Review of Related Literature
Case Study:
“Where Do I Even Begin?”
Read the following scenario carefully before your lesson begins. Discuss the questions with your group — there are no wrong answers yet. The goal is to activate your thinking about what a literature review really demands.
Three Students, One Assignment, Three Very Different Approaches
Dr. Phuong has assigned all three students the same task: write a 2,500-word review of related literature on collaborative writing in EFL classrooms for their research methods course. They have three weeks.
Minh starts writing on Day 2. He finds three articles through a Google search, reads their abstracts, and begins writing immediately. His draft opens with: “Many researchers have studied collaborative writing. This shows it is important for language learning.” He includes no in-text citations in his first three paragraphs, and his reference list consists of two Wikipedia articles and one blog post. He is confident the draft is “basically done.”
Linh spends the first two weeks reading. She has collected 34 articles from SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar. Her notes are meticulous. By Day 14, however, she has written only half a page. She tells her classmates: “I still haven’t found the gap yet. I’m not sure I’ve read enough. Maybe I need 20 more articles.” Her advisor reminds her that her draft is due in four days.
Bảo submits on time. His literature review has 18 references, all from peer-reviewed journals. However, each paragraph begins with “Author X (Year) found that…” and ends there. There is no discussion of how the studies relate to each other, no identification of contradictions, and no clear statement of a research gap. His conclusion reads: “As shown above, many studies have investigated collaborative writing. Therefore, more research is needed.”
He is writing without reading, using non-academic sources, and producing claims with no evidence. He confuses speed with readiness.
She is reading without writing, which creates a paralysis loop. Reading and drafting must happen iteratively, not sequentially.
He is producing an annotated bibliography, not a literature review. He describes studies without synthesizing, analyzing, or identifying gaps.
None of these students is “bad” at research — they simply have misconceptions about what a literature review is and how it works. By the end of today’s lesson, you should be able to explain exactly what each student did wrong and how to do it correctly.
Discuss in groups of 3–4. Click each question to open a note-taking space. You do not need to have the “right” answer — share your current thinking.
Once you have completed the lesson, revisit these questions. Can you now give precise, evidence-based answers to each one, using the concepts and citations from the lesson?
Problem-Solving:
From Raw Literature to a Research Plan
Apply everything from today’s lesson to a real research scenario. Work in groups of 4. Use the five tasks below to build a complete, critically grounded literature review plan — step by step.
The Challenge: Turn Raw Reading into a Research Plan
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) for EFL Vocabulary in Vietnamese High Schools
Your research team has been asked to design a new study on the use of mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) to improve EFL vocabulary retention among Grade-11 students in Vietnamese public high schools. Before designing the study, you must write the literature review section.
Below is a summary of six studies your team has already read and noted. Use these as the basis for all five tasks.
| # | Author(s) & Year | Key Finding | Context | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Sung et al. (2015) | MALL significantly improved vocabulary scores vs. traditional methods | University Taiwan | Short duration (4 weeks); no follow-up retention test |
| S2 | Hoi & Ngan (2019) | Students had positive attitudes toward mobile apps in EFL; engagement increased | High School Vietnam | Only measured attitudes — no vocabulary performance data |
| S3 | Godwin-Jones (2017) | Reviewed MALL trends; noted shift toward social and gamified mobile tools | Review Article Global | No empirical data; descriptive synthesis only |
| S4 | Mohsen & Balakumar (2011) | Spaced repetition via mobile flashcard apps improved long-term retention | University Saudi Arabia | Adult learners only; no adolescent data |
| S5 | Dang (2021) | Vietnamese high school EFL teachers reported low digital tool integration due to infrastructure | High School Vietnam | Teacher perspective only; no student learning outcomes measured |
| S6 | Stockwell (2010) | Mobile vocabulary tasks had variable results depending on device familiarity and task design | University Japan | Pre-smartphone era; app ecosystems now fundamentally different |
Before writing, you must organize your six studies thematically — not chronologically or alphabetically. Look at the studies and decide which thematic categories make the most sense for a literature review on MALL and EFL vocabulary in Vietnamese high schools.
- Review all six studies (S1–S6) and discuss as a group: what are the 2–3 main themes connecting these studies?
- Assign each study (S1–S6) to one of your themes. Some studies may appear in more than one theme.
- Give each theme a short, descriptive academic label (e.g., “Effectiveness of MALL on Vocabulary Outcomes”).
- Note: which studies don’t fit neatly into any theme? What does that tell you?
Mackey & Gass (2005) advise structuring the review around relevant issues of study, not individual authors. Your themes should map onto your research variables: MALL tools, vocabulary retention, Vietnamese EFL context.
Now practice critical synthesis — not description. Choose one of the themes from Task 1 and write a short academic paragraph (150–200 words) that critically engages with the studies in that theme.
- Open with a thematic claim — a sentence that captures the collective evidence, not just “researchers have studied X.”
- Integrate at least two studies using paraphrase + in-text citation.
- Compare, contrast, or identify a tension or limitation across the studies in this theme.
- End with a sentence that points toward a gap or need, connecting to your research topic.
“Sung et al. (2015) found that…” followed by nothing else is descriptive, not critical. Instead try: “A convergent finding across studies is that… (Sung et al., 2015; Mohsen & Balakumar, 2011), although…”
Using all six studies, identify the most significant and well-justified research gap for a new study on MALL and EFL vocabulary retention in Vietnamese Grade-11 students. Your gap must be specific, evidence-based, and directly linked to limitations in the existing studies.
- Identify which type of gap is most relevant: empirical, methodological, contextual, temporal, or theoretical.
- Cite specific studies (S1–S6) as evidence that the gap exists — don’t assert it without support.
- Explain why the gap matters: what would we know better if it were filled?
- Write your gap statement in 2–3 sentences using the structure: What exists → what is missing → why it matters.
Now turn your gap into a full research plan: research questions with clearly defined independent and dependent variables, grounded in the gap you identified in Task 3.
- Write 2–3 research questions that directly emerge from the gap. Each must be answerable, focused, and specific to your study context.
- For each question, identify the independent variable (what you manipulate or compare) and the dependent variable (what you measure).
- Ensure at least one question addresses learning outcomes (vocabulary retention) and one addresses student attitudes or perceptions.
- Check: do your questions arise naturally from the gap, or do they feel like they were written first and the gap invented to fit them?
RQ2: Which components of dependent variable are most significantly affected by independent variable?
RQ3: What are participants‘ perceptions of intervention?
Exchange your Tasks 2–4 output with another group. Read their critical paragraph (Task 2), gap statement (Task 3), and research questions (Task 4). Use the criteria below to provide constructive written feedback.
- Read the other group’s paragraph, gap statement, and research questions carefully — do not skim.
- Use the evaluation checklist below to rate their work.
- Write 2–3 specific, constructive comments: at least one strength and at least one area for improvement with a clear suggestion.
- Present your peer feedback to the class in 2 minutes.
Evaluation Checklist
Quick Ratings (Peer Group: ____________)
Each group presents their gap statement and research questions (2 min each). The class votes on which gap is most specific and best-justified. The instructor provides formative feedback on the critical paragraphs.
1. Introduction
A review of related literature is one of the most essential sections of any academic research paper, thesis, or dissertation. Rather than being a mere formality or a summary of what others have written, the literature review serves as a dynamic intellectual exercise that frames, justifies, and anchors the study being conducted. Snyder (2019) defines a literature review as a scholarly synthesis of prior research that enables researchers to keep up with state-of-the-art knowledge, identify research gaps, and position their own work within a broader academic conversation. As such, the literature review helps both the researcher and the reader understand why the study is needed, what has already been done, and what remains unexplored.
In the context of graduate research in applied linguistics and language teaching, writing an effective literature review requires careful reading, critical thinking, and systematic organization. This lesson provides a comprehensive guide to understanding the two major components of a literature review—the review of theoretical literature and the review of previous empirical research studies—as well as strategies for identifying research gaps, selecting appropriate sources, and avoiding plagiarism through proper citation practices.
2. Overview: What Is a Review of Related Literature?
When writing a research paper, researchers are expected to review nearly every key concept and issue relevant to their topic. This involves examining the extent to which previous researchers or scholars have addressed similar questions, and understanding the various perspectives that exist in the field. A literature review, therefore, is not simply a list of studies—it is a critical, organized discussion that demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the relevant body of knowledge.
A literature review typically comprises two related but distinct sections:
- Review of Theoretical Literature
- Review of Previous Research Studies (Empirical Literature)
Together, these two sections provide readers with a comprehensive background of both the conceptual foundations and the empirical evidence relevant to the research topic. Torraco (2005) argues that a well-constructed integrative literature review goes beyond summarizing what has been done—it synthesizes diverse sources to generate new understanding and identify areas where knowledge is incomplete or conflicting.
3. Review of Theoretical Literature
3.1 Definition and Purpose
A theory is a coherent set of concepts, assumptions, and generalizations that offers explanatory or predictive power about a given phenomenon (Mackey & Gass, 2005). The review of theoretical literature introduces readers to the major theories, models, and conceptual frameworks that undergird the research problem. It is particularly important in research papers, theses, and dissertations because it helps readers understand why certain variables or phenomena are being investigated.
In most journal articles, the review of theoretical literature is typically embedded within or forms the basis of the Introduction section. It draws primarily on books, textbooks, course materials, and foundational scholarly works to provide a general background for the investigated issues. The theoretical review is broader in scope than the empirical review and serves to orient the reader to the key concepts before the specific empirical evidence is discussed.
3.2 What Theories Should You Review?
The selection of theories for review should be directly relevant to the research problem. Theories serve as a lens through which empirical evidence is interpreted. They provide a basis for hypotheses and research questions. A critical principle to keep in mind is that the theories you review must relate to your research problem and form a conceptual bridge to the empirical review that follows (Mackey & Gass, 2005).
|
Example: Applying Theory to a Research Topic Suppose a researcher is studying the effectiveness of collaborative writing tasks in improving EFL students’ L2 writing proficiency. The relevant theoretical framework might include: • Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory — which posits that learning is fundamentally a social process mediated by interaction with more capable peers (scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development). • The Interaction Hypothesis — which emphasizes the role of negotiation of meaning in second language acquisition. • The Output Hypothesis — which highlights the importance of producing language (speaking or writing) as a vehicle for noticing gaps in one’s L2 knowledge. By reviewing these theories, the researcher situates their study within a recognized theoretical tradition and justifies why collaborative writing is a meaningful instructional approach to study. |
3.3 How to Write the Theoretical Review
When writing the theoretical section, keep the following principles in mind:
- Introduce each theory or concept clearly — explain what it is, who proposed it, and how it applies to your study.
- Do not merely list theories — show how each theory connects to your specific research problem.
- Move from broad to specific — start with general theoretical perspectives and narrow down to those most directly relevant to your study.
- Maintain a critical stance — briefly evaluate the applicability of each theory to your context rather than accepting it uncritically.
4. Review of Previous Research Studies (Empirical Literature)
4.1 Definition and Purpose
While the theoretical review provides the conceptual foundation, the empirical literature review examines what researchers have actually done in studies relevant to your topic. According to Snyder (2019), a well-conducted review of empirical literature synthesizes research findings across multiple studies to help researchers identify patterns, contradictions, and gaps in the existing body of knowledge.
A literature review is a section in a research report that critically surveys the major research studies about a selected topic in order to give readers a broad picture of what has been done by previous researchers. Crucially, it also links your own research with prior work—establishing continuity between what is already known and what you intend to contribute.
In journal articles, the empirical review tends to be particularly focused because it demonstrates awareness of the most recent trends and findings in the field being investigated (Mackey & Gass, 2005). It draws primarily from peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and other scholarly publications that report original research.
4.2 How to Write the Empirical Literature Review
Mackey and Gass (2005) advise researchers to keep several key principles in mind when writing their empirical literature review:
- Structure your review around relevant issues, not individual studies. The literature review should be organized thematically according to the key variables, research questions, or sub-topics of your study—not chronologically or alphabetically by author. This thematic organization allows the reader to see the cumulative development of knowledge in each area.
- Write critically, not merely descriptively. Listing a series of previous studies without analysis or argument is a common error among novice researchers. Effective empirical reviews require critical engagement: you must evaluate the relevance and quality of studies, identify their methodological strengths and weaknesses, and synthesize their findings in a way that informs your own research design.
- Connect studies to your own research. As you review each study or cluster of studies, ask yourself: How does this relate to my research topic? What problems or limitations exist in the existing research? What questions remain unanswered? Addressing these questions allows you to justify your own study.
- Draw a reasoned conclusion. Based on your critical analysis of the literature, the empirical review should culminate in a conclusion that identifies the specific gap(s) your study will address. This conclusion forms a logical bridge to your research questions or hypotheses.
|
Example: Critical vs. Descriptive Review Descriptive (Weak) Version: “Shehadeh (2011) conducted a study on collaborative writing. The study lasted 16 weeks and involved 38 students.” Critical (Strong) Version: Shehadeh (2011) investigated the effectiveness of collaborative writing (CW) in an L2 context in the UAE over 16 weeks using a pre- and post-test design. The findings revealed that CW significantly improved content, organization, and vocabulary, but produced no significant differences in grammar or mechanics. This suggests that the benefits of collaborative writing may be more pronounced for higher-order writing skills than for surface-level accuracy—a finding that has implications for how researchers design dependent variables in CW studies and raises questions about how longer-term intervention might affect grammatical development. Notice how the second version not only reports findings but interprets them, evaluates their significance, and opens a line of inquiry for further research. |
4.3 Critical Questions to Guide Your Reading
As you review the relevant literature, approach each study with the following critical questions:
- How does this study relate to my research topic and research questions?
- What were the study’s key findings, and how reliable and valid are they?
- What methodological limitations are present in the study (e.g., small sample size, lack of control group, short duration)?
- Are the findings consistent with other studies in the field, or do they contradict them?
- What aspects of the topic remain insufficiently studied or unexplored?
- How does this study inform my own research design, methodology, or interpretation of results?
By systematically addressing these questions across multiple sources, you will develop a nuanced understanding of your research territory—and begin to see where your own study fits.
5. Identifying Research Gaps
5.1 What Is a Research Gap?
A research gap is an area of a topic that has not been sufficiently investigated, is poorly understood, is understudied in a particular context or population, or produces contradictory findings across existing studies. Identifying a research gap is the essential justification for conducting a new study.
It must be emphasized that research gaps cannot be found without extensive reading. Students who attempt to identify gaps before thoroughly engaging with the literature will struggle because they lack the contextual knowledge needed to recognize what is missing. The more you read and critically summarize empirical studies in a given area, the more clearly the landscape of existing knowledge—and its lacunae—comes into view.
|
Types of Research Gaps • Empirical gaps: Areas where no or very few studies exist (e.g., a phenomenon well-studied in Western contexts but not studied in Southeast Asian EFL environments). • Methodological gaps: Areas where existing studies rely on a single method (e.g., only quantitative), and a mixed-methods or qualitative approach could yield richer insights. • Contextual gaps: Studies conducted in specific populations or settings that have not been replicated in different populations, age groups, or educational systems. • Theoretical gaps: Contradictions or conflicts between existing theories or between theoretical predictions and empirical evidence. • Temporal gaps: Outdated studies whose findings may no longer reflect current educational practices or technologies. |
5.2 How Research Gaps Lead to Research Questions
Once you have identified a plausible research gap through your reading, your research questions should logically follow from it. Research questions are, in essence, the researcher’s attempt to fill the gap: they articulate what is not yet known, and the study is designed to answer them.
|
Example: From Gap to Research Questions A researcher reviewing the literature on collaborative writing in L2 contexts (e.g., Shehadeh, 2011) notices that most studies have been conducted with university students in the Middle East or East Asia. There is a gap regarding how collaborative writing affects writing quality among EFL students in Vietnamese higher education. This gap yields the following research questions: 11. RQ1: Does collaborative writing significantly improve the overall writing quality of Vietnamese EFL university students compared to individual writing? 12. RQ2: Which components of writing quality (content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, mechanics) are most significantly affected by collaborative writing tasks? 13. RQ3: What are Vietnamese EFL students’ perceptions of the collaborative writing experience? Notice how each research question directly emerges from what was observed (or missing) in the reviewed literature. |
6. Finding Appropriate Sources for the Literature Review
To write an effective literature review, you must be able to locate, evaluate, and select appropriate sources. Sources for a literature review generally fall into two broad categories:
6.1 Primary vs. Secondary Sources
Primary sources are original works authored by the researchers who conducted the study or developed the theory. Examples include original research articles published in peer-reviewed journals, original theoretical books, and dissertations. Primary sources are the gold standard for literature reviews.
Secondary sources are works in which an author has synthesized, summarized, or discussed primary sources written by others. Examples include review articles, textbooks, and edited volumes. Secondary sources can be useful for gaining a broad overview of a field, but researchers should always trace back to primary sources whenever possible to ensure accuracy.
6.2 Recommended Source Types
For your literature review, prioritize the following in descending order of academic credibility:
- Peer-reviewed journal articles — These are the most important sources for the empirical review. Target reputable databases such as Google Scholar, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis Online, Springer Nature, and IGI Global.
- Scholarly books and textbooks — Particularly useful for the theoretical review. Foundational books in applied linguistics and research methodology (e.g., Mackey & Gass, 2005) are essential references.
- Conference proceedings — Can be useful but tend to be less thoroughly peer-reviewed than journal articles.
- Theses and dissertations — Acceptable but should be used with care as they have not been subjected to the same level of peer review as published articles.
When using any source in your literature review, ensure that it is current, relevant, and credible. As a general rule, aim to cite studies published within the last 10–15 years unless a foundational theory or classic study is being referenced.
7. Avoiding Plagiarism: Citation, Paraphrasing, and Referencing
7.1 Understanding Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the presentation of another person’s words, ideas, data, or intellectual work as if they were your own, without appropriate acknowledgment. Fazilatfar et al. (2018) found that in EFL academic writing contexts, students frequently rely on source texts through copying as a primary strategy, often because they are uncertain about how to cite correctly. Plagiarism in academic research is a serious ethical violation regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional, and it undermines the integrity of scholarly communication.
7.2 Practical Strategies to Avoid Plagiarism
The following strategies will help you avoid plagiarism throughout the writing process:
- Plan your writing early. Do not write your paper at the last minute. Rushed writing often leads to poor paraphrasing or unintentional copying from sources.
- Take notes in your own words. When reading sources, resist the urge to copy passages verbatim into your notes. Instead, write brief summaries in your own words immediately after reading each source.
- Keep a complete record of all sources. Track every source you read by recording the author, year, title, journal or publisher, volume, issue, pages, and DOI or URL. This ensures that all in-text citations have a corresponding reference entry.
- Ensure consistency between in-text citations and the reference list. Every in-text citation must appear in the reference list, and every reference in the list must correspond to an in-text citation.
7.3 Using Citations, Quotations, and Paraphrasing
There are three principal ways of integrating sources into academic writing:
Direct Quotation: Using the exact words of an author, enclosed in quotation marks, followed by an in-text citation including the author, year, and page number. Quotations should be used sparingly—only when the original wording is particularly precise, authoritative, or memorable.
Paraphrasing: Restating another author’s idea in your own words and sentence structure, followed by an in-text citation. This is the most common method of integrating sources in academic research writing. Good paraphrasing demonstrates your understanding of the source material.
Summarizing: Providing a condensed version of a source’s main argument or findings, again with an in-text citation. Summaries are useful when you wish to convey the overall thrust of a study without detailing every aspect.
Providing citations and references serves two related purposes: it shows that you have engaged with the relevant scholarly authorities, which strengthens the credibility of your own argument; and it enables readers to locate the original sources if they wish to explore a topic in greater depth (Fazilatfar et al., 2018).
|
Example: Original Source vs. Paraphrase Original passage (Shehadeh, 2011, p. 286): “This study investigated the effectiveness and students’ perceptions of collaborative writing (CW) in second language (L2).” Poor paraphrase (too close to original, plagiarism risk): “This study examined the efficiency and learners’ views of collaborative writing in the second language.” Effective paraphrase: Shehadeh (2011) explored how working collaboratively on writing tasks influenced the quality of L2 learners’ written output and their attitudes toward the collaborative experience. |
8. Structuring the Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide
Writing the literature review is a multi-stage process. The following steps provide a practical framework:
Step 1: Conduct Broad and Systematic Reading
Before you can write anything, you need to read extensively. Broad reading serves multiple purposes: it familiarizes you with the field, helps you select an appropriate research topic, and equips you with the background knowledge needed to recognize research gaps. The more extensively you read, the more clearly the landscape of existing knowledge—and its lacunae—will come into view.
Step 2: Organize Your Sources Thematically
Once you have a sufficient set of sources, organize them into thematic categories aligned with your research questions or key variables. This thematic structure is the backbone of your literature review. Snyder (2019) underscores that structuring the literature review around central themes—rather than individual studies—enables a more coherent synthesis and makes the gaps in existing knowledge more visible.
Step 3: Write Each Section Critically
For each thematic category, write a critical discussion that integrates multiple sources rather than summarizing studies one by one. Highlight agreements, disagreements, and limitations across studies. Use your own analytical voice to interpret what the cumulative evidence means. Torraco (2005) notes that critique—identifying the strengths, limitations, and gaps in existing literature—is the product of careful critical analysis and is central to what makes a literature review a genuine scholarly contribution.
Step 4: Identify and Articulate Research Gaps
Based on your critical discussion, clearly articulate the gap(s) in the existing literature. Be explicit about what is missing, understudied, or contradictory. This provides the rationale—the “because”—for your study.
Step 5: Write a Logical Conclusion
Conclude the literature review by drawing together the main findings and limitations from across the reviewed studies. The conclusion should explicitly connect back to your research questions or hypotheses, demonstrating that your study emerges organically from what the literature has and has not established.
9. Model Text: Analyzing a Literature Review Excerpt
The following is the abstract of a study published in the Journal of Second Language Writing. Read it carefully and answer the analysis questions below.
|
Model Text: Shehadeh (2011) This study investigated the effectiveness and students’ perceptions of collaborative writing (CW) in second language (L2). The study involved 38 first-year students in two intact classes at a large university in the UAE (United Arab Emirates). One class consisted of 18 students in the experimental group (writing in pairs) and 20 students in the control group (writing individually). The study lasted 16 weeks and involved a pre- and post-test. Writing quality was determined by a holistic rating procedure that included content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. Results showed that CW had an overall significant effect on students’ L2 writing; however, this effect varied across writing skill areas. The effect was significant for content, organization, and vocabulary, but not for grammar or mechanics. In addition, most students in the CW condition found the experience enjoyable and felt that it contributed to their L2 learning. Results are discussed in light of the social constructivist perspective of learning, and theoretical and pedagogical implications are presented. Source: Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010 |
Discussion Questions
- How many thematic categories does the researcher review in their literature review? What are the key variables investigated?
- What are the research gaps identifiable from the findings of this study? (Think: what did the study NOT find or address?)
- Are the research questions of the study clearly grounded in the identified gaps? Explain why or why not.
- Working in groups of four: Write a summary of this abstract in no more than 100 words in your own words, avoiding plagiarism.
10. Practice Activities
Activity 1: Identifying Research Gaps (Problem-Solving 10)
|
Group Activity (Groups of 4) 26. Share with your group the research studies you have read for your own literature review. Discuss whether any of the studies have limitations—methodological, contextual, or empirical. 27. Identify at least two possible research gaps based on your readings. 28. Discuss with your partner whether these are genuine research gaps (i.e., not already addressed by other studies you may have missed). 29. Based on those research gaps, formulate two or three draft research questions for your study. |
Activity 2: Developing Research Questions (Problem-Solving 11)
Working with your group, complete the following planning template for your own research study:
|
Research Planning Template Topic: _______________________________________________ Independent Variable: _______________________________ Dependent Variable(s): ______________________________ Identified Research Gap(s): ___________________________ Research Question 1: ________________________________ Research Question 2: ________________________________ Research Question 3: ________________________________ |
11. Key Terms and Definitions
Literature Review: A critical, organized synthesis of existing research and theoretical work relevant to a specific research topic or problem.
Theoretical Literature Review: A review of the major theories, models, and conceptual frameworks that provide the intellectual foundation for the research problem.
Empirical Literature Review: A critical review of previous research studies (with actual data collection) that are relevant to the topic.
Research Gap: An area within a topic that has not been sufficiently studied, is poorly understood, or yields contradictory findings in the existing literature.
Plagiarism: The unacknowledged use of another person’s words, ideas, data, or intellectual work as if they were one’s own.
Paraphrase: Restating another author’s ideas in one’s own words and sentence structure, with a proper in-text citation.
In-Text Citation: A brief reference within the text of a paper indicating the source from which information was drawn (e.g., Mackey & Gass, 2005).
Primary Source: An original work created by the researcher who conducted the study or developed the theory.
Secondary Source: A work that synthesizes, summarizes, or discusses primary sources written by others.
12. Homework Assignment
|
Homework Tasks 30. Broad Reading: Read at least five peer-reviewed journal articles directly related to your research topic. For each article, write a brief critical note (150–200 words) that identifies: (a) the main research question, (b) key findings, (c) methodological limitations, and (d) potential research gaps. 31. Source Tracking: Create a reference list entry in APA 7th edition format for each of the five articles you read. Ensure that all entries include a DOI or URL where available. 32. Draft Outline: Based on your readings, draft a thematic outline for your own literature review. Identify at least two major thematic sections and the sub-topics within each. 33. Research Gap and Questions: Write a paragraph (250–300 words) that identifies at least one research gap from your readings and proposes 2–3 research questions that your study will address. |
References
Note: All references below are from verifiable peer-reviewed sources available through SAGE Open, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar.
Fazilatfar, A. M., Elhambakhsh, S. E., & Allami, H. (2018). An investigation of the effects of citation instruction to avoid plagiarism in EFL academic writing assignments. SAGE Open, 8(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018769958
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Research Methodology in Applied Linguistics
Review of Related Literature
Student Assessment Quiz
20 questions covering all lesson topics, organized by Bloom’s Taxonomy (Levels 1–6).
Select your answers, check your results, then submit to your instructor.
0 / 20 answered
Student Information
Recall key terms, definitions, and facts from the lesson.
According to Snyder (2019), a literature review is best described as which of the following?
Which of the following is the correct definition of a theory, as stated by Mackey and Gass (2005)?
The two main components of a review of related literature are:
Which of the following databases is NOT listed in the lesson as a recommended source for finding academic literature?
Explain concepts and distinguish between ideas in your own understanding.
What is the main difference between the theoretical literature review and the empirical literature review?
Why does the lesson emphasize that research gaps cannot be found without extensive reading?
Which of the following best explains why the lesson recommends organizing the literature review thematically rather than chronologically?
Fazilatfar et al. (2018) found that EFL students frequently plagiarize because of which underlying reason?
Use concepts and procedures in new situations or examples.
A student wants to write a literature review on the use of technology in EFL vocabulary learning. Following the lesson’s guidance, how should they organize their review?
A researcher reads the study by Shehadeh (2011) and wants to include its findings in their literature review using paraphrasing. Which version below correctly paraphrases without plagiarism?
A student is writing about Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory in their theoretical review section. According to the lesson, what should they do to use this theory correctly?
Which of the following correctly formats a reference for Torraco (2005) in APA 7th edition style, as used in the lesson?
Break down information, examine relationships, and distinguish between elements.
Shehadeh (2011) found that collaborative writing improved content, organization, and vocabulary but NOT grammar or mechanics. Which type of research gap does this finding most directly suggest?
Read the two versions below. What is the key analytical difference between a descriptive and a critical literature review passage?
Version A: “Smith (2020) investigated peer feedback in ESL writing classes. The study involved 45 students and lasted one semester.”
Version B: “Smith’s (2020) semester-long study of peer feedback among 45 ESL writers revealed improvements in revision quality, yet the absence of a control group limits causal inference — pointing to a need for quasi-experimental designs in future research.”
A student’s literature review contains the following in-text citation but the reference list has no matching entry: “(Johnson & Lee, 2022).” What type of problem is this, and what must the student do?
Make judgments, assess quality, and defend positions based on criteria.
A student cites a Wikipedia article as the primary source for their definition of “sociocultural theory” in their literature review. How should you evaluate this choice?
Torraco (2005) argues that a high-quality integrative literature review must go beyond summarizing existing studies. Based on this criterion, which of the following student reviews is of HIGHER quality?
Produce new work by integrating and applying knowledge in original ways.
A researcher finds that most studies on written corrective feedback (WCF) in L2 writing have used only university-level adult learners in East Asian countries. Based on the lesson’s typology of gaps, which research question BEST addresses the most significant gap?
A graduate student is designing their own literature review on collaborative writing among Vietnamese university EFL students. Which combination of components, arranged in the correct order, forms the best-structured literature review?
Using what you have learned in this lesson, which of the following represents the most complete and well-justified research plan for a new study on mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) for vocabulary in Vietnamese high schools?
Your Result
Literature Review — Case Study & Problem-Solving Writing Up the Literature Review 📖 Case Study 🔬 Problem-Solving Pre-Lesson Activity Case Study:“Where Do I Even Begin?” Read the following scenario carefully before your lesson begins. Discuss the questions with your group — there are no wrong answers yet. The goal is to activate your thinking about…