinguish themselves and compete with other institutions ( Staley and Trinkle, 2011 ). Such differentiation of higher education institutions has become commonplace, forcing universities to become more innovative, cost conscious, and entrepreneurial ( Longanecker, 2016 ; MacGregor, 2015 ).

These global dilemmas are not new to Taiwan, wherein universities have to outperform each other for financial subsidies, while also competing to recruit new students ( Chou and Ching, 2012 ). The problem of recruitment results from a serious decline of birth rate in Taiwan. The National Statistics Office of Taiwan (2018) reported that birth figures declined from 346,208 in 1985 to 166,886 in 2010, representing a fall of almost 50 percent. Projecting these numbers into university entrants, a drop of around 20,000 incoming students can be noted for the academic year 2016/2017 ( Chang, 2014 ). In fact, only 241,000 freshmen students are noted for the current 2017/2018 academic year and this number is expected to drop to around only 157,000 in 2028 ( Wu, 2018 ). This issue of declining number of students has resulted in financial difficulties for academic institutions ( Chen and Chang, 2010 ). In such difficult times, it is crucial for higher education institutions in Taiwan to differentiate themselves and develop their competitive advantages.

In the age of big data, differentiation can be achieved with the help of large data sets that provide institutions with the capacity to address complex institutional issues ( Daniel, 2015 ; Norris and Baer, 2013 ). Many researchers have begun to collect and analyze institutional data sets to address various administrative and instructional issues faced by the universities ( Picciano, 2012 ). The results of these studies can provide school administrators and students with useful information ( Castleman, 2016 ). In Taiwan, big data has provided institutions with information on topics such as trends in enrollment rates, students’ online learning performances, and research outputs measured by number of academic publications ( Tseng, 2016 ). Another study reported on the advantages of collecting and understanding student learning experiences using big data ( Lin and Chen, 2016 ). Based on the assumption that the core functions of higher education institutions remains to be academic ( Altbach, 2011 ), i.e., teaching and learning, determining and understanding the quality of the teaching learning process with the aid of big data can be extremely useful.

In order to understand the quality of the teaching learning process, higher education institutions in Taiwan and elsewhere have long been using the student evaluation of teaching (SET), which provides feedback on teaching performance and appraises faculty members ( Aleamoni and Hexner, 1980 ; Centra, 1979 ; Clayson, 2009 ; Curran and Rosen, 2006 ; Pozo-Muñoz et al. , 2000 ). Even though the practice of using SETs is well established in higher education institutions ( Rice, 1988 ; Wachtel, 2006 ) and is considered relatively reliable for evaluating courses and instructors ( Aleamoni, 1999 ; Marsh, 1987, 2007 ; Nasser and Fresko, 2002 ), its usefulness and effectiveness has been challenged ( Boring et al. , 2016 ).

Over time, numerous issues have arisen in research on SETs. It has been claimed that SETs are used as a tool by students to reward or punish their instructor ( Clayson et al. , 2006 ), that SET results differ across areas (course, subject, and discipline) ( Chen, 2006 ) and type (including course design and class size) of study ( Feldman, 1978 ; Marsh, 1980 ), and that completion rate and background demographics of students significantly affect SETs ( Stark and Freishtat, 2014 ). Moreover, SETs can be biased with respect to the gender of the instructor and that of the students ( Boring et al. , 2016 ). Interestingly, recent research has found that effective teachers are receiving low SET ratings ( Braga et al. , 2014 ; Kornell and Hausman, 2016 ). This has caused many institutions, including universities in Taiwan, to analyze and redesign their SETs ( Chen, 2006 ; Zhang, 2003 ).

In light of these issues, the current paper shall seek to provide a better understanding of the inner workings of SETs. With the better understanding of SETs, more appropriate and effective evaluation tools can be developed. In addition, the categorization of education as a type of services ( WTO, 1998 ) has also opened up new ways of looking into the entire academe. Anchoring on the narrative literature review paradigm, this paper will shape the discussion of SETs within the concept of service marketing. A common framework used to evaluate services, which is to determine the search, experience, and credence qualities of the provider ( Fisk et al. , 2014 , p. 151; Wilson et al. , 2012 , p. 29). In addition, the paper will review the definitions of SET in the existing literature as well as the dimensions commonly used to measure the quality of teaching. Finally, the various factors that affects the collection of SETs are discussed.

2. Methodology

The current study is anchored on a literature review paradigm. For any study, a literature review is an integral part of the entire process ( Fink, 2005 ; Hart, 1998 ; Machi and McEvoy, 2016 ) In general, literature reviews involve database retrievals and searches defined by a specific topic ( Rother, 2007 ). To perform a comprehensive literature review, researchers adopt various approaches for organizing and synthesizing information, adopting either a qualitative or quantitative perspective for data interpretation ( Baumeister and Leary, 1997 ; Cronin et al. , 2008 ; Fink, 2005 ; Hart, 1998 ; Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ; Petticrew and Roberts, 2005 ; Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Torraco, 2005 ).

For the current study, the researcher adopts a narrative literature review approach. Narrative review or more commonly refer to as traditional literature review is a comprehensive, critical, and objective analysis of the current knowledge on a topic ( Charles Stuart University Library, 2018 ). The review should be objective insofar as it should have a specific focus but should provide critiques of important issues ( Dudovskiy, 2018 ). More importantly, the results of a narrative review are qualitative in nature ( Rother, 2007 ).

The study follows the suggestion of Green et al. (2006) with regard to synthesizing search results retrieved from computer databases. For the current study, the researcher used Google Scholar as a starting point, followed by searches within ProQuest and PsycINFO. Keywords used for searches were “student evaluation of teaching” and related terminologies (see next section for more information on SET synonymous terms). Selections of relevant articles are explicit and potentially biased insofar as the researcher focuses on the search, experience, and credence qualities of providers within SET studies. Data analysis methods consist of a procedure for organizing information into specific themes developed by Miles and Huberman (1994) and Glaser’s (1965, 1978) technique for continuous comparison of previously gathered data.

3. Defining student evaluation of teaching

In relation to students’ college experience, determining whether a course or a teacher is good or bad can be equated to measuring service quality ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 ). This is especially the case with regard to SETs. The concepts behind SETs have been discussed since the early 1920s ( Otani et al. , 2012 ), and literally thousands of studies have been carried out on these various interrelated concepts ( Marsh, 2007 ). Furthermore, within the vast spectrum of literature on the topic, a variety of related terms are used interchangeably. Hence, a thorough, comprehensive literature review is impossible.

SET is a relatively recent term that is used synonymously with several previous terminologies such as Student Evaluation Of Educational Quality (SEEQ) ( Coffey and Gibbs, 2001 ; Grammatikopoulos et al. , 2015 ; Lidice and Saglam, 2013 ), SET effectiveness ( Marsh, 1987, 2007 ), student evaluation of teacher performance ( Chuah and Hill, 2004 ; Coburn, 1984 ; Flood, 1970 ; Poonyakanok et al. , 1986 ), student evaluation of instruction ( Aleamoni, 1974 ; Aleamoni and Hexner, 1980 ; Clayson et al. , 2006 ; Powell, 1977 ), student course satisfaction ( Betoret, 2007 ; Bolliger, 2004 ; Rivera and Rice, 2002 ), or just simply student course evaluation ( Anderson et al. , 2005 ; Babcock, 2010 ; Bembenutty, 2009 ; Chen, 2016 ; Duggan and Carlson-Bancroft, 2016 ; Huynh, 2015 ; Pravikoff and Nadasen, 2015 ; Stark and Freishtat, 2014 ). Despite the difference in terms, the core objectives of all of the above are similar.

[…] the process of using student inputs concerning the general activity and attitude of teachers. These observations allow the overall assessors to determine the degree of conformability between student expectations and the actual teaching approaches of teachers. Student evaluations are expected to offer insights regarding the attitude in class of a teacher and/or the abilities of a teacher […] ( Vlăsceanu et al. , 2004 , pp. 59-60).

This definition implies three main aspects, namely, the evaluation of the teacher (the teacher itself), the teaching process (general activity and teaching approaches), and the learning outcomes as perceived by the students (student expectations) This is similar to the framework for evaluating service marketing, whereby the teacher corresponds to the “search” qualities, the teaching process to the “experience” qualities, and the learning outcomes to the “credence” qualities (see Figure 1 ).

3.1 Search qualities in SET

As previously mentioned, one of the first aspects of SET that focuses on the teacher is the student evaluation of the teacher, or rather the student’s perception of the teacher’s characteristics ( Fox et al. , 1983 ). As Tagiuri (1969) notes, in an early study, a person’s (in this case a teacher’s) personality, characteristics, qualities, and inner states (p. 395) matter significantly. Early research findings suggest that students sometimes interpret a teacher’s creativeness as a positive characteristic ( Costin et al. , 1971 ), while others note that a teacher’s personality traits affect their SET ratings ( Clayson and Sheffet, 2006 ; Mogan and Knox, 1987 ; Murray et al. , 1990 ). For instance, the interpersonal characteristics of teachers influence interactions between the students ( Mogan and Knox, 1987 ), which ultimately leads to better engagement and learning ( Hu and Ching, 2012 ; Hu et al. , 2015 ; Skinner and Belmont, 1993 ).

This focus on the teacher also leads to various biases in SET. For example, teachers’ physical appearance can have an effect on their SET ratings ( Bonds-Raacke and Raacke, 2007 ; Hultman and Oghazi, 2008 ). Felton et al. (2004) in their study of the university teachers rating website ( www.ratemyprofessors.com/ ) conclude after analyzing 3,190 faculty members across 65,678 posts that physically attractive teachers get higher ratings. In addition, a study by Buck and Tiene (1989) finds that attractive female teachers, even if they are considered authoritarian, tend to receive higher SET ratings compared to their less attractive female counterparts. Besides the teacher’s physical appearance, gender, and age are also important ( Buck and Tiene, 1989 ; Sohr-Preston et al. , 2016 ). Younger male faculty members were found to receive higher ratings ( Boring et al. , 2016 ), while more senior teachers received lower SET ratings ( Clayson, 1999 ). Similarly, a teacher’s ethnicity is also a factor ( Dee, 2005 ; Ehrenberg et al. , 1995 ). For instance, students may consider female African American teachers more sympathetic ( Patton, 1999 ), which can affect their SET ratings. These biases in SETs are unfair since an individual’s demographics and personality traits are fixed and cannot be changed.

Drawing on the concept of service marketing, the aforementioned teacher factors can be considered the search qualities that students look for before enrolling in a particular course. Students sometimes look for easy teachers just to pass a subject ( Felton et al. , 2004 ). However, research shows that most students tend to search for competent teachers ( Feldman, 1984 ) and credible faculty members ( Patton, 1999 ; Pogue and Ahyun, 2006 ). This disproves the fallacy that easy teachers receive high SET ratings ( Beatty and Zahn, 1990 ; Marsh and Roche, 2000 ).

By definition, search qualities are the easily observable and most common physical attributes a product (or in this case a teacher or course) may possess ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 , p. 136). Moreover, these search qualities are apparent and can be judged relative to similar options ( Lubienski, 2007 ). What is most important is that students are able to judge these search qualities beforehand. This means that students have certain initial preferences with regard to aspects such as the type of teacher, the physical characteristics of the classroom, or even the schedule of the course. Students tend to compare various options before signing up for a class. In addition, social psychology literature has long demonstrated the influence of beauty on individual judgments ( Adams, 1977 ; Berscheid and Walster, 1974 ). Individuals tend to relate beauty to being good ( Eagly et al. , 1991 ). This halo effect explains why teachers’ attractiveness tends to influence their SET ratings ( Felton et al. , 2004 ). Furthermore, students may also have a preference with regard to the physical situation of the classroom ( Douglas and Gifford, 2001 ; Hill and Epps, 2010 ), which influences their overall level of satisfaction.

In summary, more emphasis should be placed on the perceived expectations of students, which can be discerned from their search qualities. As studies by Buck and Tiene (1989) and Patton (1999) find, students tend to associate physical attributes with certain types of behavior, such as expecting attractive female teachers to be more feminine and female African American teachers to be more sympathetic. Another important issue here is that students are expecting something, regardless of their reasons for having these expectations of their teachers and courses. These expectations, whether arising from stereotyping of attributes or hearsay from schoolmates, must be met to satisfy the students. However, this should not be the case, and teachers should focus on building their professionalism and credibility ( Carter, 2016 ). In-class behaviors such as self-disclosure, humor, warmth, clarity, enthusiasm, verbal and nonverbal messages, teacher immediacy; nonverbal interactions that enhance closeness ( Mehrabian, 1968 , p. 203), and affinity seeking; the creation of positive feelings toward oneself ( Bell and Daly, 1984 ) are just a few examples of effective strategies that can positively affect how students view teachers ( Patton, 1999 ). These behaviors make for effective teaching and can also prevent students from stereotyping teachers because of their appearance or on account of demographic features.

3.2 Experience qualities in SET

Besides the teacher, the second aspect of SET identified is the teaching process. In reality, this is what the majority of SETs currently being used measures ( Algozzine et al. , 2004 ; Wachtel, 2006 ). The goal of SETs is to determine the teachers’ teaching effectiveness ( Marsh, 2007 ). Such instruments have been used throughout academia for a long time, but their validity, reliability, and usefulness are still being challenged ( Aleamoni, 1974, 1999 ; Aleamoni and Hexner, 1980 ; Arreola, 2007 ; Costin et al. , 1971 ; Feldman, 1978, 1984 ; Marsh, 1984, 2007 ; Marsh and Roche, 1997 ; Rodin and Rodin, 1972 ; Wright et al. , 1984 ). This makes sense since teaching is a complex activity ( Shulman, 1987 ), so the factors used to measure a teacher’s effectiveness are multidimensional ( Marsh, 1991, 2007 ; Marsh and Bailey, 1993 ) and difficult to comprehend. Nonetheless, it has been proven that SETs contribute to faculty development by enhancing the teaching and learning experience ( Centra, 1979 ; Marsh, 1980, 1984, 1987, 1991, 2007 ; Marsh and Bailey, 1993 ; Marsh and Roche, 1997 ). This function is formative ( Shulman, 1987 ), meaning that SETs can provide evidence to support improvements that shape the overall quality of teaching ( Berk, 2005 , p. 48).

Evaluating the teaching process is a complex and complicated undertaking, requiring a full understanding of how students came to conclusions with regard to their teachers and courses ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 ). Typically, taking a university course would require the student to attend class every week, which corresponds to repeated service encounters that are critical to later evaluation ( Solomon et al. , 1985 ). Within the concept of service marketing, these repeated service encounters (which in this case are the repeated classroom encounters) correspond to the experience qualities that students perceive when taking the course. These experience qualities are not readily apparent and can only be judged when the entire service experience is over (generally at the end of the course) ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 ; Lubienski, 2007 ). However, because such experiences are repeated, it can be difficult to know whether the resulting SET ratings are based on an overall experience of the course or just on one single event that made a lasting impression ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 ). Furthermore, students attend class with their classmates, so there are other individuals partaking of the service delivery at the same time. Therefore, the interactions of these students within the class might either enhance or reduce the service quality, which might, in turn, affect an individual student’s experience ( Grove and Fisk, 1997 ).

Based on the above points, evidence shows that students can compare their teachers with other teachers teaching the same course before actually signing up for the class. However, it is most likely that student would ask around, seeking other students who had taken the course already and asking for their comments. This is because students generally do not have access to SET results ( Marlin, 1987 ). Marsh (2007) notes that although a few universities do publish their SET summaries, this is solely for the purpose of course or subject selection. The publication of SET results is controversial ( Babad et al. , 1999 ; Perry et al. , 1979 ) and is generally regarded negatively by faculty members ( Howell and Symbaluk, 2001 ).

It is important to note that, based on asking around prior to taking a course, students might expect to receive a certain grade or a certain amount of classwork, or even have expectations with regard to how the lectures are conducted ( Nowell, 2007 ; Remedios and Lieberman, 2008 ; Sander et al. , 2000 ; Voss et al. , 2007 ). If teachers then behave contrary to the students expectations, students may be disappointed and SET ratings may be affected ( Bennett, 1982 ). Such student expectations can also contribute to the development of a psychological contract between the teacher and the students. These prior expectations, whether arising from the students’ desire to benefit from the course ( Voss et al. , 2007 ) or from hearsay, are found to contribute to such a psychological contract ( Roehling, 1997 ).

A psychological contract can be defined as any individual beliefs, shaped by the institution, regarding the terms of an exchange agreement, between students and their teachers ( Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre, 1984 ; Rousseau, 1995, 2001 ). Recent research finds that when the psychological contract between the teacher and the students is positive, learning motivation is enhanced ( Liao, 2013 ). Furthermore, these agreements might be either implicitly or explicitly made between the teachers and students. To make them more effective, the agreements should be negotiated at the start of the term, and should constitute a shared psychological contract between the teacher and the students ( Pietersen, 2014 ). More importantly, Cohen (1980) notes that if SETs are accomplished during the middle of the semester, teachers are still able to improve their teaching pedagogy re-aligning the previously agreed upon psychological contract. Hence, faculty members who received mid-semester feedback ended up with significantly higher SET ratings than their counterparts who did not have a mid-semester evaluation ( Cohen, 1980 ). Ultimately, mid-semester feedbacks provide ample opportunity for instructional improvement ( Overall and Marsh, 1979 ).

In summary, it has been noted in the literature that evaluating the teaching process, or rather the effectiveness of teaching, is a complex task. It is multidimensional and mostly concerns the experience qualities of the students who have taken the course. More important, in relation to the numerous biases associated with SETs discussed in the introduction of this paper, perceptions of course delivery and service quality are affected by a variety of issues, including peers, class size, and type of course. Adding to the fact that students have their own personal expectations of what the course should offer, it is difficult to satisfy every student. Pietersen (2014) suggests the making of a psychological contract between the teacher and the students, to provide clear study goals and remove false expectations. In addition, an evaluation can be conducted in the middle of a semester, giving the teacher ample opportunity to address students’ doubts and to re-adjust the shared contract based on students’ abilities. Furthermore, as the goal of SETs is to provide formative suggestions for teachers to improve teaching, it is also prudent to include statements on the provision of formative lessons and on how course designs contribute to student learning ( Brownell and Swaner, 2009 ; Kuh, 2008 ; Kuh et al. , 2013 ).

3.3 Credence qualities and SETs

The last component of SETs identified is the evaluation of learning outcomes, more specifically, the accomplishment of goals. It has long been accepted that goals are important predictors of educationally relevant learning outcomes ( Ames and Archer, 1988 ), while also focusing on the motivational aspects driven by mastery and performance-approach goals ( Harackiewicz et al. , 2002 ). In simple terms, if students clearly understand the skills necessary for future employment, while also understanding taking a certain course will enable them to master those skills, they should be motivated to do well in that course. Research shows that students are more engaged with their academic classwork when future career consequences are clearly understood ( Greene et al. , 2004 ; Miller et al. , 1996 ). However, in reality many students are uncertain of their study goals and are at risk of dropping out ( Mäkinen et al. , 2004 ).

A university education is characterized by high credence properties ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 ). Credence qualities are those properties that are not apparent, can be never be fully known or appreciated by students ( Lubienski, 2007 ), and might, therefore, be impossible to evaluate ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 ). Credence properties are generally found in goods and services that are characterized by high levels of complexity ( Darby and Karni, 1973 ), such as the teaching and learning process. More importantly, even after the service has been used (in this case, when a student graduate from the university), the consumer (student) may still find it difficult to evaluate the service ( Zeithaml, 1981 ). A famous example of credence qualities in a product can be found in the taking of vitamin pills, where there is low verification of the alleged effectiveness and quality of the product, even after it has been tried by the consumer ( Galetzka et al. , 2006 ). In higher education, the true value of a course may be realized by a student only after the skills and knowledge learned are used in employment, which might be several months or even years after the service has ceased ( Curran and Rosen, 2006 ).

The credence qualities of higher education are related to the concept of academic delay of gratification ( Bembenutty, 2009 ). Academic delay of gratification is a term used to describe the “postponement of immediately available opportunities to satisfy impulses in favor of pursuing chosen important academic rewards or goals that are temporally remote but ostensibly more valuable” ( Bembenutty and Karabenick, 1998 , p. 329). Similar to what is described by the achievement goals theory, students are motivated when they clearly perceive benefits that lead to future success ( Bembenutty, 1999 ). In addition, students who adhere to the academic delay of gratitude principle tend to become autonomous learners ( Bembenutty and Karabenick, 2004 ). If students know the usefulness of the course subject, they are more willing to delay gratification, participate in class, and complete academic tasks, and are ultimately more satisfied and hence give high SET ratings ( Bembenutty, 2009 ).

In summary, the literature shows that besides formatives evaluations, SETs also include summative evaluations ( Kuzmanovic et al. , 2012 ; Mortelmans and Spooren, 2009 ; Otani et al. , 2012 ; Spooren and Van Loon, 2012 ), which involve summing up the overall performance of teachers ( Berk, 2005 ). Summative SETs generally contribute to teacher audits and evaluations that may lead to the hiring, tenure, and even promotion of faculty members ( Arthur, 2009 ; Berk, 2005 ; Marks, 2000 ; Stark and Freishtat, 2014 ). Literature suggests that school administrators should be careful in using SET results containing many summative evaluations ( Spooren et al. , 2013 ), because, with respect to the credence properties of education, students might be unable to grasp the entire and actual benefits of certain courses. In order for effective learning to occur, the potential benefits of the course and an outline of acceptable performance should be defined in advance ( Otter, 1995 ). Moreover, connections should be made between previous, current, and future courses, thus providing an overview of the entire program together with a clear outline of future career pathways.

4. Dimensions of SET

As has been noted, SETs are complex and involves multiple interrelated dimensions. In his early meta-analysis, Feldman (1978) shows that although most studies focus on the overall rating of the instructor. However, SETs that focus only on summative evaluations and that use global measures (few summary items) are highly discouraged ( Cashin and Downey, 1992 ; Marks, 2000 ; Sproule, 2000 ). The majority of SETs aim at a more comprehensive rating of teachers and, as Marsh (2007) notes, are mostly constructed around the concept of effective teaching. The usefulness and effectiveness of an SET depends on how well it can capture the concepts it measures. Hence, careful design is essential ( Aleamoni, 1974, 1999 ; Aleamoni and Hexner, 1980 ; Arreola, 2007 ).

One of the early syntheses of SETs is conducted by analyzing students’ views of the characteristics of a superior teacher ( Feldman, 1976 ). For the study, three categories are identified: presentation, which includes teachers’ enthusiasm for teaching and for the subject matter, their ability to motivate students’, their knowledge of the subject matter, clarity of presentation, and organization of the course; facilitation, which denotes teachers’ availability for consultation (helpfulness), their ability to show concern and respect for students (friendliness), and their capacity to encourage learners through class interactions and discussions (openness); and regulation, which includes the teachers’ ability to set clear objectives and requirements, appropriateness of course materials (including supplementary learning resources) and coursework (with regard to difficulty and workload), fairness in evaluating students and providing feedback, and classroom management skills ( Feldman, 1976 ).

Another early analysis of SETs conducted by Hildebrand (1973) and Hildebrand et al. (1971) and his associates identifies five constructs for measuring the effectiveness of teaching: analytic/synthetic skills, which includes the depth of a teacher’s scholarship and his or her analytic ability and conceptual understanding of the course content; organization/clarity, denoting the teacher’s presentation skills in the course subject area; instructor group interaction, which describes the teacher’s ability to actively interact with the class, his or overall rapport with the class, sensitivity to class responses, and ability to maintain active class participation; instructor–individual student interaction, which includes the teacher’s ability to establish mutual respect and rapport with individual students; and dynamism/enthusiasm, which relates to the teacher’s enthusiasm for teaching and includes confidence, excitement about the subject, and pleasure in teaching ( Hildebrand et al. , 1971 , p. 18).

More recently, the SEEQ is frequently used by many higher education institutions. The SEEQ measures nine factors that constitute quality instruction ( Marsh, 1982, 1987 ; Marsh and Dunkin, 1997 ; Richardson, 2005 ). These are assignments and readings, breadth of coverage, examinations and grading, group interaction, individual rapport, instructor enthusiasm, learning and academic value, organization and clarity, and workload and difficulty ( Marsh, 2007 , p. 323). Some SEEQ studies include an overall summative evaluation of the course subject as an additional factor ( Schellhase, 2010 ). The similarities with Hildebrand (1973) and Hildebrand et al. (1971) and Feldman’s (1976) criteria of effective teaching are apparent.

In a series of studies conducted at the University of Hawaii, SET is first analyzed with respect to the perspectives of faculty members, which identifies important factors such as evaluation information based from students, information from peers (colleagues), student performance and grades, and external performance evaluations of teachers ( Meredith, 1977 ). A study that included apprentice teachers (practice teachers) found that students preferred instructors who exhibited classroom organizational skills, who focused on students’ learning outcomes, and who interacted well with students ( Meredith and Bub, 1977 ). A set of evaluation criteria was developed based on a study of both faculty members and students in the School of Law at the University of Hawaii, which included dimensions such as knowledge of subject matter, ability to stimulate interest and motivate students, organization of the course, preparation for the course, concern for students, quality of course materials, and an overall summative evaluation of the teacher ( Meredith, 1978 ). Other studies measured teaching excellence by subject mastery, teaching skills, and personal qualities of the teacher ( Meredith, 1985b ), while an overall analysis of student satisfaction used the criteria social interaction, teaching quality, campus environment, employment opportunities, and classroom facilities ( Meredith, 1985a ), all of which contribute to SET ratings.

In summary, it is noted that SETs can vary depending on whether the evaluations are from the perspective of faculty members (how teachers teach) or from the students (how students learn). However, although several variations of SETs exist, comparisons suggest that as long as the overall objective is to evaluate effective teaching, dimensions within these SETs are interrelated and may overlap ( Marsh, 1984, 2007 ; Marsh and Bailey, 1993 ; Marsh and Dunkin, 1997 ). A study conducted by the American Association of University Professors involving 9,000 faculty members found that SETs are generally established with controversial biases and issues ( Flaherty, 2015 ). The more important issue is the establishment of the objectives for SET implementation within the university and careful decision making about who should participate in the development of such an evaluation instrument.

5. Antecedents of SET

Within the vast literature on SETs, analysis of their validity and reliability has identified various antecedents affecting effective evaluation. SET ratings are dependent on several issues, including the various biases already discussed. The first obvious antecedent is the instructor, as can be discerned from the previous discussions. Besides personality issues, gender plays an important role. Boring et al. (2016) find that SETs are statistically biased against female faculty, and that such biases can cause effective teachers to get lower SET ratings than less effective ones. MacNell et al. (2015) conducted an experiment in which students were blind to the gender of their online course instructors. For the experiment, two online course instructors were selected, one male and one female, and each was given two classes to teach. Later in the course, each instructor presented as one gender to one class and the opposite gender to the other class. The SET results gathered at the end of the semester are interesting. Regardless of the instructor’s real gender, students gave the teacher they thought was male and the actual male teacher higher SET ratings than the teacher they perceived as female. This experiment clearly shows that the rating difference results from gender bias ( Marcotte, 2014 ).

Previous studies also show that the time of SET evaluation matters. As discussed, when SET evaluations are administered during the middle of the semester, results can assist teachers in re-evaluating their course design to better fit with the students’ needs and capabilities. However, this phenomenon is limited. SETs are mostly given before the end of the term or during final examinations, and studies have shown that ratings taken at this time tend to be lower compared to evaluations conducted a few weeks before final exams ( Braskamp et al. , 1984 ). Interestingly, no significant differences were found when comparing SET ratings gathered before the end of the semester with those taken in the first week of the succeeding term ( Frey, 1976 ). This debunks the fallacy that students tend seek revenge on teachers because of issues with the grades received ( Clayson et al. , 2006 ; Skinner and Belmont, 1993 ). In fact, studies have proven that students who received poor grades were less likely to care enough to complete the SET ( Liegle and McDonald, 2005 ).

In terms of the students themselves, as previously mentioned the background demographics of students do significantly affect SETs ( Stark and Freishtat, 2014 ). Although some biases are found between gender and SET ratings ( Boring et al. , 2016 ; Feldman, 1977 ), still there are no consistent evidence of such difference exists ( Wachtel, 2006 ). For instance, different studies have shown that male and female students give higher ratings as compared to their peers of opposite genders ( Tatro, 1995 ). In some instances, students evaluate their same gender teachers higher than their opposite gender instructors ( Centra, 1993a, b ). With regards to ethnicity, Marsh et al. (1997) translated the SEEQ instrument into Chinese and found that there are no significant differences with the results reported as compared with the studies done in the USA. In other Chinese studies, besides the significant differences in SET ratings between students of various discipline and nature ( Chen and Watkins, 2010 ; Liu et al. , 2016 ), it is well noted that linguistics or foreign language teachers tend to received higher evaluations than the faculty of other discipline ( Chen and Watkins, 2010 ).

Administration conditions or the way SETs are administered also matters. Currently, SETs are mostly collected using online course evaluations ( Spooren and Van Loon, 2012 ). However, literature shows that online SETs results in lower participation ( Anderson et al. , 2005 ; Avery et al. , 2006 ), although reminders do increase the response rate ( Norris and Conn, 2005 ). With paper-and-pen SETs, the person administering the evaluation also contributes to any inconsistencies in the ratings. This holds true even if the teacher leaves the room during the SET administration and the forms are anonymous, as students may still be reluctant to provide an objective evaluation ( Pulich, 1984 ). Many researchers have agreed that SETs should be entrusted to a third-party individual for effective collection ( Braskamp et al. , 1984 ; Centra, 1979 ).

The characteristics of the course subject also matters. Wachtel (2006) notes that the nature of the course subject, such as whether it is a required course or an elective, affects how students rate its importance. Sometimes students give higher ratings for elective course subjects due to their having a prior interest in the subject ( Feldman, 1978 ). Class schedule can sometimes affect ratings, and odd schedules such as early morning classes or late afternoon classes have been found to receive the lowest SET ratings ( Koushki and Kuhn, 1982 ). However, inconsistencies were found in several other studies ( Aleamoni, 1999 ; Centra, 1979 ; Feldman, 1978 ; Wachtel, 2006 ), but it has been suggested that the level of the course is a relevant factor. The year or level of the course is closely related to the students’ age; as students continue with their studies, they becomes more mature and become aware that their opinions are taken seriously by the school administration ( Spooren and Van Loon, 2012 ). Class size has also been found to have an impact ( Feldman, 1978 ; Marsh, 2007 ) since bigger classes tend to present less opportunities for interaction between the teacher and the individual students, which can affect ratings ( Meredith and Ogasawara, 1982 ). Finally, the subject area and the discipline also greatly influence SET ratings. Since the discipline affects how classes are held (e.g. laboratory classes compared to lecture intensive courses), comparisons between colleges are not advisable ( Wachtel, 2006 ). For instance, task-oriented subjects such as mathematics and science offer less interaction than the social sciences ( Centra, 1993a, b ).

In summary, apart from the issues relating to students that affect SETs discussed in the “Experience Qualities” section of this paper, including their gender, learning motivations, and grade expectations ( Boring et al. , 2016 ), many more have been added to the discussion. Having examined the various antecedents of SETs, it is apparent that one model is not suitable for all instances. More specifically, one single type of SET cannot and should not be used to collect students’ perception across all courses and subjects. This is actually the main reason why some higher education institutions choose to use global measures to collect the summative evaluations of the class. In practice, separate SETs should be used for different course types. Since this can place a significant burden on institutions, careful analysis and research is necessary.

6. Conclusion

To sum up, literature has shown that the use of SETs to collect information regarding the teaching–learning process is commonplace. However, given the complex nature of academic processes, the data resulting from SETs are questionable and limited. The current paper presents a review of the literature on SETs, focusing on the concept of service marketing evaluation. The framework’s three criteria are used to examine SETs, whereby the teacher represents the “search” qualities, the teaching process the “experience” qualities, and the learning outcomes the “credence” qualities.

The search qualities with regard to SETs are the easily observable attributes of teachers. These may include the appearance, gender, age, ethnicity, and personalities traits of faculty members. In practice, course subject selections are made prior to enrollment in a course; students can compare faculty members when deciding which one to enroll with. Hence, the expectations of students are important. It has been noted that stereotyping faculty members according to certain demographic factors such as gender and age is unfair since these features are fixed and impossible to change. Students should look beyond these obvious factors and focus more on the teachers’ credibility and competencies.

Beyond initial search preferences, students place much importance on evaluating their learning experiences. As the literature suggests, for the sake of simplicity, many SETs include only global summative evaluations of the teaching–learning process. However, given that the nature of the learning experience is complex and multidimensional, evidence to support student development should be in the form of formative judgments. Furthermore, the actual teaching–learning process is composed of repeated service encounters (a semester in Taiwan typically lasts around 18 weeks). It is, therefore, difficult to determine whether a single class experience or the collective sum of the semester’s learning encounters contribute to the SET ratings. Considering the influence of prior expectations on SET ratings, teachers are advised to establish a psychological contract with the students. To make these agreements effective, they should be negotiated at the start of the term, so that they are shared contracts between the teacher and the students.

Finally, accepting that university education is characterized by high credence qualities, students must be aware of the concept of academic delay of gratification, so that they understand and accept that the benefits of undertaking a course are not immediate. Combining this with the importance of students’ expectations and the usefulness of creating a psychological contract, clear definitions of the potential benefits and acceptable performance should be provided during the first class. Moreover, connections should be made between previous, current, and future courses, thus providing an overview of the entire program together with career pathways.

In summary, since SETs are frequently used to collect information on effective teaching, it is important for higher education institutions to establish what kinds of SETs are effective. Given the complex factors involved and the various antecedents of SETs, it appears that no one perfect tool exists to accurately measure what happens in the classroom. As different SETs may be necessary for different courses and subjects, options such as faculty members’ self-evaluation and/or faculty members’ peer-evaluation might be considered to provide what is lacking in SETs. It is hoped that as technology advances, an innovative way of collecting SETs might be found to make the process more productive.

6.1 Recommendations for further research

Having analyzed the above issues, several recommendations for further research are proposed:

Develop and validate an SET

The development of the SET is important in the ongoing dialogue within the literature. As the literature shows, SETs are only useful if they can appropriately capture what they are being used to measure. Hence, in order to develop a relevant and constructive SET, the participation of significant stakeholders, such as school administrators, faculty, and students, is essential. A constructive SET would be capable of providing formative recommendations to improve the performance of both faculty members and students. More important, an effective SET should consider the service attributes (the search, experience, and credence qualities) that students want.

Develop an SET software program

In the current age of technological advances and big data, students are adept at using mobile devices ( Gikas and Grant, 2013 ). Therefore, an app designed to collect SET ratings – either directly after each class, twice a semester (after midterm exams and before the end of the semester), or once before the end of the semester –could be made available to students for easy and convenient collection of data. This could initiate a new strand of SET literature. Combining technology with pedagogy can provide a more accurate evaluation of teaching, by facilitating the collection of real-time SET results.

SET concepts

Adams , G.R. ( 1977 ), “ Physical attractiveness research: toward a developmental social psychology of beauty ”, Human Development , Vol. 20 No. 4 , pp. 217 - 239 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1159/000271558

Aleamoni , L.M. ( 1974 ), “ Typical faculty concerns about student evaluation of instruction ”, NACTA , Vol. 20 No. 1 , pp. 16 - 21 .

Aleamoni , L.M. ( 1999 ), “ Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998 ”, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education , Vol. 13 No. 2 , pp. 153 - 166 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008168421283

Aleamoni , L.M. and Hexner , P.Z. ( 1980 ), “ A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation ”, Instructional Science , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 84 .

Algozzine , B. , Gretes , J. , Flowers , C. , Howley , L. , Beattie , J. , Spooner , F. , Mohanty , G. and Bray , M. ( 2004 ), “ Student evaluation of college teaching: a practice in search of principles ”, College Teaching , Vol. 52 No. 4 , pp. 134 - 141 , available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.4.134-141

Altbach , P.G. ( 2011 ), “ Introduction ”, in Altbach , P.G. (Ed.), Leadership for World-Class Universities: Challenges for Developing Countries , Routledge , New York, NY , pp. 1 - 7 .

Altbach , P.G. , Reisberg , L. and Rumbley , L.E. ( 2009 ), Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution , UNESCO , Paris .

Ames , C. and Archer , J. ( 1988 ), “ Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation processes ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 80 No. 3 , pp. 260 - 267 .

Anderson , H.M. , Cain , J. and Bird , E. ( 2005 ), “ Online student course evaluations: review of literature and a pilot study ”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education , Vol. 69 No. 1 , pp. 34 - 43 .

Arreola , R.A. ( 2007 ), Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Guide to Designing, Building, and Operating Large-Scale Faculty Evaluation Systems , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Arthur , L. ( 2009 ), “ From performativity to professionalism: lectures’ responses to student feedback ”, Teaching in Higher Education , Vol. 14 No. 4 , pp. 441 - 454 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903050228

Avery , R.J. , Bryant , W.K. , Mathios , A. , Kang , H. and Bell , D. ( 2006 ), “ Electronic course evaluations: does an online delivery system influence student evaluations? ”, The Journal of Economic Education , Vol. 36 No. 1 , pp. 21 - 37 , available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37

Babad , E. , Darley , J.M. and Kaplowitz , H. ( 1999 ), “ Developmental aspects in students’ course selection ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 91 No. 1 , pp. 157 - 168 .

Babcock , P. ( 2010 ), “ Real costs of nominal grade inflation? New evidence from student course evaluations ”, Economic Inquiry , Vol. 48 No. 4 , pp. 983 - 996 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00245.x

Baumeister , R.F. and Leary , M.R. ( 1997 ), “ Writing narrative literature reviews ”, Review of General Psychology , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 311 - 320 .

Beatty , M.J. and Zahn , C.J. ( 1990 ), “ Are student ratings of communication instructors due to ‘easy’ grading practices? An analysis of teacher credibility and student-reported performance levels ”, Communication Education , Vol. 39 No. 4 , pp. 275 - 282 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378809

Bell , R.A. and Daly , J.A. ( 1984 ), “ The affinity-seeking function of communication ”, Communication Monographs , Vol. 51 No. 2 , pp. 91 - 115 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390188

Bembenutty , H. ( 1999 ), “ Sustaining motivation and academic goals: the role of academic delay of gratification ”, Learning and Individual Differences , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 233 - 257 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80002-8

Bembenutty , H. ( 2009 ), “ Teaching effectiveness, course evaluation, and academic performance: the role of academic delay of gratification ”, Journal of Advanced Academics , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 326 - 355 .

Bembenutty , H. and Karabenick , S.A. ( 1998 ), “ Academic delay of gratification ”, Learning and Individual Differences , Vol. 10 No. 4 , pp. 329 - 346 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80126-5

Bembenutty , H. and Karabenick , S.A. ( 2004 ), “ Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning ”, Educational Psychology Review , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 35 - 57 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000012344.34008.5c

Bennett , S.K. ( 1982 ), “ Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors: evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 74 No. 2 , pp. 170 - 179 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.170

Berk , R.A. ( 2005 ), “ Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness ”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 48 - 62 .

Berscheid , E. and Walster , E. ( 1974 ), “ Physical attractiveness ”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 7 No. 1 , pp. 157 - 215 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60037-4

Betoret , F.D. ( 2007 ), “ The influence of students’ and teachers’ thinking styles on student course satisfaction and on their learning process ”, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology , Vol. 27 No. 2 , pp. 219 - 234 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066701

Bolliger , D.U. ( 2004 ), “ Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses ”, International Journal on E-Learning , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 67 .

Bonds-Raacke , J. and Raacke , J.D. ( 2007 ), “ The relationship between physical attractiveness of professors and students’ ratings of professor quality ”, Journal of Psychiatry, Psychology and Mental Health , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 7 .

Boring , A. , Ottoboni , K. and Stark , P.B. ( 2016 ), “ Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness ”, ScienceOpen Research, available at: https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Braga , M. , Paccagnella , M. and Pellizzari , M. ( 2014 ), “ Evaluating students’ evaluations of professors ”, Economics of Education Review , Vol. 41 No. 1 , pp. 71 - 88 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.04.002

Braskamp , L.A. , Brandenburg , D.C. and Ory , J.C. ( 1984 ), Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness , Sage , Newbury Park, CA .

Brownell , J.E. and Swaner , L.E. ( 2009 ), “ High-impact practices: applying the learning outcomes literature to the development of successful campus programs ”, Peer Review , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 26 - 30 .

Buck , S. and Tiene , D. ( 1989 ), “ The impact of physical attractiveness, gender, and teaching philosophy on teacher evaluations ”, The Journal of Educational Research , Vol. 82 No. 3 , pp. 172 - 177 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885887

Carter , R.E. ( 2016 ), “ Faculty scholarship has a profound positive association with student evaluations of teaching: except when it doesn’t ”, Journal of Marketing Education , Vol. 38 No. 1 , pp. 18 - 36 .

Cashin , W.E. and Downey , R.G. ( 1992 ), “ Using global student rating items for summative evaluation ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 84 No. 4 , pp. 563 - 572 .

Castleman , B. ( 2016 ), “ Data-driven behavioral nudges: a low-cost strategy to improve postsecondary education ”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA .

Centra , J.A. ( 1979 ), Determining Faculty Effectiveness: Assessing Teaching, Research, and Service for Personnel Decisions and Improvement , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Centra , J.A. ( 1993a ), Determining Faculty Effectiveness , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Centra , J.A. ( 1993b ), Reflective Faculty Evaluation , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Chang , J. ( 2014 ), “ Number of universities should be reduced: education minister ”, available at: www.chinapost.nownews.com/20140925-50233 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Charles Stuart University Library ( 2018 ), “ Literature review: traditional or narrative literature reviews ”, available at: http://libguides.csu.edu.au/c.php?g=476545&p=3997199 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Chen , C.Y. ( 2006 ), “ A study on teaching evaluation in public universities in Taiwan (Wguó gōnglìdàxué jiàoshī jiàoxué píngjiàn zhī yánjiū) ”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, National ChengChi University, Taipei .

Chen , D.-S. and Chang , M.-K. ( 2010 ), “ Higher education in Taiwan: the crisis of rapid expansion ”, available at: www.isa-sociology.org/universities-in-crisis/?p=417 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Chen , G.-H. and Watkins , D. ( 2010 ), “ Stability and correlates of student evaluations of teaching at a Chinese university ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 35 No. 6 , pp. 675 - 685 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977715

Chen , L. ( 2016 ), “ Do student characteristics affect course evaluation completion? ”, paper presented at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA .

Chou , C.P. and Ching , G.S. ( 2012 ), Taiwan Education at the Crossroad: When Globalization Meets Localization , Palgrave Macmillan , New York, NY .

Chuah , K.L. and Hill , C. ( 2004 ), “ Student evaluation of teacher performance: random pre-destination ”, Journal of College Teaching & Learning , Vol. 1 No. 6 , pp. 109 - 114 .

Clayson , D.E. ( 1999 ), “ Students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness: some implications of stability ”, Journal of Marketing Education , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 68 - 75 .

Clayson , D.E. ( 2009 ), “ Student evaluations of teaching: are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature ”, Journal of Marketing Education , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 16 - 30 .

Clayson , D.E. and Sheffet , M.J. ( 2006 ), “ Personality and the student evaluation of teaching ”, Journal of Marketing Education , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 149 - 160 .

Clayson , D.E. , Frost , T.F. and Sheffet , M.J. ( 2006 ), “ Grades and the student evaluation of instruction: a test of the reciprocity effect ”, Academy of Management: Learning and Education , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 52 - 65 , available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2006.20388384

Coburn , L. ( 1984 ), “ Student evaluation of teacher performance ”, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED289887, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC .

Coffey , M. and Gibbs , G. ( 2001 ), “ The evaluation of the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality Questionnaire (SEEQ) in UK higher education ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 89 - 93 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930020022318

Cohen , P.A. ( 1980 ), “ Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: a meta-analysis of findings ”, Research in Higher Education , Vol. 13 No. 4 , pp. 321 - 341 , doi: 10.1007/bf00976252 .

Costin , F. , Greenough , W.T. and Menges , R.J. ( 1971 ), “ Student ratings of college teaching: reliability, validity, and usefulness ”, Review of Educational Research , Vol. 41 No. 5 , pp. 511 - 535 .

Cronin , P. , Ryan , F. and Coughlan , M. ( 2008 ), “ Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach ”, British Journal of Nursing , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 38 - 43 .

Curran , J.M. and Rosen , D.E. ( 2006 ), “ Student attitudes toward college courses: an examination of influences and intentions ”, Journal of Marketing Education , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 135 - 148 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475306288401

Daniel , B. ( 2015 ), “ Big data and analytics in higher education: opportunities and challenges ”, British Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 46 No. 5 , pp. 904 - 920 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12230

Darby , M.R. and Karni , E. ( 1973 ), “ Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud ”, The Journal of Law & Economics , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 88 .

Dee , T.S. ( 2005 ), “ A teacher like me: does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? ”, The American Economic Review , Vol. 95 No. 2 , pp. 158 - 165 .

Douglas , D. and Gifford , R. ( 2001 ), “ Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors: a lens model approach ”, Educational Research , Vol. 43 No. 3 , pp. 295 - 309 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880110081053

Dudovskiy , J. ( 2018 ), “ The ultimate guide to writing a dissertation in business studies: a step-by-step assistance ”, Research Methodology .

Duggan , M. and Carlson-Bancroft , A. ( 2016 ), “ How Emerson College increased participation rates in course evaluations and NSSE ”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA .

Eagly , A.H. , Ashmore , R.D. , Makhijani , M.G. and Longo , L.C. ( 1991 ), “ What is beautiful is good, but …: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype ”, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 110 No. 1 , pp. 109 - 128 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109

Ehrenberg , R.G. , Goldhaber , D.D. and Brewer , D.J. ( 1995 ), “ Do teachers’ race, gender, and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the national education longitudinal study of 1988 ”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review , Vol. 48 No. 3 , pp. 547 - 561 .

Feldman , K.A. ( 1976 ), “ The superior college teacher from the students’ view ”, Research in Higher Education , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 243 - 288 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991967

Feldman , K.A. ( 1977 ), “ Consistency and variability among college students in rating their teachers and courses: a review and analysis ”, Research in Higher Education , Vol. 6 No. 3 , pp. 223 - 274 .

Feldman , K.A. ( 1978 ), “ Course characteristics and college students’ ratings of their teachers: what we know and what we don’t ”, Research in Higher Education , Vol. 9 No. 3 , pp. 199 - 242 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976997

Feldman , K.A. ( 1984 ), “ Class size and college students’ evaluations of teachers and courses: a closer look ”, Research in Higher Education , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 45 - 116 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975035

Felton , J. , Mitchell , J. and Stinson , M. ( 2004 ), “ Web-based student evaluations of professors: the relations between perceived quality, easiness, and sexiness ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 29 No. 1 , pp. 91 - 108 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293032000158180

Fink , A. ( 2005 ), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper , 2nd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Fisk , R.P. , Grove , S.J. and John , J. ( 2014 ), Services Marketing: An Interactive Approach , 4th ed. , Cengage Learning , Mason, OH .

Flaherty , C. ( 2015 ), “ Flawed evaluations ”, available at: www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/10/aaup-committee-survey-data-raise-questions-effectiveness-student-teaching (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Flood , B. ( 1970 ), “ Student evaluation of teacher performance ”, Journal of Education for Librarianship , Vol. 10 No. 4 , pp. 283 - 285 , available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/40322085

Fox , R. , Peck , R.F. , Blattstein , A. and Blattstein , D. ( 1983 ), “ Student evaluation of teacher as a measure of teacher behavior and teacher impact on students ”, The Journal of Educational Research , Vol. 77 No. 1 , pp. 16 - 21 .

Frey , P.W. ( 1976 ), “ Validity of student instructional ratings: does timing matter? ”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 327 - 336 .

Galetzka , M. , Verhoeven , J.W.M. and Pruyn , A.T.H. ( 2006 ), “ Service validity and service reliability of search, experience and credence services: a scenario study ”, International Journal of Service Industry Management , Vol. 17 No. 3 , pp. 271 - 283 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230610667113

Gikas , J. and Grant , M.M. ( 2013 ), “ Mobile computing devices in higher education: student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media ”, The Internet and Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 18 - 26 .

Glaser , B.G. ( 1965 ), “ The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis ”, Social Problems , Vol. 12 No. 4 , pp. 436 - 445 .

Glaser , B.G. ( 1978 ), Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory , Sociology Press , Mill Valley, CA .

Grammatikopoulos , V. , Linardakis , M. , Gregoriadis , A. and Oikonomidis , V. ( 2015 ), “ Assessing the Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Greek higher education ”, Higher Education , Vol. 70 No. 3 , pp. 395 - 408 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9837-7

Green , B.N. , Johnson , C.D. and Adams , A. ( 2006 ), “ Writing narrative literature review for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade ”, Journal of Chiropractic Medicine , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 101 - 117 .

Greene , B.A. , Miller , R.B. , Crowson , H.M. , Duke , B.L. and Akey , K.L. ( 2004 ), “ Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation ”, Contemporary Educational Psychology , Vol. 29 No. 4 , pp. 462 - 482 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006

Grove , S.J. and Fisk , R.P. ( 1997 ), “ The impact of other customers on service experiences: a critical incident examination of ‘getting alone’ ”, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 73 No. 1 , pp. 63 - 85 .

Harackiewicz , J.M. , Barron , K.E. , Pintrich , P.R. , Elliot , A.J. and Thrash , T.M. ( 2002 ), “ Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 94 No. 3 , pp. 638 - 645 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638

Hart , C. ( 1998 ), Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Hildebrand , M. ( 1973 ), “ The character and skills of the effective professor ”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 44 No. 1 , pp. 41 - 50 .

Hildebrand , M. , Wilson , R.C. and Dienst , E.R. ( 1971 ), Evaluating University Teaching , Center for Research and Development in Higher Education , Berkeley, CA .

Hill , M.C. and Epps , K.K. ( 2010 ), “ The impact of physical classroom environment on student satisfaction and student evaluation of teaching in the university environment ”, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal , Vol. 14 No. 4 , pp. 65 - 79 .

Howell , A.J. and Symbaluk , D.G. ( 2001 ), “ Published student ratings of instruction: revealing and reconciling the views of students and faculty ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 93 No. 4 , pp. 790 - 796 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.790

Hu , Y.-L. and Ching , G.S. ( 2012 ), “ Factors affecting student engagement: an analysis on how and why students learn ”, Conference on Creative Education , Scientific Research Publishing , Irvine, CA , pp. 989 - 992 .

Hu , Y.-L. , Hung , C.-H. and Ching , G.S. ( 2015 ), “ Student-faculty interaction: mediating between student engagement factors and educational outcome gains ”, International Journal of Research Studies in Education , Vol. 4 No. 1 , pp. 43 - 53 , available at: https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2014.800

Hultman , M. and Oghazi , P. ( 2008 ), “ Good looks - good courses: the link between physical attractiveness and perceived performance in higher educational services ”, in Thyne , M. , Deans , K.R. and Gnoth , J. (Eds), Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference , University of Otago , Dunedin , pp. 2588 - 2597 .

Huynh , P. ( 2015 ), “ Overcoming low response rates for online course evaluations ”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Institutional Research, Denver, CO .

Kolb , D.A. , Rubin , I.M. and McIntyre , J.M. ( 1984 ), Organizational Psychology: An Experimental Approach to Organizational Behavior , Prentice-Hall , Englewood Cliffs, NJ .

Kornell , N. and Hausman , H. ( 2016 ), “ Do the best teachers get the best rating? ”, Frontiers in Psychology , Vol. 7 , No. 570 , pp. 1 - 8 , available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00570

Koushki , P.A. and Kuhn , H.A.J. ( 1982 ), “ How reliable are student evaluations of teachers? ”, Engineering Education , Vol. 72 No. 3 , pp. 362 - 367 .

Kuh , G.D. ( 2008 ), High-Impact Educational Practices: What they are, who has Access to them, and why they Matter , AACU , Washington, DC .

Kuh , G.D. , O’Donnell , K. and Reed , S. ( 2013 ), Ensuring Quality and Taking High-Impact Practices to Scale , AACU , Washington, DC .

Kuzmanovic , M. , Savic , G. , Popovic , M. and Martic , M. ( 2012 ), “ A new approach to evaluation of university teaching considering heterogeneity of students’ preferences ”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol. 64 No. 1 , pp. 402 - 411 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.047

Liao , S. ( 2013 ), “ Psychological contract between teacher and student improves teaching process in the network courses of college: a study based on the network course of psychology in Shaoguan University ”, in Luo , X. (Ed.), International Conference on Education Technology and Management Science , Atlantis Press , Amsterdam , pp. 885 - 887 .

Lidice , A. and Saglam , G. ( 2013 ), “ Using students’ evaluations to measure educational quality ”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol. 70 No. 25 , pp. 1009 - 1015 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.152

Liegle , J.O. and McDonald , D.S. ( 2005 ), “ Lessons learned from online vs paper-based computer information students evaluation system ”, Information Systems Education Journal , Vol. 3 No. 37 , pp. 1 - 14 , available at: http://isedj.org/3/37/

Lin , J.-H. and Chen , J.-H. ( 2016 ), “ SELF-COLA: assessing students learning experiences and first-year outcomes ”, paper presented at the International Conference: Higher Education Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA .

Lipsey , M.W. and Wilson , D.B. ( 2001 ), Practical Meta-Analysis , Vol. 49 , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Liu , S. , Keeley , J. and Buskist , W. ( 2016 ), “ Chinese college students’ perceptions of excellent teachers across three disciplines ”, Psychology, Chemical Engineering, and Education , Vol. 43 No. 1 , pp. 70 - 74 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315620888

Longanecker , D. ( 2016 ), “ Higher education in the new normal of the 21st century: an era of evidence based change ”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA .

Lubienski , C. ( 2007 ), “ Marketing schools: consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information ”, Education and Urban Society , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 118 - 141 .

MacGregor , K. ( 2015 ), “ Six key elements of an entrepreneurial university ”, University World News, available at: www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20151106141848199 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Machi , L.A. and McEvoy , B.T. ( 2016 ), The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success , 3rd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

MacNell , L. , Driscoll , A. and Hunt , A.N. ( 2015 ), “ What’s in a name: exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching ”, Innovative Higher Education , Vol. 40 No. 4 , pp. 291 - 303 , available at: https://doi,org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4

Mäkinen , J. , Olkinuora , E. and Lonka , K. ( 2004 ), “ Students at risk: students’ general study orientations and abandoning/prolonging the course of studies ”, Higher Education , Vol. 48 No. 2 , pp. 173 - 188 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000034312.79289.ab

Marcotte , A. ( 2014 ), “ Best way for professors to get good student evaluations? Be male ”, available at: www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/09/gender_bias_in_student_evaluations_professors_of_online_courses_who_present.html (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Marks , R.B. ( 2000 ), “ Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value ”, Journal of Marketing Education , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 108 - 119 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475300222005

Marlin , J.W. Jr ( 1987 ), “ Student perceptions of end-of-course evaluations ”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 58 No. 6 , pp. 704 - 716 .

Marsh , H.W. ( 1980 ), “ The influence of student, course, and instructor characteristics in evaluations of university teaching ”, American Educational Research Journal , Vol. 17 No. 2 , pp. 219 - 237 .

Marsh , H.W. ( 1982 ), “ SEEQ: a reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching ”, British Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 52 No. 1 , pp. 77 - 95 , available at: https://doi,org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb02505.x

Marsh , H.W. ( 1984 ), “ Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential baises, and utility ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 76 No. 5 , pp. 707 - 754 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.707

Marsh , H.W. ( 1987 ), “ Students’ evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research ”, International Journal of Educational Research , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 253 - 388 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2

Marsh , H.W. ( 1991 ), “ Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: a test of alternative higher-order structures ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 83 No. 2 , pp. 285 - 296 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.285

Marsh , H.W. ( 2007 ), “ Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness ”, in Perry , R.P. and Smart , J.C. (Eds), The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective , Springer , Dordrecht , pp. 319 - 383 .

Marsh , H.W. and Bailey , M. ( 1993 ), “ Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: a profile analysis ”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 64 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 18 , available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2959975

Marsh , H.W. and Dunkin , M.J. ( 1997 ), “ Students’ evaluations of university teaching: a multidimensional perspective ”, in Perry , R.P. and Smart , J.C. (Eds), Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Research and Practice , Agathon , New York, NY , pp. 241 - 320 .

Marsh , H.W. and Roche , L.A. ( 1997 ), “ Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: the critical issues of validity, bias, and utility ”, American Psychologist , Vol. 52 No. 11 , pp. 1187 - 1197 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1187

Marsh , H.W. and Roche , L.A. ( 2000 ), “ Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students’ evaluations of teaching: popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 92 No. 1 , pp. 202 - 228 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.202

Marsh , H.W. , Hau , K.-T. , Chung , C.-M. and Siu , T.L.P. ( 1997 ), “ Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Chinese version of the students’ evaluations of educational quality instrument ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 89 No. 3 , pp. 568 - 572 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.568

Mehrabian , A. ( 1968 ), “ Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior ”, Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation , Vol. 1 No. 6 , pp. 203 - 207 , available at: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208096

Meredith , G.M. ( 1977 ), “ Faculty-based indicators of teaching effectiveness in higher education ”, Psychological Reports , Vol. 41 No. 2 , pp. 675 - 676 , available at: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1977.41.2.675

Meredith , G.M. ( 1978 ), “ Student-based ratings of teaching effectiveness in legal education ”, Psychological Reports , Vol. 43 No. 3 , pp. 953 - 954 , available at: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.43.3.953

Meredith , G.M. ( 1985a ), “ Student-based indicators of campus satisfaction as an outcome of higher education ”, Psychological Reports , Vol. 56 No. 2 , pp. 597 - 598 , available at: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.56.2.597

Meredith , G.M. ( 1985b ), “ Two rating indicators of excellence in teaching in lecture format courses ”, Psychological Reports , Vol. 56 No. 1 , pp. 52 - 54 , available at: https://doi,org/10.2466/pr0.1985.56.1.52

Meredith , G.M. and Bub , D.N. ( 1977 ), “ Evaluation of apprenticeship teaching in higher education ”, Psychological Reports , Vol. 40 No. 3 , pp. 1123 - 1126 , available at: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1977.40.3c.1123

Meredith , G.M. and Ogasawara , T.H. ( 1982 ), “ Preference for class size in lecture-format courses among college students ”, Psychological Reports , Vol. 51 No. 3 , pp. 961 - 962 , available at: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.3.961

Miles , M. and Huberman , M. ( 1994 ), Qualitative Data Analysis , 2nd ed. , Sage , Beverly Hills, CA .

Miller , R.B. , Greene , B.A. , Montalvo , G.P. , Ravindran , B. and Nichols , J.D. ( 1996 ), “ Engagement in academic work: the role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability ”, Contemporary Educational Psychology , Vol. 21 No. 4 , pp. 388 - 422 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0028

Mitchell , M. , Leachman , M. and Masterson , K. ( 2016 ), “ Funding down, tuition up ”, available at: www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Mogan , J. and Knox , J.E. ( 1987 ), “ Characteristics of ‘best’ and ‘worst’ clinical teachers as perceived by university nursing faculty and students ”, Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol. 12 No. 3 , pp. 331 - 337 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01339.x

Mortelmans , D. and Spooren , P. ( 2009 ), “ A revalidation of the SET37 questionnaire for student evaluations of teaching ”, Educational Studies , Vol. 35 No. 5 , pp. 547 - 552 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690902880299

Murray , H.G. , Rushton , J.P. and Paunonen , S.V. ( 1990 ), “ Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 82 No. 2 , pp. 250 - 261 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.250

Naidoo , R. ( 2016 ), “ Higher education is trapped in a competition fetish ”, University World News, available at: www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160413131355443 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Nasser , F. and Fresko , B. ( 2002 ), “ Faculty views of student evaluation of college teaching ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 27 No. 2 , pp. 187 - 198 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930220128751

National Statistics office of Taiwan ( 2018 ), “ Statistical tables ”, available at: https://eng.stat.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=1629&CtUnit=779&BaseDSD=7&mp=5 (accessed January 1, 2018 ).

Norris , D. and Baer , L. ( 2013 ), Building Organizational Capacity for Analytics , Educause , Louisville, CO .

Norris , J. and Conn , C. ( 2005 ), “ Investigating strategies for increasing student response rates to online delivered course evaluations ”, Quarterly Review of Distance Education , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 13 - 29 .

Nowell , C. ( 2007 ), “ The impact of relative grade expectations on student evaluation of teaching ”, International Review of Economics Education , Vol. 6 No. 2 , pp. 42 - 56 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1477-3880(15)30104-3

Otani , K. , Kim , B.J. and Cho , J.-I. ( 2012 ), “ Student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education: how to use SET more effectively and efficiently in public affairs education ”, Journal of Public Affairs Education , Vol. 18 No. 3 , pp. 531 - 544 .

Otter , S. ( 1995 ), “ Learning outcomes in higher education ”, in Burke , J. (Ed.), Outcomes, Learning and the Curriculum: Implications for NVQ’s, GNVQ’s and Other Qualifications , Falmer Press , Bristol, PA , pp. 273 - 284 .

Overall , J.U. and Marsh , H.W. ( 1979 ), “ Midterm feedback from students: Its relationship to instructional improvement and students’ cognitive and affective outcomes ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 71 No. 6 , pp. 856 - 865 .

Patton , T.O. ( 1999 ), “ Ethnicity and gender: an examination of its impact on instructor credibility in the university classroom ”, The Howard Journal of Communications , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 123 - 144 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/106461799246852

Perry , R.P. , Abrami , P.C. , Leventhal , L. and Check , J. ( 1979 ), “ Instructor reputation: an expectancy relationship involving student ratings and achievement ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 71 No. 6 , pp. 776 - 787 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.6.776

Petticrew , M. and Roberts , H. ( 2005 ), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , Blackwell Publishers , Malden, MA .

Picciano , A.G. ( 2012 ), “ The evolution of big data and learning analytics in American higher education ”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 9 - 20 .

Pietersen , C. ( 2014 ), “ Negotiating a shared psychological contract with students ”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences , Vol. 5 No. 7 , pp. 25 - 33 , available at: https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n7p25

Pogue , L.L. and Ahyun , K. ( 2006 ), “ The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning ”, Communication Education , Vol. 55 No. 3 , pp. 331 - 344 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748623

Poonyakanok , P. , Thisayakorn , N. and Digby , P.W. ( 1986 ), “ Student evaluation of teacher performance: some initial research findings from Thailand ”, Teaching and Teacher Education , Vol. 2 No. 2 , pp. 145 - 154 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(86)90013-2

Powell , R.W. ( 1977 ), “ Grades, learning, and student evaluation of instruction ”, Research in Higher Education , Vol. 7 No. 3 , pp. 193 - 205 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991986

Pozo-Muñoz , C. , Rebolloso-Pacheco , E. and Fernández-Ramírez , B. ( 2000 ), “ The ‘ideal teacher’: implications for student evaluation of teacher effectiveness ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 253 - 263 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930050135121

Pravikoff , P. and Nadasen , D. ( 2015 ), “ Course evaluations simplified: the largest US public university did it and you can too ”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Institutional Research, Denver, CO .

Pulich , M.A. ( 1984 ), “ Better use of student evaluations for teaching effectiveness ”, Improving College and University Teaching , Vol. 32 No. 2 , pp. 91 - 94 .

Remedios , R. and Lieberman , D.A. ( 2008 ), “ I liked your course because you taught me well: the influence of grades, workload, expectations and goals on students’ evaluations of teaching ”, British Educational Research Journal , Vol. 34 No. 1 , pp. 91 - 115 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701492043

Rice , L.C. ( 1988 ), “ Student evaluation of teaching: problems and prospects ”, Teaching Philosophy , Vol. 11 No. 4 , pp. 329 - 344 , available at: https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil198811484

Richardson , J.T.E. ( 2005 ), “ Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 30 No. 4 , pp. 387 - 415 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099193

Rivera , J.C. and Rice , M.L. ( 2002 ), “ A comparison of student outcomes and satisfaction between traditional and web based course offerings ”, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 1 - 11 , available at: www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Rocco , T.S. and Plakhotnik , M.S. ( 2009 ), “ Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: terms, functions, and distinctions ”, Human Resource Development Review , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 120 - 130 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617

Rodin , M. and Rodin , B. ( 1972 ), “ Student evaluations of teachers ”, Science , Vol. 177 No. 4055 , pp. 1164 - 1166 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4055.1164

Roehling , M.V. ( 1997 ), “ The origins and early development of the psychological contract construct ”, Journal of Management History , Vol. 3 No. 2 , pp. 204 - 217 .

Rother , E.T. ( 2007 ), “ Systematic literature review×narrative review ”, Acta Paulista de Enfermagem , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. vii - viii .

Rousseau , D.M. ( 1995 ), Psychological Contracts in Organizations , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Rousseau , D.M. ( 2001 ), “ Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological contract ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 74 No. 4 , pp. 511 - 541 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167505

Sander , P. , Stevenson , K. , King , M. and Coates , D. ( 2000 ), “ University students’ expectations of teaching ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 309 - 323 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070050193433

Schellhase , K.C. ( 2010 ), “ The relationship between student evaluation of instruction scores and faculty formal educational coursework ”, Athletic Training Education Journal , Vol. 5 No. 4 , pp. 156 - 164 .

Shulman , L. ( 1987 ), “ Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform ”, Harvard Educational Review , Vol. 57 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 23 , available at: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Skinner , E.A. and Belmont , M.J. ( 1993 ), “ Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year ”, Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 85 No. 4 , pp. 571 - 581 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571

Sohr-Preston , S.L. , Boswell , S.S. , McCaleb , K. and Robertson , D. ( 2016 ), “ Professor gender, age, and ‘hotness’ in influencing college students’ generation and interpretation of professor ratings ”, Higher Learning Research Communications , Vol. 6 No. 3 , pp. 1 - 23 , available at: https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v6i3.328

Solomon , M.R. , Surprenant , C.F. , Czepiel , J.A. and Gutman , E.G. ( 1985 ), “ A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions: the service encounter ”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 49 No. 1 , pp. 99 - 111 .

Spooren , P. and Van Loon , F. ( 2012 ), “ Who participates (not)? A non-response analysis on students’ evaluations of teaching ”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol. 69 No. 1 , pp. 990 - 996 .

Spooren , P. , Brockx , B. and Mortelmans , D. ( 2013 ), “ On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: the state of the art ”, Review of Educational Research , Vol. 83 No. 4 , pp. 598 - 642 , available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870

Sproule , R. ( 2000 ), “ Student evaluation of teaching: methodological critique ”, Education Policy Analysis Archives , Vol. 8 No. 50 , pp. 1 - 23 , available at: https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n50.2000

Staley , D.J. and Trinkle , D.A. ( 2011 ), “ The changing landscape of higher education ”, Educause, pp. 16-32, available at: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2011/2/the-changing-landscape-of-higher-education (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Stark , P. and Freishtat , R. ( 2014 ), “ An evaluation of course evaluations ”, ScienceOpen Research, available at: https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Tagiuri , R. ( 1969 ), “ Person perception ”, in Lindzey , G. and Aronson , E. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology: The Individual in a Social Context , 2nd ed. , Vol. 3 , Addison-Wesley , Reading, MA , pp. 395 - 449 .

Tatro , C.N. ( 1995 ), “ Gender effects on student evaluations of faculty ”, Journal of Research and Development in Education , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 169 - 173 .

Torraco , R.J. ( 2005 ), “ Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples ”, Human Resource Development Review , Vol. 4 No. 3 , pp. 356 - 367 .

Tseng , Y.-H. ( 2016 ), “ Development and application of databases for institutional research and analysis (Xiàowù yánjiū zīliàokù de jiàngòu yfēnxī yìngyòng) ”, Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly , Vol. 24 No. 1 , pp. 107 - 134 , available at: https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2016.2401.04

Usher , A. ( 2009 ), “ Ten years back and ten years forward: developments and trends in higher education in Europe region ”, paper presented at the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education in the Europe Region, Bucharest .

Vlăsceanu , L. , Grünberg , L. and Pârlea , D. ( 2004 ), Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Glossary of Basic Terms and Definitions , United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , Bucharest .

Voss , R. , Gruber , T. and Szmigin , I. ( 2007 ), “ Service quality in higher education: the role of student expectations ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 60 No. 9 , pp. 949 - 959 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.020

Wachtel , H.K. ( 2006 ), “ Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 23 No. 2 , pp. 191 - 212 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230207

Wilson , A. , Zeithaml , V.A. , Bitner , M.J. and Gremler , D.D. ( 2012 ), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm , 2nd European ed. , McGraw-Hill Education , Berkshire .

WTO ( 1998 ), “ Education services ”, Document No. S/C/W/49 98-3691, World Trade Organization, Geneva, available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/w49.doc (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Wright , P. , Whittington , R. and Whittenburg , G.E. ( 1984 ), “ Student ratings of teaching effectiveness: what the research reveals ”, Journal of Accounting Education , Vol. 2 No. 2 , pp. 5 - 30 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0748-5751(84)90002-2

Wu , P.-M. ( 2018 ), “ The declining birthrate threatens. The number of college freshmen is reduced to only 100,000 after 10 years (shǎo znhuà fā wēi dà zhuān xiào yuàn xīn shēng 10 nián hòu jiǎn jìn 10 wàn rén) ”, available at: https://udn.com/news/story/7266/3156797 (accessed March 30, 2018 ).

Zeithaml , V.A. ( 1981 ), “ How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and services ”, in Donnelly , J.H. and George , W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services , American Marketing Association , Chicago, IL , pp. 186 - 190 .

Zhang , Y.-W. ( 2003 ), “ Development of student instructional rating scale (Dàxuéshēng jiàoxuépíngjiànliàngbiǎo zhī fāzhǎnyánjiū) ”, Journal of Education and Psychology , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 227 - 239 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here