How to write a literature review for a research article

April 17 2008

©2008 Richard Watson Todd

Writing the literature review

What is the purpose of a literature review?

Does a ‘literature review’ have to review literature?

Theoretically v. practically justified research

Quantity of references Theoretically based research

– e.g. Applied Linguistics– 40-100 references per article

Practically based research– e.g. Forum– 5-20 references per article

Quantity of references is not a basis for deciding on article type or evaluating research

Justifying your research

YOUR argument is more important than the literature

References to the literature are used to show that YOUR argument is valid

The literature only takes precedence over YOUR argument when you are explaining necessary background knowledge

One process for writing a literature review Make YOUR rough argument Read 3 or 4 key texts of relevance Remake YOUR rough argument Identify points needing support Find references covering those points Match references to YOUR argument Revise your argument if necessary

Finding references

Key resources– BALD– Google Scholar– Scopus

Follow up on references in articles you read

Principles for the literature review Do not be biased (it’s not persuasive) Present both sides of an argument and show why y

our side is more important Acknowledge problems, weaknesses and assumpti

ons Mix argument with explanations Write at the level of your audience Move from general to specific Use a more specific heading than ‘Literature Revi

ew’

Citation styles Sentence-initial citations

– Prensky (2004) argues that mobile phones have become a part of most students’ identities.

Clause-final citations– Mobile phones have become a part of most students’ id

entities (Prensky, 2004).

Rough rule: 80+% of citations should be clause-final

Sentence-initial citations are used mainly for in-depth explanations of theory

Citation styles

Use multiple citations– Most extant mobile phone-based applications in language learning

concern discrete points of language. These include SMS messages sent to students of the a-word-a-day variety (Chinnery, 2006; Lu, 2006; McNicol, 2004; Prensky, 2004; Song and Fox, 2005), mini-lessons either sent via SMS or accessible through the web (Chinnery, 2006; Prensky, 2004; Thornton and Houser, 2004, 2005), short closed-ended quizzes available through SMS, the web or downloads (Attewell, 2005; Chinnery, 2006; McNicol, 2004; Uther et al., 2005), and a downloadable game (Kam et al., 2008; Marshall, 2007). Other applications include using mobile phones to talk with tutors (Chinnery, 2006) and classroom applications such as a medium for information-gap tasks and recording students' speech for later analysis (Watson Todd, 2006).

An example: Mobile Mazes

Background– Mobile Mazes (MM) are a mobile phone assisted

language learning (MPALL) game that Ajarn Saowaluck and I designed

– We conducted interviews and think aloud protocols with users to investigate:• motivations in downloading and using MM• where and when to use MM• technical issues

Justifying research into Mobile Mazes What do we need to justify?

– Value of making an MPALL game

– Value of Mobile Mazes as an MPALL game

– Value of investigating certain aspects of MM

Value of making an MPALL game Ubiquity of mobile phones Importance of mobile phones to students Potential of mobile phones as a language le

arning device

BUT dangers of technology-driven innovations

Value of Mobile Mazes as an MPALL game Previous work in MPALL Drawbacks with previous applications What needs to be improved

Note: This section will be stronger with a coherent framework– CALL in the 1980s

Value of investigating certain aspects of Mobile Mazes

Difficulty of investigating learning from MPALL

Need to confirm benefits of MPALL identified in previous research

Need to fill gaps in MPALL literature Need to investigate key features of MM (e.g

. motivating gameplay)

Lead to Research Questions

Things to look for

Emphasis on literature v. emphasis on own argument

Arguments for and against Sentence-initial v. clause-final references Justifying MPALL v. justifying Mobile

Mazes v. justifying aspects to investigate

Purposes of paragraphs

Intro: Overview of article + justification of why MPALL

Purposes of paragraphs

MPALL:– Defining area (MPALL)– Review of previous MPALL– Analysis of previous MPALL– Criticisms of previous MPALL

Purposes of paragraphs

MPALL and 80s CALL– Introduction to section– Criticisms of 80s CALL– Parallels between MPALL and 80s CALL

based on criticisms– Directions for improving 80s CALL– Applying directions to MPALL

Purposes of paragraphs

Mobile Mazes– Justification of MPALL game– Describing MM– Describing MM and limitations– Limitations of MM

Purposes of paragraphs

Investigating MM– Why not investigate learning outcomes– Justifying investigation of motivations (RQ1)– Justifying investigation of when/where MM is

used (RQ2)– Justifying investigation of technical issues

(RQ3)