what is review of related literature and studies in research

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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.

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 September 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL) in Research

A review of related literature (a.k.a RRL in research) is a comprehensive review of the existing literature pertaining to a specific topic or research question. An effective review provides the reader with an organized analysis and synthesis of the existing knowledge about a subject. With the increasing amount of new information being disseminated every day, conducting a review of related literature is becoming more difficult and the purpose of review of related literature is clearer than ever.  

All new knowledge is necessarily based on previously known information, and every new scientific study must be conducted and reported in the context of previous studies. This makes a review of related literature essential for research, and although it may be tedious work at times , most researchers will complete many such reviews of varying depths during their career. So, why exactly is a review of related literature important?    

Table of Contents

Why a review of related literature in research is important  

Before thinking how to do reviews of related literature , it is necessary to understand its importance. Although the purpose of a review of related literature varies depending on the discipline and how it will be used, its importance is never in question. Here are some ways in which a review can be crucial.  

• Identify gaps in the knowledge – This is the primary purpose of a review of related literature (often called RRL in research ). To create new knowledge, you must first determine what knowledge may be missing. This also helps to identify the scope of your study.  
• Avoid duplication of research efforts – Not only will a review of related literature indicate gaps in the existing research, but it will also lead you away from duplicating research that has already been done and thus save precious resources.  
• Provide an overview of disparate and interdisciplinary research areas – Researchers cannot possibly know everything related to their disciplines. Therefore, it is very helpful to have access to a review of related literature already written and published.  
• Highlight researcher’s familiarity with their topic 1  – A strong review of related literature in a study strengthens readers’ confidence in that study and that researcher.

Tips on how to write a review of related literature in research

Given that you will probably need to produce a number of these at some point, here are a few general tips on how to write an effective review of related literature 2 .

• Define your topic, audience, and purpose: You will be spending a lot of time with this review, so choose a topic that is interesting to you. While deciding what to write in a review of related literature , think about who you expect to read the review – researchers in your discipline, other scientists, the general public – and tailor the language to the audience. Also, think about the purpose of your review of related literature .  
• Conduct a comprehensive literature search: While writing your review of related literature , emphasize more recent works but don’t forget to include some older publications as well. Cast a wide net, as you may find some interesting and relevant literature in unexpected databases or library corners. Don’t forget to search for recent conference papers.
• Review the identified articles and take notes: It is a good idea to take notes in a way such that individual items in your notes can be moved around when you organize them. For example, index cards are great tools for this. Write each individual idea on a separate card along with the source. The cards can then be easily grouped and organized.  
• Determine how to organize your review: A review of related literature should not be merely a listing of descriptions. It should be organized by some criterion, such as chronologically or thematically.  
• Be critical and objective: Don’t just report the findings of other studies in your review of related literature . Challenge the methodology, find errors in the analysis, question the conclusions. Use what you find to improve your research. However, do not insert your opinions into the review of related literature. Remain objective and open-minded.  
• Structure your review logically: Guide the reader through the information. The structure will depend on the function of the review of related literature. Creating an outline prior to writing the RRL in research is a good way to ensure the presented information flows well.  

As you read more extensively in your discipline, you will notice that the review of related literature appears in various forms in different places. For example, when you read an article about an experimental study, you will typically see a literature review or a RRL in research , in the introduction that includes brief descriptions of similar studies. In longer research studies and dissertations, especially in the social sciences, the review of related literature will typically be a separate chapter and include more information on methodologies and theory building. In addition, stand-alone review articles will be published that are extremely useful to researchers.  

The review of relevant literature or often abbreviated as, RRL in research , is an important communication tool that can be used in many forms for many purposes. It is a tool that all researchers should befriend.  

• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center. Literature Reviews.  https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/  [Accessed September 8, 2022]
• Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013, 9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.

Q:  Is research complete without a review of related literature?

A research project is usually considered incomplete without a proper review of related literature. The review of related literature is a crucial component of any research project as it provides context for the research question, identifies gaps in existing literature, and ensures novelty by avoiding duplication. It also helps inform research design and supports arguments, highlights the significance of a study, and demonstrates your knowledge an expertise.

Q: What is difference between RRL and RRS?

The key difference between an RRL and an RRS lies in their focus and scope. An RRL or review of related literature examines a broad range of literature, including theoretical frameworks, concepts, and empirical studies, to establish the context and significance of the research topic. On the other hand, an RRS or review of research studies specifically focuses on analyzing and summarizing previous research studies within a specific research domain to gain insights into methodologies, findings, and gaps in the existing body of knowledge. While there may be some overlap between the two, they serve distinct purposes and cover different aspects of the research process.

Q: Does review of related literature improve accuracy and validity of research?

Yes, a comprehensive review of related literature (RRL) plays a vital role in improving the accuracy and validity of research. It helps authors gain a deeper understanding and offers different perspectives on the research topic. RRL can help you identify research gaps, dictate the selection of appropriate research methodologies, enhance theoretical frameworks, avoid biases and errors, and even provide support for research design and interpretation. By building upon and critically engaging with existing related literature, researchers can ensure their work is rigorous, reliable, and contributes meaningfully to their field of study.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What is Research Impact: Types and Tips for Academics

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

Review of Related Literature: Format, Example, & How to Make RRL

A review of related literature is a separate paper or a part of an article that collects and synthesizes discussion on a topic. Its purpose is to show the current state of research on the issue and highlight gaps in existing knowledge. A literature review can be included in a research paper or scholarly article, typically following the introduction and before the research methods section.

This article will clarify the definition, significance, and structure of a review of related literature. You’ll also learn how to organize your literature review and discover ideas for an RRL in different subjects.

🔤 What Is RRL?

• ❗ Significance of Literature Review
• 🔎 How to Search for Literature
• 🧩 Literature Review Structure
• 📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others
• ✍️ How to Write an RRL
• 📚 Examples of RRL

🔗 References

A review of related literature (RRL) is a part of the research report that examines significant studies, theories, and concepts published in scholarly sources on a particular topic. An RRL includes 3 main components:

• A short overview and critique of the previous research.
• Similarities and differences between past studies and the current one.
• An explanation of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the research.

❗ Significance of Review of Related Literature

Although the goal of a review of related literature differs depending on the discipline and its intended use, its significance cannot be overstated. Here are some examples of how a review might be beneficial:

• It helps determine knowledge gaps .
• It saves from duplicating research that has already been conducted.
• It provides an overview of various research areas within the discipline.
• It demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the topic.

🔎 How to Perform a Literature Search

Including a description of your search strategy in the literature review section can significantly increase your grade. You can search sources with the following steps:

🧩 Literature Review Structure Example

The majority of literature reviews follow a standard introduction-body-conclusion structure. Let’s look at the RRL structure in detail.

Introduction of Review of Related Literature: Sample

An introduction should clarify the study topic and the depth of the information to be delivered. It should also explain the types of sources used. If your lit. review is part of a larger research proposal or project, you can combine its introductory paragraph with the introduction of your paper.

Here is a sample introduction to an RRL about cyberbullying:

Bullying has troubled people since the beginning of time. However, with modern technological advancements, especially social media, bullying has evolved into cyberbullying. As a result, nowadays, teenagers and adults cannot flee their bullies, which makes them feel lonely and helpless. This literature review will examine recent studies on cyberbullying.

Sample Review of Related Literature Thesis

A thesis statement should include the central idea of your literature review and the primary supporting elements you discovered in the literature. Thesis statements are typically put at the end of the introductory paragraph.

Look at a sample thesis of a review of related literature:

This literature review shows that scholars have recently covered the issues of bullies’ motivation, the impact of bullying on victims and aggressors, common cyberbullying techniques, and victims’ coping strategies. However, there is still no agreement on the best practices to address cyberbullying.

Literature Review Body Paragraph Example

The main body of a literature review should provide an overview of the existing research on the issue. Body paragraphs should not just summarize each source but analyze them. You can organize your paragraphs with these 3 elements:

• Claim . Start with a topic sentence linked to your literature review purpose.
• Evidence . Cite relevant information from your chosen sources.
• Discussion . Explain how the cited data supports your claim.

Here’s a literature review body paragraph example:

Scholars have examined the link between the aggressor and the victim. Beran et al. (2007) state that students bullied online often become cyberbullies themselves. Faucher et al. (2014) confirm this with their findings: they discovered that male and female students began engaging in cyberbullying after being subject to bullying. Hence, one can conclude that being a victim of bullying increases one’s likelihood of becoming a cyberbully.

Review of Related Literature: Conclusion

A conclusion presents a general consensus on the topic. Depending on your literature review purpose, it might include the following:

• Introduction to further research . If you write a literature review as part of a larger research project, you can present your research question in your conclusion .
• Overview of theories . You can summarize critical theories and concepts to help your reader understand the topic better.
• Discussion of the gap . If you identified a research gap in the reviewed literature, your conclusion could explain why that gap is significant.

Check out a conclusion example that discusses a research gap:

There is extensive research into bullies’ motivation, the consequences of bullying for victims and aggressors, strategies for bullying, and coping with it. Yet, scholars still have not reached a consensus on what to consider the best practices to combat cyberbullying. This question is of great importance because of the significant adverse effects of cyberbullying on victims and bullies.

📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others

In this section, we will discuss how to format an RRL according to the most common citation styles: APA, Chicago, MLA, and Harvard.

Writing a literature review using the APA7 style requires the following text formatting:

• When using APA in-text citations , include the author’s last name and the year of publication in parentheses.
• For direct quotations , you must also add the page number. If you use sources without page numbers, such as websites or e-books, include a paragraph number instead.
• When referring to the author’s name in a sentence , you do not need to repeat it at the end of the sentence. Instead, include the year of publication inside the parentheses after their name.
• The reference list should be included at the end of your literature review. It is always alphabetized by the last name of the author (from A to Z), and the lines are indented one-half inch from the left margin of your paper. Do not forget to invert authors’ names (the last name should come first) and include the full titles of journals instead of their abbreviations. If you use an online source, add its URL.

The RRL format in the Chicago style is as follows:

• Author-date . You place your citations in brackets within the text, indicating the name of the author and the year of publication.
• Notes and bibliography . You place your citations in numbered footnotes or endnotes to connect the citation back to the source in the bibliography.
• The reference list, or bibliography , in Chicago style, is at the end of a literature review. The sources are arranged alphabetically and single-spaced. Each bibliography entry begins with the author’s name and the source’s title, followed by publication information, such as the city of publication, the publisher, and the year of publication.

Writing a literature review using the MLA style requires the following text formatting:

• In the MLA format, you can cite a source in the text by indicating the author’s last name and the page number in parentheses at the end of the citation. If the cited information takes several pages, you need to include all the page numbers.
• The reference list in MLA style is titled “ Works Cited .” In this section, all sources used in the paper should be listed in alphabetical order. Each entry should contain the author, title of the source, title of the journal or a larger volume, other contributors, version, number, publisher, and publication date.

The Harvard style requires you to use the following text formatting for your RRL:

• In-text citations in the Harvard style include the author’s last name and the year of publication. If you are using a direct quote in your literature review, you need to add the page number as well.
• Arrange your list of references alphabetically. Each entry should contain the author’s last name, their initials, the year of publication, the title of the source, and other publication information, like the journal title and issue number or the publisher.

✍️ How to Write Review of Related Literature – Sample

Literature reviews can be organized in many ways depending on what you want to achieve with them. In this section, we will look at 3 examples of how you can write your RRL.

Thematic Literature Review

A thematic literature review is arranged around central themes or issues discussed in the sources. If you have identified some recurring themes in the literature, you can divide your RRL into sections that address various aspects of the topic. For example, if you examine studies on e-learning, you can distinguish such themes as the cost-effectiveness of online learning, the technologies used, and its effectiveness compared to traditional education.

Chronological Literature Review

A chronological literature review is a way to track the development of the topic over time. If you use this method, avoid merely listing and summarizing sources in chronological order. Instead, try to analyze the trends, turning moments, and critical debates that have shaped the field’s path. Also, you can give your interpretation of how and why specific advances occurred.

Methodological Literature Review

A methodological literature review differs from the preceding ones in that it usually doesn’t focus on the sources’ content. Instead, it is concerned with the research methods . So, if your references come from several disciplines or fields employing various research techniques, you can compare the findings and conclusions of different methodologies, for instance:

• empirical vs. theoretical studies;
• qualitative vs. quantitative research.

📚 Examples of Review of Related Literature and Studies

We have prepared a short example of RRL on climate change for you to see how everything works in practice!

Climate change is one of the most important issues nowadays. Based on a variety of facts, it is now clearer than ever that humans are altering the Earth's climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, causing sea level rise, a significant loss of Arctic ice, and other climate-related changes. This literature review provides a thorough summary of research on climate change, focusing on climate change fingerprints and evidence of human influence on the Earth's climate system.

Physical Mechanisms and Evidence of Human Influence

Scientists are convinced that climate change is directly influenced by the emission of greenhouse gases. They have carefully analyzed various climate data and evidence, concluding that the majority of the observed global warming over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Instead, there is compelling evidence pointing to a significant contribution of human activities, primarily the emission of greenhouse gases (Walker, 2014). For example, based on simple physics calculations, doubled carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere can lead to a global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius. (Elderfield, 2022). In order to determine the human influence on climate, scientists still have to analyze a lot of natural changes that affect temperature, precipitation, and other components of climate on timeframes ranging from days to decades and beyond.

Fingerprinting Climate Change

Fingerprinting climate change is a useful tool to identify the causes of global warming because different factors leave unique marks on climate records. This is evident when scientists look beyond overall temperature changes and examine how warming is distributed geographically and over time (Watson, 2022). By investigating these climate patterns, scientists can obtain a more complex understanding of the connections between natural climate variability and climate variability caused by human activity.

Modeling Climate Change and Feedback

To accurately predict the consequences of feedback mechanisms, the rate of warming, and regional climate change, scientists can employ sophisticated mathematical models of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice (the cryosphere). These models are grounded in well-established physical laws and incorporate the latest scientific understanding of climate-related processes (Shuckburgh, 2013). Although different climate models produce slightly varying projections for future warming, they all will agree that feedback mechanisms play a significant role in amplifying the initial warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. (Meehl, 2019).

In conclusion, the literature on global warming indicates that there are well-understood physical processes that link variations in greenhouse gas concentrations to climate change. In addition, it covers the scientific proof that the rates of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and continue to rise fast. According to the sources, the majority of this recent change is almost definitely caused by greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities. Citizens and governments can alter their energy production methods and consumption patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, the magnitude of climate change. By acting now, society can prevent the worst consequences of climate change and build a more resilient and sustainable future for generations to come.

Have you ever struggled with finding the topic for an RRL in different subjects? Read the following paragraphs to get some ideas!

Nursing Literature Review Example

Many topics in the nursing field require research. For example, you can write a review of literature related to dengue fever . Give a general overview of dengue virus infections, including its clinical symptoms, diagnosis, prevention, and therapy.

Another good idea is to review related literature and studies about teenage pregnancy . This review can describe the effectiveness of specific programs for adolescent mothers and their children and summarize recommendations for preventing early pregnancy.

📝 Check out some more valuable examples below:

• Hospital Readmissions: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Lower Sepsis Mortality Rates .
• Breast Cancer: Literature Review .
• Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Literature Review .
• PICO for Pressure Ulcers: Literature Review .
• COVID-19 Spread Prevention: Literature Review .
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Literature Review .
• Hypertension Treatment Adherence: Literature Review .
• Neonatal Sepsis Prevention: Literature Review .
• Healthcare-Associated Infections: Literature Review .
• Understaffing in Nursing: Literature Review .

Psychology Literature Review Example

If you look for an RRL topic in psychology , you can write a review of related literature about stress . Summarize scientific evidence about stress stages, side effects, types, or reduction strategies. Or you can write a review of related literature about computer game addiction . In this case, you may concentrate on the neural mechanisms underlying the internet gaming disorder, compare it to other addictions, or evaluate treatment strategies.

A review of related literature about cyberbullying is another interesting option. You can highlight the impact of cyberbullying on undergraduate students’ academic, social, and emotional development.

📝 Look at the examples that we have prepared for you to come up with some more ideas:

• Mindfulness in Counseling: A Literature Review .
• Team-Building Across Cultures: Literature Review .
• Anxiety and Decision Making: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on Depression .
• Literature Review on Narcissism .
• Effects of Depression Among Adolescents .
• Causes and Effects of Anxiety in Children .

Literature Review — Sociology Example

Sociological research poses critical questions about social structures and phenomena. For example, you can write a review of related literature about child labor , exploring cultural beliefs and social norms that normalize the exploitation of children. Or you can create a review of related literature about social media . It can investigate the impact of social media on relationships between adolescents or the role of social networks on immigrants’ acculturation .

📝 You can find some more ideas below!

• Single Mothers’ Experiences of Relationships with Their Adolescent Sons .
• Teachers and Students’ Gender-Based Interactions .
• Gender Identity: Biological Perspective and Social Cognitive Theory .
• Gender: Culturally-Prescribed Role or Biological Sex .
• The Influence of Opioid Misuse on Academic Achievement of Veteran Students .
• The Importance of Ethics in Research .
• The Role of Family and Social Network Support in Mental Health .

Education Literature Review Example

For your education studies , you can write a review of related literature about academic performance to determine factors that affect student achievement and highlight research gaps. One more idea is to create a review of related literature on study habits , considering their role in the student’s life and academic outcomes.

You can also evaluate a computerized grading system in a review of related literature to single out its advantages and barriers to implementation. Or you can complete a review of related literature on instructional materials to identify their most common types and effects on student achievement.

📝 Find some inspiration in the examples below:

• Literature Review on Online Learning Challenges From COVID-19 .
• Education, Leadership, and Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Standardized Testing Bias .
• Bullying of Disabled Children in School .
• Interventions and Letter & Sound Recognition: A Literature Review .
• Social-Emotional Skills Program for Preschoolers .
• Effectiveness of Educational Leadership Management Skills .

Business Research Literature Review

If you’re a business student, you can focus on customer satisfaction in your review of related literature. Discuss specific customer satisfaction features and how it is affected by service quality and prices. You can also create a theoretical literature review about consumer buying behavior to evaluate theories that have significantly contributed to understanding how consumers make purchasing decisions.

📝 Look at the examples to get more exciting ideas:

• Leadership and Communication: Literature Review .
• Human Resource Development: Literature Review .
• Project Management. Literature Review .
• Strategic HRM: A Literature Review .
• Customer Relationship Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on International Financial Reporting Standards .
• Cultures of Management: Literature Review .

To conclude, a review of related literature is a significant genre of scholarly works that can be applied in various disciplines and for multiple goals. The sources examined in an RRL provide theoretical frameworks for future studies and help create original research questions and hypotheses.

When you finish your outstanding literature review, don’t forget to check whether it sounds logical and coherent. Our text-to-speech tool can help you with that!

• Literature Reviews | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Writing a Literature Review | Purdue Online Writing Lab
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature | University of Wisconsin-Madison
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It | University of Toronto
• Writing a Literature Review | UC San Diego
• Conduct a Literature Review | The University of Arizona
• Methods for Literature Reviews | National Library of Medicine
• Literature Reviews: 5. Write the Review | Georgia State University

How to Write an Animal Testing Essay: Tips for Argumentative & Persuasive Papers

Descriptive essay topics: examples, outline, & more.

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• 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.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative 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.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

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." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative 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." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

Chat PDF Tools Compared: SciSpace ChatPDF and Sider AI

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . 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 in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

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 primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the 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 a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded 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 make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

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 or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus 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 [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon 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. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own 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 analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . 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?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to 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.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An 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.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• 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]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• 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 convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through 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 explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. 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 environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from 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. However, sometimes you may 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. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• 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?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates 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 research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. 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. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

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 in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2024 1:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

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
• Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

• To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
• To determine the context of the problem;
• To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
• To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
• To identify significant aspects of the topic;
• To elucidate the implications of the topic;
• To offer an alternative perspective;
• To discern how the studied subject is structured;
• To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
• To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

• Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
• Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
• Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
• Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

• Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

• Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

• Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
• Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• StudySkills@Sheffield
• Academic writing skills
• Critical writing

How to write a literature review

Are you writing a literature review as part of a final year project, dissertation, or thesis, or as a standalone piece of work? This page will work through a process of organising and synthesising your sources and then writing a clear and critical final review.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of the current thinking in a specific area of study. Its purpose is to introduce the reader to what has gone before and often to provide you with a foundation that you can build on with your own research. This traditional form of review is sometimes also referred to as a narrative review.

A literature review will often form a section or chapter of a larger piece of research work, such as a dissertation, thesis, or final year project.  It can also be a standalone piece of work.  

A literature review will usually do some or all of the following:

• Introduce the reader to a specific area of interest.
• Organise relevant sources thematically, starting with the more general, broader themes and narrowing towards the most specific themes.
• Introduce key theories relevant to the area of study.
• Define your understanding of important terms or language used in the research.
• Include only the most relevant, important or influential sources, carefully selected. It is about quality not quantity!
• Identify gaps or limitations in existing research.

Considering a body of scholarship as a whole (or in relation to each of your themes) will allow you to 'synthesise' multiple sources and produce an overall summary.

Developing a literature review will help you to develop a level of expertise in your chosen area. By consulting and including a unique combination of sources, you will be able to formulate an informed and original perspective.  Where relevant, this can drive forward your ongoing research.

Writing a Literature Review workshop: book here

A systematic review is a research methodology, often following a standardised and replicable search method and reporting structure that is specific to your discipline. Visit our guidance on systematic reviews for more information.

Organising your sources

As you encounter more and more relevant sources, you will face an ever-expanding amount of reading for yourself. It would take years to read through all of the literature in a specific field from start to finish.

Academic reading, and particularly the process of 'reading around' a topic, is about selective, or targeted reading. Visit our Reading and understanding information Hub to explore approaches to reading for different purposes.

Creating a Literature Matrix can help you to identify the key things that you want to take away from each source. A literature matrix is a simple spreadsheet where you select column titles to suit the aims of your literature review. Are you interested in the research methodology, the scale of the research, the main conclusions, or something else entirely?

Once you have scanned through a source and pulled out the points you are interested in, you can move onto the next source. Organising your reading in this way will also allow you to identify key themes that are emerging in your reading, which you will be able to use later on to plan your review.

You may want to use a reference management tool to help organise and produce your bibliography. Visit the University of Sheffield Library Reference Management pages here .

Make a copy of our Literature matrix template (Google Sheet) and add/delete columns based on the information you want to collect during your search.  Using a spreadsheet means that you can filter and sort your sources, for example, into chronological order, or alphabetically by author.

This downloadable example literature matrix shows how you can lay out your columns.

Synthesising your sources

Once you have a number of sources to work with, you will start to identify key themes emerging. At this point you can start to organise your sources systematically to develop and explore those themes. Can you organise your themes from the broadest to the narrowest and most specific?

A synthesis matrix will help you to identify a thematic structure for your literature review and to understand how the sources that you have found relate to one another. A synthesis matrix is a further spreadsheet that organises your sources by theme and includes a synthesis column, where you can begin to draw out comparisons between the sources. 

Once you have identified a number of sources for each theme in your matrix, you should be able to identify the following:

• Do the sources build on or develop one another? This may be a chronological process.
• Do the sources challenge or contradict one another? Do they reveal a debate within the field?
• Do the sources identify an area of particular interest or a gap in the field?
• Do the sources help to fill in gaps or complete a bigger picture?

Your synthesis column provides an opportunity for you to comment on multiple sources considered as a whole. It is a space for your critical voice and interpretation, which is a key part of writing a successful literature review.

Make a copy of our synthesis matrix (Google Sheet) to organise your themes and plan how the relevant sources can be synthesised.

Download a completed example synthesis matrix from NC State University (PDF, 34Kb)

Visit our Producing a literature review interactive tutorial - for further guidance.

Writing your review

Once you have done the background reading and organised your sources using a synthesis matrix, the job of writing your review is simply about adding flesh to the bones. You will need to write your review as a narrative account, but you can use your matrix as a framework to help you do so.

A literature review will usually follow a simple structure:

• Introduction: what is the overall topic area and how have you broken your review down into themes?
• Theme 1: the broadest, most top-level area (perhaps including some background theory that may have influenced your thinking).
• Theme 2, theme 3, theme 4, etc. Your themes should get progressively more specific and closer to the focus of your research.
• Conclusion: how has this informed your thinking and (if the review is part of a bigger project) what are your research aims and objectives? 

Your review may be broken down by section headings or be a continuous flow with themes clearly separated in a paragraph structure. Each section or paragraph will describe that theme and finish by summarising your overview of a theme (the synthesis part of the matrix above, which includes your critical analysis). 

Our web page How to structure a paragrap h has further guidance to ensure your paragraphs are clear and contain your synthesis and critical analysis.

For advice and feedback on your own review, including referencing, synthesis and academic arguments, please book a writing advisory service appointment.

Make an appointment (student login required)

• How to plan an effective information search
• How to plan a dissertation or final year project
• How to write critically

Use your mySkills portfolio to discover your skillset, reflect on your development, and record your progress.

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Psychology 194: honors seminar: the literature review.

• Finding Articles
• The Literature Review
• Citations & Bibliographic Software (Zotero)
• Doing Original Research

Quick Links

• Google Scholar This link opens in a new window Search across many disciplines and sources including articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. more... less... Lists journal articles, books, preprints, and technical reports in many subject areas (though more specialized article databases may cover any given field more completely). Can be used with "Get it at UC" to access the full text of many articles.

• UC Library Search Start here to search for articles, books and more, in the collections of the University of California

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a survey of research on a given topic. It allows you see what has already been written on a topic so that you can draw on that research in your own study. By seeing what has already been written on a topic you will also know how to distinguish your research and engage in an original area of inquiry.

Why do a Literature Review?

A literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You will identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

Elements of a Successful Literature Review

According to Byrne's  What makes a successful literature review? you should follow these steps:

• Identify appropriate search terms.
• Search appropriate databases to identify articles on your topic.
• Identify key publications in your area.
• Search the web to identify relevant grey literature. (Grey literature is often found in the public sector and is not traditionally published like academic literature. It is often produced by research organizations.)
• Scan article abstracts and summaries before reading the piece in full.
• Read the relevant articles and take notes.
• Organize by theme.
• Write your review .

from Byrne, D. (2017). What makes a successful literature review?. Project Planner . 10.4135/9781526408518. (via SAGE Research Methods )

Research help

Email : Email your research questions to the Library.

Appointments : Schedule a 30-minute research meeting with a librarian. 

Find a subject librarian : Find a library expert in your specific field of study.

Research guides on your topic : Learn more about resources for your topic or subject.

• << Previous: Finding Articles
• Next: Citations & Bibliographic Software (Zotero) >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2024 7:17 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/Psych194-HonorsSeminar

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

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Papers

Ana Liza Sigue

Motoky Hayakawa

Rene E Ofreneo

... Rene E. Ofreneo University of the Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations ... Erickson, Christopher L.; Kuruvilla, Sarosh ; Ofreneo, Rene E.; and Ortiz, Maria Asuncion , &amp;quot;Recent Developments in Employment Relations in the Philippines&amp;quot; (2001). ...

Lucita Lazo

This book begins by looking at the status of women in Filipino society and their place in the general socio-economic situation. It continues with sections on education and training in the Philippines and work and training. The next section reviews the constraints to women’s participation in training. In the summary the author gives a general overview of the situation of women and opportunities for work and training in the Philippines and offers some practical suggestions for the enhancement of women’s training and development.

EducationInvestor Global

Tony Mitchener

Rosalyn Eder

In this article, I examine the role of CHED and the Technical Panels (TPs) in the “production” of the globally competitive Filipina/o worker. For this paper, I draw on relevant literature on the topic and take nurse education, which is rooted in the colonial system established during the US-American occupation, as an example of how CHED and the TPs could be more linked to labor migration. I use the colonial difference - a space that offers critical insights and interpretation - to illustrate how coloniality remains hidden under the cloak of modernity. Link to the article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2016.1214913

Asia Pacific Journal of Management and Sustainable Development ISSN 2782-8557(Print)

Ryan O Tayco , Pio Supat

This study aims to determine the employability of the Negros Oriental State University graduates from 2016 to 2020. Employability is measured using different dimensions-from the graduates' side including the perspectives of the employers. A total of 1, 056 NORSU graduates and 68 employers locally and abroad answered the questionnaire through online and offline survey methods. Basic statistics were used and simple linear regression was also used to estimate the relationship between manifestations of respondents in NORSU VMGOs and the job performance as perceived by the employers. Most of the respondents in the study are presently employed and work locally. Many of them stay and accept the job because of the salaries and benefits they received, a career challenge, and related to the course they have taken in college. The study shows that the curriculum used and competencies learned by the NORSU graduates are relevant to their job. Competencies such as communication skills, human relations skills, critical thinking skills, and problem-solving skills are found to be useful by the respondents. It is found that the manifestation of the respondents is very high and homogenous. The same can be said with job performance as perceived by employers in terms of attitudes and values, skills and competencies, and knowledge. Furthermore, job performance and the manifestation of NORSU VMGOs have a significant relationship. That is, those respondents who have higher job performance in terms of attitude and values, skills and competencies, and knowledge have higher manifestations of NORSU VMGOs.

Annals of Tropical Research

Pedro Armenia

Ezekiel Succor

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

The Miseducation of the Filipino

Micabalo, Sheila Marie G.

Evan carlo deblois

Jesse Orlina

Bradernantz Geronag

Junie Leonard Herrera

Asian and Pacific Migration Journal

boscovolunteeraction.co.uk

James Trewby

Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences

Marlon Raquel

Kiran Budhrani , Lloyd Espiritu

Leonardo Lanzona

MaryNathanael Flores OSB

Philippine Journal of …

Nandy Aldaba

South African Journal of Higher Education

Kolawole Samuel Adeyemo

International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Technology

Glenn Velmonte

Rosini Grageda

Randel D Estacio

Reydenn Taccad

International Research in Education

Diane Mae Ulanday

Miseducation of Filipino

John Victor H . Dajac

Douglas Meade

Rebecca Gaddi

Jayvann Carlo Olaguer

Lorena Club

Trisha Bernadette Ecleo

Sara Villorente

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

Similarities and Differences of Review of Related Literature and Review of Related Studies 

Back to: Introduction to Educational Research Methodology

Similarities and Differences of Review of Related Literature and Review of Related Studies

Educational research means the organized collection and examination of the data related to education. It is a scientific study that examines the learning and teaching methods for better understanding of the education system. It is an observation and investigation in the field of education. Research is done in search of new knowledge or to use the existing knowledge in a better way. It helps to acquire useful knowledge and solve the challenges faced in education. Research tries to get a better understanding of education.

Literature review means the overview of the works published previously on a subject matter. It is the summary of the work done by other authors on a topic. Literature review will help a researcher in understanding how to carry on the research and what needs to be covered. 

Similarities between Review of Related Literature and Review of Related Studies

i). Both RRL and RRS is done to understand a subject matter extensively. 

ii). Help an individual to understand their topic of interest in-depth. 

iii). To understand what has already been discovered about a topic and what needs to be researched further. 

Differences of Review of Related Literature and Review of Related Studies

i). Related literature is done from books, professional journals, newspapers, magazines, and other publications. Related studies consist of theses, manuscripts, and dissertations. 

ii). After literature review, the individual tries to develop his/her own opinion on the topic. Review of related studies is obtaining answers from what has been studied. 

iii). Related literature focuses on the opinions and ideas of one’s own on a particular topic. Related studies analyze the work of other researchers and focus on the results received by them.  

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Multimodal resources and approaches for teaching young adolescents: a review of the literature.

1. Introduction

1.1. the seminal and building research on multimodal pedagogies, 1.2. young adolescents and multimodality, 2. materials and methods.

• Multimodality in education, Young adolescents or teenagers, Visual literacies
• Multimodality in education, Young adolescents or teenagers, Photography
• Multimodality in education, Young adolescents or teenagers, Art
• Multimodality in education, Learning Disabilities
• Multimodality, Self-expression, Identity
• Year of publication (2013–2023)
• Type of research
• Purpose of study/participants (young adolescents)
• Intervention/student activity (classroom-based)
• Measures/data sources
• Pedagogical implications (classroom-based)

3.1. Multimodal Pedagogy for Language and Literacy Development

3.1.1. developing language, 3.1.2. developing reading and viewing of multimodal texts, 3.1.3. developing the designing of multimodal texts, 3.2. multimodal pedagogy for content learning, 3.2.1. making content accessible for all students, 3.2.2. teaching reading, writing, and creating with course content, 3.2.3. exploring issues and abstract concepts, 3.3. multimodal pedagogy for expression and identity opportunities, 3.3.1. supporting empowerment and identity development using multimodal pedagogy, 3.3.2. expressing personal responses to literature using multimodal pedagogy, 4. discussion.

• What is the impact of multimodal pedagogy on content literacy and learning achievement for young adolescents?
• What is the impact of multimodal pedagogy on young adolescents’ motivation and interest in reading, writing, and developing content area knowledge?
• How can teachers develop the knowledge needed to instruct students in using and critiquing multimodal texts?
• What strategies can teachers use to prepare students to read/view and critique multimodal texts?
• How can multimodal pedagogy support the learning of students with diverse language and learning needs?
• What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of multimodal pedagogy?

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Cazden, C.; Cope, B.; Fairclough, N.; Gee, J.; Kalantzis, M.; Kress, G.; Luke, A.; Luke, C.; Michaels, S.; Nakata, M. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harv. Educ. Rev. 1996 , 66 , 60–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Street, B. The Implications of the ‘New Literacy Studies’ for Literacy Education. Eng. Educ. 1997 , 31 , 45–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luke, C. New Literacies in Teacher Education. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2000 , 43 , 424–435. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalantzis, M.; Cope, B. Literacies ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kress, G. Literacy in the New Media Age ; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kress, G.; van Leeuwen, T. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design ; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Serafini, F. Multimodal Literacy: From Theories to Practices. Lang. Arts 2015 , 92 , 412–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serafini, F.; Clausen, J. Typography as Semiotic Resource. J. Vis. Lit. 2012 , 31 , 12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gee, J.P. The New Literacy Studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies ; Rowsell, J., Pahl, K., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2015; pp. 3–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kress, G. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication ; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lotherington, H.; Jenson, J. Teaching Multimodal and Digital Literacy in L2 Settings: New Literacies, New Basics, New Pedagogies. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 2011 , 31 , 226–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Canagarajah, A.S. Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging. Mod. Lang. J. 2011 , 95 , 401–417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cope, B.; Kalantzis, M. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures ; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim, F.V.; Tan-Chia, L. Designing Learning for Multimodal Literacy: Teaching Viewing and Representing ; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bishop, P.A.; Harrison, L.M. The Successful Middle School: This We Believe ; Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE): Columbus, OH, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell, A.; Ewaida, M.; Lynch, M.; Zenkov, K. Student Perspectives on Quality Teaching: Words and Images. Voices Middle 2011 , 19 , 32–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wissman, K. Supreme Efforts of Care and Honest Utterance: Grasping the Singular Power of the Spoken Word in School Spaces. Penn GSE Perspect. Urban Educ. 2010 , 7 , 49–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewkowich, D. Readers of Comics and the Recursive Nature of Adolescent Emotion: Exploring the Productive Relation of Visual Response and Memory in Teacher Education. Lit. Res. Instr. 2019 , 58 , 295–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boche, B. Multiliteracies in the Classroom: Emerging Conceptions of First-Year Teachers. J. Lang. Lit. Edu. 2014 , 10 , 114–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moeller, R.A. A Question of Legitimacy: A Graphic Novel as “Real” Reading. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2016 , 59 , 709–717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Falk-Ross, F.; Linder, R. Multimodal Reading and Design: Preservice and Practicing Teachers’ Graphic Narratives for Students. Lang. Arts 2024 , 101 , 240–263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loerts, T.; Belcher, C. Pedagogy in the Context of Multiliteracies: A Longitudinal Study of New Educators. Aus. J. Lang. Lit. 2024 , 47 , 107–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mertens, S.B.; Caskey, M.M.; Bishop, P.; Flowers, N.; Strahan, D.; Andrews, G.; Daniel, L. The MLER SIG Research Agenda. 2016. Available online: http://mlersig.net/mler-sig-research-agenda-project (accessed on 12 June 2024).
• Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005 , 4 , 356–367. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Reviews of the Literature: Methods and Purposes. Inter. J. Adult Voc. Educ. Tech. 2016 , 7 , 62–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook , 4th ed.; Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brugar, K.A.; Roberts, K.L.; Jiménez, L.M.; Meyer, C.K. More than Mere Motivation: Learning Specific Content through Multimodal Narratives. Lit. Res. Instr. 2018 , 57 , 183–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jennings, K.A.; Rule, A.C.; Vander-Zanden, S.M. Fifth Graders’ Enjoyment, Interest, and Comprehension of Graphic Novels Compared to Heavily-Illustrated and Traditional Novels. Inter. Elec. J. Elem. Educ. 2014 , 6 , 257–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Price-Dennis, D. Developing Curriculum to Support Black Girls’ Literacies in Digital Spaces. Eng. Educ. 2016 , 48 , 337–361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pacheco, M.B.; Smith, B.E. Across Languages, Modes, and Identities: Bilingual Adolescents’ Multimodal Codemeshing in the Literacy Classroom. Biling. Res. J. 2015 , 38 , 292–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmier, S. Popular Culture in a Digital Media Studies Classroom. Literacy 2014 , 48 , 39–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Howell, E. Expanding Argument Instruction: Incorporating Multimodality and Digital Tools. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2018 , 61 , 533–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, L. Critical Encounters in a Middle School English Language Arts Classroom: Using Graphic Novels to Teach Critical Thinking & Reading for Peace Education. Multi. Educ. 2017 , 25 , 22–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pellegrino, A.M.; Zenkov, K.; Calamito, N. “Pay Attention and Take Some Notes”: Middle School Youth, Multimodal Instruction, and Notions of Citizenship. J. Soc. Stud. Res. 2013 , 37 , 221–238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reid, S.F.; Moses, L. Students Become Comic Book Author-Illustrators: Composing with Words and Images in a Fourth-Grade Writers’ Workshop. Read. Teach. 2020 , 73 , 461–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, B.E. Mediational modalities: Adolescents Collaboratively Interpreting Literature through Digital Multimodal Composing. Res. Teach. Eng. 2019 , 53 , 197–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harvey, M.; Deuel, A.; Marlatt, R. ‘To Be, or Not to Be’: Modernizing Shakespeare with Multimodal Learning Stations. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2020 , 63 , 559–568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Espinet, I.; Chapman-Santiago, C. “When People Don’t Know Me, They Think…”: Fostering a Multimodal Translanguaging Space That Leverages Students’ Voices. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2020 , 66 , 91–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chisholm, J.S.; Shelton, A.L.; Sheffield, C.C. Mediating Emotive Empathy with Informational Text: Three Students’ Think-Aloud Protocols of Gettysburg, the Graphic Novel. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2017 , 61 , 289–298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dallacqua, A.K. Wondering About Rapunzel: Reading and Responding to Feminist Fairy Tales with Seventh Graders. Child. Lit. in Educ. 2019 , 50 , 261–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garcia, O. Translanguaging and Latinx Bilingual Readers. Read. Teach. 2020 , 73 , 557–562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cavallaro, C.J.; Sembiante, S. Facilitating Culturally Sustaining, Functional Literacy Practices in a Middle School ESOL Reading Program: A Design-Based Study. Lang. Educ. 2021 , 35 , 160–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kennedy, L.M.; Oviatt, R.L.; De Costa, P.I. Refugee Youth’s Identity Expressions and Multimodal Literacy Practices in a Third Space. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2019 , 33 , 56–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lai, T. Inside Out and Back Again ; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pyo, J. Bridging In-School and Out-of-School Literacies: An Adolescent EL’s Composition of a Multimodal Project. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2016 , 59 , 421–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jackson, A.W.; Davis, G.A. Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century ; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bender, A.A. Making Meaning with Graphic Novels. Mid. Grad. Res. J. 2018 , 12 , 83–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brenna, B. How Graphic Novels Support Reading Comprehension Strategy Development in Children. Literacy 2013 , 47 , 88–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Satrapi, M. Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood ; Pantheon: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hale, S.; Hale, D.; Hale, N. Rapunzel’s Revenge ; Bloomsbury: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hale, S.; Hale, D.; Hale, N. Calamity Jack ; Bloomsbury: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dallacqua, A.K.; Low, D.E. Cupcakes and Beefcakes: Students’ Readings of Gender in Superhero Texts. Gend. Educ. 2021 , 33 , 68–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qiao, X.; Moses, L.; Kelly, L.B. Literate Identity Negotiations and Supportive Teacher Discourse Moves in a Comic Writing Workshop. Pedagog. Int. J. 2022 , 17 , 206–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karchmer-Klein, R.; Shinas, V.H. Adolescents’ Navigation of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Modes When Reading a Digital Narrative. J. Res. Read. 2019 , 42 , 469–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pantaleo, S. The Multimodal Meaning-Making of Elementary Students in Social Studies. Aus. J. Lang. Lit. 2021 , 44 , 35–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ehret, C.; Hollett, T. (Re)placing school: Middle School Students’ Countermobilities while Composing with Ipods. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2013 , 57 , 110–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chisholm, J.S.; Whitmore, K.F. Bodies in Space/Bodies in Motion/Bodies in Character: Adolescents Bear Witness to Anne Frank. Inter. J. Educ. Arts 2016 , 17 , 1–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalton, B.; Robinson, K.H.; Lovvorn, J.F.; Smith, B.E.; Alvey, T.; Mo, E.; Uccelli, P.; Proctor, C.P. Fifth-Grade Students’ Digital Retellings and the Common Core: Modal Use and Design Intentionality. Elem. Sch. J. 2015 , 115 , 548–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hitchcock, C.H.; Rao, K.; Chang, C.C.; Yuen, J.W.L. Using Multimedia Tools and Scaffolds to Support Writing. Rural Spec. Educ. Q. 2016 , 35 , 10–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Townsend, D.; Brock, C.; Morrison, J.D. Engaging in Vocabulary Learning in Science: The Promise of Multimodal Instruction. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2018 , 40 , 328–347. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y. Multimodal Teacher Input and Science Learning in a Middle School Sheltered Classroom. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2015 , 53 , 7–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pierson, A.E.; Clark, D.B.; Brady, C.E. Scientific Modeling and Translanguaging: A Multilingual and Multimodal Approach to Support Science Learning and Engagement. Sci. Educ. 2021 , 105 , 776–813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hale, N. One Dead Spy ; Abrams: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Butzer, C.M. Gettysburg: The Graphic Novel ; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt, S.M.; Coleman, J.M.; Dantzler, J.A. A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Fourth-Graders’ Comprehension and Their Reported Strategies for Reading Science Texts. Lit. Res. Instr. 2023 , 62 , 16–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nixon, R.S.; Wimmer, J.J.; Smith, L.K. Teaching Multiple Modes of Representation in Middle-School Science Classrooms: Impact on Student Learning and Multimodal Use. Sch. Sci. Math. 2015 , 115 , 186–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albom, M. Tuesdays with Morrie: An Old Man, A Young Man and Life’s Greatest Lesson ; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, H. To Kill a Mockingbird ; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinbeck, J. Of Mice and Men ; Pearson Longman: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, V.J.; Meloche, A.; Grant, A.; Neuman, D.; DeCarlo, M.J.T. “My Thoughts on Gun Violence”: An Urban Adolescent’s Display of Agency and Multimodal Literacies. J. Adolesc. Adult. Lit. 2019 , 63 , 157–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dallacqua, A.K. Reading Comics Collaboratively and Challenging Literacy Norms. Lit. Res. Instr. 2020 , 59 , 169–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Honeyford, M.A. From ‘Aquí’ and ‘Allá’: Symbolic Convergence in the Multimodal Literacy Practices of Adolescent Immigrant Students. J. Lit. Res. 2014 , 46 , 194–233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frank, A.; Frank, O. Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl ; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitens, E. The Warrior’s Heart: Becoming a Man of Compassion and Courage ; Clarion Books: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Linder, R.; Falk-Ross, F. Multimodal Resources and Approaches for Teaching Young Adolescents: A Review of the Literature. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091010

Linder R, Falk-Ross F. Multimodal Resources and Approaches for Teaching Young Adolescents: A Review of the Literature. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091010

Linder, Roberta, and Francine Falk-Ross. 2024. "Multimodal Resources and Approaches for Teaching Young Adolescents: A Review of the Literature" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091010

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K-5 Multilingual Learners? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

• Open access
• Published: 12 September 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  108 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jonathan M. Kittle   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0005-7567-8654 1 ,
• Steven J. Amendum   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7883-9090 1 &
• Christina M. Budde   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3041-1332 1  

The science of reading (SOR) refers to the sum of what we know about how people learn to read based on empirical studies across multiple disciplines. The purpose of this review was to identify research evidence to inform the SOR for multilingual learners (MLs). We reviewed 30 systematic reviews related to reading and reading instruction for MLs conducted primarily in K-5 U.S. classrooms. Results identified four broad clusters of components related to English reading comprehension as well as instructional practices and programs effective in addressing each component. Clusters included oral language, phonological awareness, decoding and oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Notably, oral language and reading skills in both MLs’ first language and in English were essential components of the SOR for MLs. Implications for theory and research as well as policy, curriculum, and instruction are provided.

Similar content being viewed by others

The State of Current Reading Intervention Research for English Learners in Grades K–2: a Best-Evidence Synthesis

Reading intervention research with emergent bilingual students: a meta-analysis

Supporting multilingual children at-risk of reading failure: impacts of a multilingual structured pedagogy literacy intervention in Kenya

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The science of reading (SOR) refers to the broad sum of what we know about how people learn to read based on empirical studies across multiple disciplines (Hurford, 2020 ; Seidenberg et al., 2020 ). However, researchers have noted that the SOR is often framed in public discourse and the popular media as a crisis with a “narrow and settled solution” (MacPhee et al., 2021 , p. S146). This settled solution is that “explicit, systematic, and direct instruction of phonemic awareness and phonics skills” (Rand & Morrow, 2021 , p. S246) is key to the development of literacy skills (Goodwin & Jiménez, 2020 ; Shanahan, 2020 ). To promote this solution, the media and public discourse often draw upon particular key findings from basic reading research and theory: (a) the alphabetic principle (Liberman et al., 1989 ), (b) the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ), (c) the four-part processing model (Moats & Tolman, 2009 ), (d) functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI) of the brain during reading (Fletcher et al., 2018 ), (e) the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ), and (f) reading and spelling development (Ehri, 2005 ) to strongly advocate for reform.

Through this solution-based framing, reformers seek to create legislation, teacher training programs, and curriculum that centers on providing systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics to students (Seidenberg et al., 2020 ). While this effort clearly seeks to teach students how to read with a necessary set of skills, researchers note that it draws upon a limited scope of the comprehensive SOR about how people read and that the narrow focus on phonemic awareness and phonics skills minimizes the complexity of the SOR and overlooks essential reading and cognitive skills (Cabell & Hwang, 2020 ; Rand & Morrow, 2021 ). In addition, the popular media and public discourse focuses mainly on basic reading research and theory about how students read rather than drawing upon applied research on how to teach students to read (Goldenberg, 2020 ; Shanahan, 2020 ). Specifically, there are clearly established basic reading research findings from cognitive science about proficient reading, but knowledge of how to effectively transfer this research widely to educational practice (i.e., the science of reading instruction) is not as clear (Hindman et al., 2020 ; Seidenberg et al., 2020 ).

Furthermore, although present in the research literature (e.g., Goldenberg, 2020 ), the popular media and public discourse de-emphasizes vital aspects of language and literacy research and instruction needed to support multilingual learners (MLs; often referred to as English learners , English language learners , limited English proficient [LEP] , or emergent bilinguals ) (Goldenberg, 2020 ). For example, although most researchers acknowledge the influence of students’ first language (L1) on English literacy development, the narrow framing by the popular media and public discourse largely omits the substantial body of research on cross-linguistic transfer (e.g., Prevoo et al., 2016 ; Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ; Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ) and how MLs’ L1 and literacy skills facilitate learning in their new language. One recent study (Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ) demonstrated that L1 literacy skills at kindergarten entry more strongly predicted English reading growth through grade four than English proficiency. Because there is substantial research evidence about the benefit of transfer (Cummins, 1979 ; Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ; Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ) and most outcomes for MLs are focused on English development, inclusion of students’ home language to support their English development is vital.

In the current study, we address some of the limitations of the SOR framing by the popular media and public discourse, particularly for MLs. Specifically, our goal is to identify the areas of broad empirical evidence related to reading and reading instruction to inform the SOR for MLs through a systematic review of reviews (Newman & Gough, 2020 ).

Theoretical Framework

Within the current review, we conceptualize reading using the Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ). SVR asserts that reading comprehension is the product of decoding and linguistic comprehension (RC = D × LC). In the SVR, both decoding and linguistic comprehension are each viewed as necessary, but alone either is not sufficient for proficient reading. Proficient reading is thus characterized as both accurate and automatic decoding along with linguistic comprehension; that is how, “…lexical (i.e., word) information, sentences and discourses are interpreted” (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 , p. 7). The Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ) further expands the SVR by theorizing components of both decoding and linguistic comprehension (called word recognition and language comprehension, respectively in the Reading Rope). Word recognition is disaggregated into a set of skills that interact over time, specifically phonological awareness (PA), decoding, and sight word recognition. Language comprehension is disaggregated into a different set of skills that also interact over time, specifically background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge. According to the model, across time multiple skills weave together to result in skilled and proficient reading (see Scarborough, 2001 for a full description).

Researchers have also theorized the reading process specific to multilingual learners through multilingual/multiliteracy theories of reading such as the compensatory model (Bernhardt, 2005 ). Such a model suggests that processing is compensatory—some sources of knowledge aid or supplant other knowledge sources that are not yet developed to competency. At the same time, these knowledge sources such as L1 literacy level (e.g., alphabetics, vocabulary, text structure) and L2 proficiency (e.g., grammatical form, vocabulary knowledge, linguistic distance) are hypothesized to interact synergistically, not additively, to support L2 reading.

However, the influence of both the SVR and the Reading Rope (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ; Scarborough, 2001 ) is substantial within the dialogue surrounding the SOR, and both frameworks are widely used to inform research, curriculum, and instruction broadly within the field, including for MLs (Goldenberg, 2020 ). Given this influence, we also began with these same theoretical frameworks in the current review of reviews. Furthermore, prior research has demonstrated the importance of both decoding and linguistic comprehension for MLs (August et al., 2005 ; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009 ; Huang et al., 2022 ) which suggests that SVR and the Reading Rope can provide a foundation for conceptualizing the SOR for MLs, especially when reading instruction also includes extensive English-language support (Goldenberg, 2020 ).

Context of the Present Review

Previously, researchers have conducted reviews of reviews related to MLs’ language and literacy outcomes. For example, Francis and colleagues ( 2006 ) reviewed two major reports and studies published from 2002 to provide evidence-based recommendations for instruction and interventions in reading and math for MLs. Li ( 2012 ) identified effective principles of ML instruction by synthesizing existing research reviews conducted primarily in middle schools and high schools. Calderón and colleagues ( 2011 ) reviewed purposefully selected research reviews to identify elements of effective instruction and synthesize successful program models for MLs. Hall and colleagues ( 2019 ) reviewed four major research synthesis conducted within 15 years of their publication to synthesize interventions focused on academic language or reading for MLs with learning disabilities, or who were at risk for learning disabilities. Each of these reviews provided important insight to the field of ML education. However, missing from the review literature is a contemporary, comprehensive, and systematic review of reviews focused on the science of reading for all elementary-aged MLs, both with and without disabilities.

In the present review, we seek to fill this gap in the review literature. We examine systematic reviews conducted over the past 23 years, since the release of the hugely influential report of the National Reading Panel ( 2000 ) which prompted the conceptualization of scientifically based reading research and the contemporary science of reading. In addition, Goldenberg’s ( 2020 ) call for research on how to accelerate MLs’ English language and literacy development prompted us to consider the empirical evidence related to the science of reading and reading instruction for MLs. Therefore, through our systematic review of reviews (Newman & Gough, 2020 ), we address the following research questions—one related to the science of reading and one related to the science of reading instruction:

(RQ1) Based on systematic reviews, what are the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for K-5 MLs?

(RQ2) Based on those same systematic reviews, what instructional practices and programs are effective for addressing the essential evidence-based components of the SOR for K-5 MLs?

The current study was a systematic review of systematic reviews (Newman & Gough, 2020 ). This type of review includes systematic reviews instead of individual primary studies, synthesizing findings from multiple systematic reviews (Hartling et al., 2012 ; Newman & Gough, 2020 ). A systematic review of systematic reviews allows researchers to summarize evidence from multiple empirical research syntheses to provide an overall summary of a body of knowledge on a particular topic (Hartling et al., 2012 ). The resulting synthesis of evidence can be useful for policy decision-making and for providing a central location of information so that researchers do not have to assimilate data from separate systematic reviews on a given topic (Hartling et al., 2012 ). Given the purpose of this study was to provide a broad overall summary of findings related to the evidence-based components that comprise the SOR for MLs and to identify effective instructional practices that address these components, conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews was an appropriate method of evidence synthesis.

Data Collection

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ), we employed several methods to complete a thorough and comprehensive review of systematic reviews on the SOR and the SOR instruction for MLs. First, a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria was developed to identify documents to be included in the review. Second, a list of key search terms was developed to search for relevant documents. Third, based on related disciplines, appropriate databases were identified for the search. Finally, a database search was conducted to identify included documents, and a forward and backward search was conducted with each included document to identify additional documents. Outlined below are the specific processes used to identify the systematic review documents included in this review.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Documents included in this review were restricted to evidence-based systematic reviews found in (a) journal articles, commissioned reports, and updates to those reports by the authors; (b) published between 2000 and 2023; (c) published in English; (d) that reviewed reading and reading instruction studies where at least 50% or more of the studies were conducted in the U.S. and in K-5 classrooms; (e) focused on MLs or disaggregated results for MLs; and (f) in accordance with the SVR, included English reading comprehension as an outcome measure. Documents were excluded if (a) they were not reviews of research; (b) the authors did not explicitly state how documents were identified and retrieved; (c) they were reviews of reviews; (d) 50% or more of the studies reviewed were conducted outside of the U.S. or outside of grades K-5; (e) they did not focus on MLs or disaggregate results specifically for MLs; (f) they did not include reading comprehension as a specific outcome measure; and (g) they were documents, excluding journal articles and commissioned reports, that were not updates to commissioned reports.

Databases and Search Terms

Three databases (i.e., ERIC, APA PsycINFO, and Education Source) from two disciplines (i.e., education and psychology) were searched. Key search terms were constructed based on three concepts: (1) focus (reading AND words related to systematic reviews), (2) population (a comprehensive list of key terms that have historically been used in the literature to describe MLs), and (3) setting (elementary grade levels listed individually along with…OR “elementary” OR “primary”; see Table S1 , online only, for detailed search query).

Document Search Procedure

The database searches yielded 1,140 documents (see Figure S1 , online only). After excluding 165 duplicate documents, the remaining 975 documents were screened and assessed to determine eligibility, and 958 documents were excluded. This yielded 17 eligible systematic review documents. Two of the 17 documents were books containing chapters with individual systematic reviews. Six of these chapters met inclusion criteria and were treated as independent documents, resulting in 21 total systematic review documents. Finally, citation and references searches were conducted with the 21 documents, yielding an additional 9 documents, for a total of 30 systematic review documents to be included in the review of reviews.

Data Analysis

To begin data analysis, we identified and extracted characteristics of each review including the type of systematic review, the purpose of the review, and the overall participant demographics. Next, we extracted relevant findings related to the essential components of the SOR for MLs by identifying findings where components were directly related to English reading comprehension (RQ1). In addition, we also extracted relevant findings related to any instructional practices and programs that were found to be effective related to these components (RQ2). To establish inter-rater reliability, eight of the studies were double-coded and the overall percent agreement across the major extracted categories was 0.88; all discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved. Finally, two of the authors each independently coded four of the remaining documents and one author coded the remaining documents.

Characteristics of the Reviews

We coded for types of systematic reviews, purposes of the reviews, and participant demographics. First, we determined if the systematic review was a meta-analysis, a descriptive review, or a combination of a meta-analysis and a descriptive review. Second, we identified particular focus areas of each review (e.g., literacy interventions) and purposes of each review. Third, we coded for grade levels, L1s, and subpopulations of MLs. Finally, we synthesized our findings to identify similarities and differences among these characteristics.

Components Related to English Reading Comprehension

To address RQ1, identifying the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for MLs, we focused on identifying components related to English reading comprehension as both SVR and Scarborough’s Reading Rope conceptualize the ultimate goal of reading as reading comprehension. First, we identified positive English comprehension outcomes in each systematic review. Second, we coded for components that were related to these outcomes, noting particulars about the relationship between each component and the outcome measure. Finally, we synthesized our findings to identify the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for MLs according to the reviews.

Instructional Practices and Programs

To address RQ2, identifying instructional practices and programs that are effective for addressing the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for MLs, we focused on coding for instructional practices and programs directly related to positive outcomes in the components identified in RQ1. We also coded for instructional practices and programs directly related to positive English reading comprehension outcomes, defined as a positive and significant effect on a measure of reading comprehension as a study outcome.

Although we report effect sizes, we do not interpret them because assessing the practical or substantive magnitude of a program or intervention requires comparison with a benchmark that considers relevant or substantive considerations (Bloom et al., 2008 ). Current guidelines suggest effect sizes should be interpreted using empirical benchmarks relevant to the context of each intervention, its target population, and the outcome measures used rather than Cohen’s suggestion of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 standard deviations (Bloom et al., 2008 ; Lipsey et al., 2012 ). We suggest that readers consult individual studies when considering the magnitude of effects.

Of the 30 reviews identified, eight were meta-analyses and three included meta-analyses as well as detailed descriptions for each study. The remaining 19 reviews were descriptive. The purposes of the systematic reviews were varied. Twelve of the reviews sought to provide a review and/or synthesis of current research in a particular focus area, most commonly literacy or reading. Eighteen reviews focused on instruction or interventions and four on identifying, examining, and evaluating strategies. Nine of the reviews’ purposes focused on a specific subpopulation of MLs. Five focused on MLs at risk for or with learning disabilities (LDs) and one focused on immigrant MLs. Three focused on particular languages with two focused on Spanish-speaking MLs and one focused on East/Southeast Asian MLs. Four reviews focused on examining and comparing research related to language of instruction and bilingual education.

The reviews included studies with students ranging from preschool to grade 12 or their equivalent (see Figure S2 , online only). The majority of reviews (i.e., 26 out of 30) included only studies with participants who were classified using labels historically used by schools and researchers to identify MLs (e.g., English learners). One review (Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011 ) included studies with participants who were second language (L2) learners. Several reviews included studies if 50–90% of participants were MLs (e.g., Fitton et al., 2018 ) or if data were disaggregated to allow for conclusions regarding the participating MLs (e.g., Pyle et al., 2017 ). One review (Silverman et al., 2020 ) did not include MLs as an inclusion criterion; however, the review disaggregated in a way that allowed for an examination of the effects on MLs.

In addition, the reviews identified included studies with students from different L1 backgrounds. Twenty-nine reviews included Spanish-speaking students, and 22 included studies conducted with students with mixed L1 backgrounds (e.g., Chinese, French, Portuguese). Furthermore, 12 reviews identified included studies conducted both in and out of the U.S.

RQ1: What are the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for K-5 MLs?

To address RQ1, we identified evidence-based components that the systematic reviews found to be significantly related to English reading comprehension. Six reviews (D. Baker et al., 2016 ; Dressler & Kamil, 2006 ; Klingner et al., 2006 ; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011 ; Riches & Genesee, 2006 ; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006 ) identified specific evidence-based components that comprise the SOR for MLs. We group these components into four broad clusters: oral language, phonological awareness (PA), decoding and oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension.

The oral language cluster is comprised of components related to both expressive and receptive language (Language & Reading Research Consortium, 2017 ), including language and vocabulary outcomes in L1 and L2. The phonological awareness cluster includes components related to phonological or phonemic awareness in L1 or L2. The cluster for decoding and oral reading fluency is comprised of components related to decoding, word recognition, or reading fluency in L1 or L2. Finally, the cluster related to comprehension is composed of components related to reading comprehension and comprehension strategies in L1 or L2. Notably, it is important to acknowledge that reading comprehension is widely considered multidimensional rather than a unitary construct (e.g., Catts & Kamhi, 2017 ; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002 ) and as such, is likely less componential. For readability, we refer to reading comprehension as a component where applicable but recognize its multidimensionality. Table 1 provides an overview of the components within each cluster along with the associated reviews and key findings.

Oral Language

One broad cluster that makes up essential components of the SOR for MLs is oral language. The components that constitute this broad cluster include (a) English oral language, (b) English oral proficiency, (c) English vocabulary, and (d) L1 (Spanish) vocabulary. Key findings discussed below are summarized in Table  1 under the Oral Language Cluster heading.

A meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg ( 2011 ) found a moderate to strong positive linear relationship between L2 oral language and L2 reading comprehension ( r  = 0.46, p  < 0.001). Only one of the eight studies had an L2 other than English. The overall correlation was calculated using eight independent correlations from eight studies that examined the relationship between L2 oral language and L2 reading comprehension for 1,039 children. In addition to this positive relationship, the authors found that age had a significant impact on the correlation magnitude with the correlation between L2 oral language and L2 reading comprehension increasing as children become older. Therefore, given that the overall mean correlation represented an overwhelming majority of studies with English as an L2, the review results strongly suggest that English oral language is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Two reviews (Riches & Genesee, 2006 ; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006 ) found evidence that English oral proficiency, including English vocabulary knowledge, is an essential component of the SOR for MLs. In their systematic review, for example, Riches and Genesee ( 2006 ) specifically noted study findings that demonstrated a general correspondence between levels of English oral proficiency and English reading comprehension for upper elementary grades Spanish-speaking MLs, and evidence that a lack of English vocabulary knowledge resulted in reading miscomprehension in MLs with low, intermediate, and high English oral proficiency. The lack of English vocabulary knowledge was particularly detrimental for MLs with low proficiency because syntactic knowledge also impeded English reading comprehension.

In their review, Saunders and O’Brien ( 2006 ) identified several studies that reported correlations between English oral proficiency and English reading achievement, including significant relationships between vocabulary, formal definitions, and story-retell. Specifically, the authors noted findings that demonstrated a significant moderate and positive correlation between elementary MLs’ English vocabulary and English reading achievement; significant positive correlations between English oral proficiency and English reading achievement that increased from second- to fifth-grade from small to moderate; and a significant moderate and positive correlation between the quality of story retells (i.e., details about the plot, setting, and characters’ intentions) as a measure of English oral proficiency and English reading achievement. Relatedly, Riches and Genesee ( 2006 ) also identified findings that showed evidence that deep structure analyses (e.g., informativeness of responses) were more highly related to English reading comprehension than surface structure features (e.g., grammatical complexity). Both reviews provide evidence that English oral proficiency is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Finally, a review by Klingner and colleagues ( 2006 ) identified study results that found that in addition to the extensiveness of Spanish-speaking MLs’ English vocabularies, the extensiveness of their Spanish vocabularies also explained a significant portion of variance in their English reading comprehension. These findings provide preliminary evidence that Spanish vocabulary may be an essential component of the SOR for Spanish-speaking MLs.

Phonological Awareness

Phonological awareness (PA) is another broad cluster that forms an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Key findings are summarized in Table  1 under the Phonological Awareness Cluster heading. Two systematic reviews (Klingner et al., 2006 ; Riches & Genesee, 2006 ) identified study results that indicated English PA contributed to English reading comprehension for MLs. Both reviews discussed how a single study found that a significant portion of variance in MLs’ English reading comprehension was explained by English PA. This provides preliminary evidence that English PA is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Decoding and Oral Reading Fluency

Decoding and oral reading fluency constitute another broad cluster that makes up the essential components of the SOR for MLs. The components that form this broad cluster include: (a) L1 (Spanish) decoding, (b) English decoding, and (c) English oral reading fluency. Key findings discussed below are summarized in Table  1 under the Decoding and Oral Language Fluency Cluster heading.

A meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg ( 2011 ) found a positive linear relationship between L1 decoding and English reading comprehension ( r  = 0.24, p  = 0.01). This overall correlation was calculated using six studies with independent correlations consisting of 1067 children. Five of the six studies included MLs’ whose L1 was Spanish while one study included MLs’ whose L1 was Chinese. In addition to the positive relationship, age had a significant impact on the magnitude of the correlation; specifically, the magnitude of the relationship decreased as children got older. These results provide evidence that L1 decoding is likely an essential component of the SOR for Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking MLs.

In addition to examining the relationship between L1 decoding and English reading comprehension, Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg ( 2011 ) examined the relationship between L2 decoding and L2 reading comprehension using correlations from six studies, one of which included Norwegian as the L2. Again, they found a strong linear relationship between L2 decoding and L2 reading comprehension ( r  = 0.54, p  < 0.001) and that age had a significant impact on the magnitude of the correlation in that it decreased as children got older. Therefore, given that only one out of the six studies used to calculate the overall correlation included an L2 other than English, the review results strongly suggest that English (as an L2) decoding is an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Another review by D. Baker and colleagues ( 2016 ) also found evidence that in the early grades, initial levels of English decoding and growth in English decoding are significant predictors of English reading comprehension. Both reviews provide evidence that English decoding is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Finally, the review by D. Baker and colleagues ( 2016 ) also determined that in the early grades, initial levels of English oral reading fluency and growth in English oral reading fluency skills were significant predictors of English reading comprehension. This provides preliminary evidence that in addition to L1 decoding and English decoding, English oral reading fluency is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the final broad cluster that makes up an essential component of the SOR for MLs. The components that comprise this broad cluster include (a) L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension, (b) L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension strategies, and (c) English reading comprehension strategies. Key findings discussed below are summarized in Table  1 under the Reading Comprehension Cluster heading.

Two reviews (Dressler & Kamil, 2006 ; Riches & Genesee, 2006 ) identified L1 reading comprehension as an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Dressler and Kamil ( 2006 ) found that L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension was positively correlated with English reading comprehension. They noted that this relationship was weaker for students with lower levels of English language proficiency, highlighting the significance of English oral language as an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Riches and Genesee ( 2006 ) noted findings in their review which showed that MLs’ L1 (Spanish) reading abilities, measured by Spanish reading comprehension, were the best predictor of their English reading comprehension one year later. Both of these reviews provide evidence that L1 reading comprehension is an essential component of the SOR for Spanish-speaking MLs. Given the multidimensionality of reading comprehension, in this case, it is probable that reading comprehension is less of a “component” that relates to L2 (English) reading comprehension and is more likely a product of strong L1 oral language and decoding skills that contribute to L2 (English) reading comprehension.

Two reviews (Dressler & Kamil, 2006 ; Klingner et al., 2006 ) found evidence that reading comprehension strategies, including L1 (Spanish) and English comprehension strategies, are essential components of the SOR for MLs. Dressler and Kamil ( 2006 ) found that L1 (Spanish) strategic reading was positively correlated with English reading comprehension. Klingner and colleagues ( 2006 ) noted findings from their review that provided evidence that MLs’ English comprehension depended on their ability to use comprehension strategies. Notably, the use of strategies distinguished better readers more accurately than their English fluency. In addition, the authors highlighted findings that showed MLs’ perceptions of cognitive reading strategies were predictive of their English reading comprehension and that negative or counterproductive cognitive reading strategies were negatively related to gains in reading comprehension. Together, these reviews provide evidence that L1 and English comprehension strategies are essential components of the SOR for MLs.

RQ2: What instructional practices and programs are effective for addressing the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for K-5 MLs?

To address RQ2, we identified instructional practices and programs that the systematic reviews found to be effective in addressing essential components that make up each broad cluster of the SOR for MLs. Table 2 shows an overview of the key evidence-based instructional practices and programs for each cluster that were identified by the reviews.

The broad oral language cluster included four components: English oral language, English oral proficiency, English vocabulary, and L1 (Spanish) vocabulary. Reviews found instructional practices that supported two of the components: English oral language and English vocabulary. Key findings related to instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Oral Language Cluster heading.

To provide effective English oral language instruction, the reviews identified cooperative and interactive learning and English reading with adult support as effective instructional practices. Specifically, MLs’ academic English oral language improved when cooperative learning and interactive activities were used in the classroom (Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006 ). Likewise, immersing students in language-rich environments including opportunities for interactive reading (August & Shanahan, 2010 ) and providing MLs with additional English reading time with adult support improved English oral language (August et al., 2010 ).

To provide effective English vocabulary instruction, the reviews identified (a) explicit instruction in individual words; (b) rich and in-depth vocabulary instruction; (c) incorporating visuals, realia, and gesture; (d) careful selection of words and texts; (e) using MLs’ L1; and (f) teaching word learning strategies as effective instructional practices. Explicit instruction of English word meanings increased MLs’ English vocabulary. A single study within the reviews (Carlo et al., 2004 ) found direct instruction in key vocabulary words improved MLs’ English knowledge of target words, depth of meaning vocabulary knowledge, and understanding of multiple word meanings (Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ). Relatedly, instruction focused on developing MLs’ phonics knowledge through systematic and explicit phonologically based interventions had significant effects on their English vocabulary (August & Shanahan, 2010 ).

Additionally, providing rich and in-depth vocabulary instruction increased MLs’ English academic vocabulary knowledge. Instructional activities included (a) teaching a small set of target academic words over several days using a variety of instructional methods (S. Baker et al., 2014 ) such as instructional conversations (August & Siegel, 2006 ), (b) using a vocabulary-enriched curriculum with direct instruction (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ), and (c) teaching elaborated meanings through narratives, dictation, and visuals (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Effective vocabulary instruction also used visuals, realia, and gestures, and intentionally selected words and texts. Practices included using visuals, realia, and gestures to improve MLs’ knowledge of English word meanings (August et al., 2010 ) including video clips to clarify target academic word meanings (Baker et al., 2014 ). Grade level informational texts that were interesting and engaging provided opportunities for teaching general academic terms and content-specific words as well as target vocabulary words that were central to understanding the informational text, occurred frequently, appeared in multiple contexts, included affixes, and had the potential for cognate relationships (Baker et al., 2014 ).

MLs’ L1 has been used as an effective instructional resource for improving English vocabulary. Specific approaches have included (a) previewing and reviewing texts in the L1 (August et al., 2010 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ), (b) introducing vocabulary words in Spanish before introducing them in English (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ), (c) using a Spanish keyword method (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ), (d) using cognates (Baker et al., 2014 ), (e) hearing dual-language books paired with instruction related to retelling (Beneville & Li, 2018 ), and (f) peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping conducted in Spanish (Pyle et al., 2017 ).

Teaching word learning strategies also improved MLs’ English vocabulary. Strategies included (a) teaching cognates and word parts (Baker et al., 2014 ), (b) teaching students to use context clues (Baker et al., 2014 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ), and (c) teaching morphological analysis as a word-learning strategy in combination with context analysis (Brandes & McMaster, 2017 ). The most common characteristic of morphological awareness instruction was explicit instruction in common suffixes and root words and in how to apply this knowledge to new words.

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also found several instructional programs that supported L1 (Spanish) vocabulary and English oral language. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Oral Language Cluster heading. Two programs, Descubriendo La Lectura (a Spanish version of Reading Recovery ) and Vocabulary Enhanced Systematic and Explicit Teaching Routines ( VE-SETR ) within a transitional bilingual program had significant and positive effects on L1 Spanish vocabulary measures. Descubriendo La Lectura provided daily, one-on-one, instruction in multiple components, while VE-SETR provided explicit and systematic Spanish vocabulary instruction using scripted lessons. Five programs were identified that had significant positive relationships with English oral language: Corrective Reading , Direct Instruction (DI) , Project English Language and Literacy Acquisition ( ELLA ), Reading Mastery , and Wilson Reading . Across the programs, direct and/or systematic instruction was provided in multiple components. Program effect sizes ranged from 0.11 to 0.93. Tables S2 and S3 (online only) provide information about significant effect sizes related to the components by program and study and information about participants.

The broad PA cluster included English PA, and reviews found several instructional practices that supported this component. Specifically, direct instruction and peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping were identified as effective instructional practices. Key findings related to these instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Phonological Awareness Cluster heading.

Direct instruction in PA was effective in improving MLs’ English PA. This was found to be the case independent of English oral proficiency (Riches & Genesee, 2006 ), when receiving direct instruction in how to segment Spanish and/or English CVC words followed by instruction in letter-sound relationships for selected letters, and through an English auditory discrimination training program that focused on sound pairs difficult for Spanish speakers (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Peer pairing, peer tutoring, and small collaborative/cooperative groupings were effective in improving MLs’ English PA across grade levels. These types of pairings and groupings were effective when they include instructional activities such as previewing, predicting, paired read aloud, repeated reading, reciprocal reading, questioning, retelling, and error correction (Pyle et al., 2017 ). They were also found to be effective regardless of language of instruction (Pyle et al., 2017 ) and across grade levels (Tang et al., 2021 ).

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also identified ten effective programs or interventions related to English PA. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Phonological Awareness Cluster heading. Significant and positive effects were found for seven programs: ELLA , Ladders to Literacy , Lectura Proactiva (a Spanish version of Proactive Reading ), Peer Assisted Learning Strategies in Reading for Kindergarten (K-PALS) , Proactive Reading , Read Well , and Sound Partners with effect sizes ranging from 0.38 to 1.24. Across the programs, explicit, direct, and/or systematic instruction was provided in PA and additional components. Table S4 (online only) provides information about significant effect sizes related to English PA by program and study as well as information about study participants.

The broad decoding and oral reading fluency cluster included L1 (i.e., Spanish and Chinese) decoding, English decoding, and English oral reading fluency. Reviews found several instructional practices that supported two of the components: English decoding and English oral reading fluency. Key findings related to instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Decoding and Oral Reading Fluency Cluster heading.

To provide effective English decoding instruction, the reviews identified (a) explicit and/or systematic instruction in English PA and decoding, (b) strategic use of MLs’ L1 during instruction, and (c) peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping as effective instructional practices. Explicit and/or systematic instruction has been shown to improve MLs’ English decoding. Specifically, systematic and explicit phonologically based interventions in English PA and phonics were related to improved English word reading and word attack skills for MLs (August et al., 2010 ; August & Shanahan, 2010 ). MLs who received explicit instruction in how to segment Spanish and/or English CVC words followed by instruction in letter-sound relationships for selected letters outperformed a no-treatment control group on English decoding (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

MLs’ L1 has been used effectively during instruction to improve their English decoding as well. Specifically, some English letter-sound correspondences did not have to be retaught when students’ L1 shared the same correspondences (August & Shanahan, 2010 ). Explicit instruction in how to segment Spanish CVC words followed by letter-sound relationship instruction increased MLs’ English decoding (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Peer pairing, peer tutoring, and small collaborative/cooperative groupings were also effective in supporting MLs’ English decoding. Specifically, cooperative, collaborative, and peer-tutoring strategies significantly and positively impacted MLs’ letter-word identification across grade levels (Tang et al., 2021 ). These types of pairings and groupings were often associated with improved English decoding for MLs compared to teacher-mediated comparison conditions (Pyle et al., 2017 ).

To provide effective English oral reading fluency instruction, the reviews identified explicit instruction in English PA and phonics and peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping as effective instructional practices. Specifically, explicit instruction in English PA and phonics benefited MLs’ English reading fluency (August et al., 2010 ). Additionally, peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative groupings demonstrated gains on MLs’ fluency (Pyle et al., 2017 ). These types of pairings and groupings were often associated with improved English reading fluency compared to teacher-mediated comparison conditions. This was true for peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping implemented using English-only instruction or a combination of English and Spanish instruction and that included previewing, predicting, reading aloud, error correction, repeated reading, reciprocal reading, and retelling.

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also found several instructional programs that supported L1 (Spanish) decoding, English decoding, and English oral reading fluency. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Decoding and Oral Reading Fluency Cluster heading. Three programs were identified that had significant positive relationships with L1 (Spanish) decoding: Descubriendo La Lectura , Lectura Proactiva , and Proactive Reading . Descubriendo La Lectura was described as a supplemental, comprehensive, and tailored intervention while the other two provided explicit, direct, and/or systematic instruction in multiple components. Program effect sizes ranged from 0.60 to 0.91. Nine programs were found to have a significant positive impact on English decoding: Corrective Reading , PALS , Proactive Reading , Read Naturally , Read Well , Reading Mastery , Success for All ( SFA ), Sound Partners , and Wilson Reading with program effect sizes ranging from 0.25 to 1.09. Across the programs, all were described as explicit, direct, or systematic instruction, all provided instruction in multiple components, and one emphasized peer collaboration.

Six programs were identified that were effective for improving MLs’ English oral reading fluency. Program effect sizes ranged from 0.17 to 0.90 for Corrective Reading , ELLA , PALS , Reading Mastery , Read Well , and Sound Partners . All six programs were described as explicit, direct, and/or systematic instruction, all provided instruction in multiple components, and one emphasized peer collaboration. Tables S5, S6, and S7 (online only) provide information about significant effect sizes related to these components by program and study as well as information about study participants.

The broad comprehension cluster included L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension, L1 (Spanish) comprehension strategies, and English reading comprehension strategies. Reviews found several instructional practices that supported one of the components: English reading comprehension. Key findings related to instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Reading Comprehension Cluster heading.

To provide effective English comprehension instruction, the reviews identified (a) direct and multi-faceted vocabulary instruction, (b) explicit instruction in decoding and/or comprehension, (c) meaningful supports or scaffolds such as book-rich classrooms and video clips, (d) structured writing activities, (e) a combination of literature logs and instructional conversations, (f) peer pairing/tutoring and collaborative/cooperative groupings, (g) enhancements to instructional approaches, and (h) use of MLs’ L1 as effective instructional practices.

Direct and multi-faceted meaning vocabulary instruction was effective for improving MLs’ reading comprehension. For example, improvement in English reading comprehension was related to instruction in a single study within the reviews (Carlo et al., 2004 ) that (a) focused on a set of target words taught over a course of a week using integrated books (Brandes & McMaster, 2017 ; Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ); (b) included explicit instruction (August et al., 2010 ); (c) used examples and visual aids in multiple contexts as well as opportunities for pronunciation, acting and gestures, discussion of spelling and cognates, and comparisons of words (Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ); and (d) introduced words in students’ L1 first before introducing them in English (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

In addition, effective vocabulary instruction (a) emphasized both code-based and meaning-based skills instead of emphasizing one set of skills in isolation (Solari et al., 2022 ), (b) taught content-specific words and general academic words (S. Baker et al., 2014 ), (c) taught key vocabulary words paired with a listening preview (August & Siegel, 2006 ), (d) used a vocabulary-enriched curriculum, and (e) provided 20-min oral instruction in word meanings focused on compound words, synonyms, antonyms, and multiple word meanings (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Explicit instruction in decoding and/or comprehension improved MLs’ reading comprehension. The instruction included the following: (a) systematic and explicit phonologically based instruction (August & Shanahan, 2010 ; August et al., 2010 ); (b) explicit instruction in and modeling of comprehension strategies (e.g., predicting, summarizing, clarifying, and questioning the text; August et al., 2010 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ); (c) emphasized both code-related and meaning-related skills for MLs with word-level difficulties (Solari et al., 2022 ); and (d) high intensity direct skills instruction personalized to meet individual student needs, provide immediate feedback, and ongoing adjustment (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ).

MLs’ comprehension benefited from meaningful supports or scaffolds. Book-rich classrooms and home reading with audiotapes (August et al., 2010 ) were effective. Small group shared reading allowed teachers to address MLs’ particular needs (August et al., 2010 ). Short, engaging video clips anchored content to a common shared experience and provided background knowledge to facilitate content understanding (S. Baker et al., 2014 ).

Structured writing activities were effective in improving MLs’ content understanding. Specifically, graphic organizers and brief writing activities provided opportunities to make connections among concepts and strengthened MLs’ content understanding (Baker et al., 2014 ). Interactive learning approaches using semantic mapping, semantic feature analysis, and semantic/syntactic feature analysis were found more effective than providing definitions for MLs with an LD (Boon & Barbetta, 2017 ).

Combining literature logs with instructional conversations was effective in improving MLs’ story comprehension (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ). Literature logs lessons included (a) providing students with a prompt after reading a story and asking them to write about personal experiences related to the story and (b) participating in a classroom discussion about the similarities and differences in their experiences and that of the story characters. Instructional conversations included (a) clarifying factual content of the story and (b) developing students’ understanding through discussion.

Peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping were effective in improving MLs’ English reading comprehension (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Pyle et al., 2017 ; Tang et al., 2021 ) regardless of language of instruction, type of grouping, and instructional activity (Pyle et al., 2017 ). Structured pairings and groupings that included elements of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) and classwide peer tutoring (e.g., paired reading) and that used cooperative, collaborative, and peer-tutoring strategies demonstrated large effects (Pyle et al., 2017 ; Tang et al., 2021 ).

Multiple enhancements to instructional approaches helped facilitate MLs’ English reading comprehension. Enhancements included (a) identifying and clarifying difficult words and passages within texts; (b) consolidating text knowledge through summarization and extra practice with reading (August & Shanahan, 2010 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ); (c) vocabulary and comprehension checks; (d) presenting ideas verbally and in writing; (e) paraphrasing and encouraging expansions of MLs’ remarks; (f) redundancy; (g) interactive reading with attention to decoding and story comprehension; and (h) physical gestures and visual clues to clarify meaning (August et al., 2010 ).

Finally, MLs’ L1 was successfully leveraged to improve English reading comprehension in the following ways: (a) to clarify meaning (August & Siegel, 2006 ), (b) to provide definitions of difficult target vocabulary as a part of previewing a text (Beneville & Li, 2018 ), (c) pairing L1 and L2 together in dual-language books (Beneville & Li, 2018 ), (d) using peer-mediated instruction in both English and Spanish together (Pyle et al., 2017 ), and (e) including a discussion of Spanish cognates as a part of instruction (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also found several instructional programs that supported L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension and English reading comprehension. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Reading Comprehension Cluster heading. Three programs were identified that had significant positive relationships with L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension: Lectura Proactiva , Proactive Reading , and Read Naturally , and program effect sizes ranged from 0.55 to 0.88. All three programs were described as explicit, direct, or systematic instruction and provided instruction in multiple components. Seven programs had significant positive effects on English reading comprehension: Corrective Reading , HELPS Fluency Program ( HELPS ), PALS , Proactive Reading , Reading Mastery , SFA , and Sound Partners , and program effect sizes ranged from 0.21 to 2.67. Across the programs, all seven were described as explicit, direct, or systematic instruction, all provided instruction in multiple components, and one emphasized peer collaboration. Tables S8 and S9 (online only) provide information about significant effect sizes related to these components by program and study as well as information about study participants.

Using a systematic review of reviews, the goal of this project was to investigate the science of reading (SOR) for multilingual learners (MLs) by examining 30 systematic reviews conducted since the release of the report of the National Reading Panel ( 2000 ). Specifically, we first sought to determine the evidence-based components that comprise the SOR for MLs. Then we investigated which instructional practices and programs have evidence for addressing the essential components identified.

From this review of reviews, there were two main conclusions. First, there are a number of evidence-based components significantly related to English reading comprehension that create the SOR for MLs. These components can be grouped into four broad clusters: (a) an oral language cluster which includes English oral language, English oral proficiency, English vocabulary, and L1 (Spanish) vocabulary; (b) a PA cluster which includes English PA; (c) a broad decoding and oral reading fluency cluster which includes L1 (Spanish and Chinese) decoding, English decoding, and English oral reading fluency; and (d) a broad comprehension cluster which includes L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension and L1 (Spanish) and English reading comprehension strategies.

Second, this review of reviews identified a number of instructional practices and programs demonstrated effective for addressing the identified components that provide a foundation for the science of reading instruction for MLs. Specifically, effective practices related to the evidence-based components include practices such as use of students’ home language, direct and explicit instruction in English reading skills and strategies, peer-mediated instruction, enhanced instruction with scaffolds such as videos or structured writing, and use of multicomponent reading instruction. Effective programs had a range in the types of instruction provided by each program, the reading components targeted through instruction, and program characteristics relevant to delivery. Many effective programs were described as providing explicit and/or systematic instruction, targeted a range of reading components, varied with respect to dosage and duration, and delivered in a range of formats and by different educators.

Evidence-Based Components for Multilingual Learners

Four broad clusters of evidence-based components identified in the review of reviews create the SOR for MLs—oral language, PA, decoding and oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Specific evidence-based components within each of the four broad clusters were identified, and overall, these components were consistent with and are included in the Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ) as shown in Figure S3 (online only; identified SOR components for MLs are listed on the right). However, the current review of reviews provides unique and important insight related to the importance of L1 for Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking MLs’ reading; that is, while the SVR and the Reading Rope represent the key components in proficient reading, there is not explicit mention or description of how MLs’ L1 impacts reading in L2 in these two influential theoretical models.

Our review of reviews found that there were several L1 components related to MLs’ English reading comprehension (i.e., Spanish vocabulary, Spanish and Chinese decoding, Spanish reading comprehension, and Spanish reading strategies). Here our results diverge from the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ). Although we identified the same key components included in the SVR and Reading Rope, in many cases, the evidence-based components were L1 components rather than English components. Given that in some cases MLs’ L1 reading skills may exert greater influence on L2 reading than L2 oral language proficiency (e.g., Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ), it is important that the SOR for MLs explicitly represents this influence which likely occurs through cross-linguistic transfer. Cross-linguistic transfer demonstrates how students’ L1 language and literacy skills facilitate the development of parallel abilities in the new language (i.e., English; Cummins, 1979 ; Prevoo et al., 2016 ; Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ). Importantly, cross-linguistic effects occur simultaneously with within-language effects (L1 or L2) as the interaction of L1 and L2 language and literacy skills affects MLs’ English reading growth (Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ). Findings from the current review, along with research findings related to cross-linguistic transfer, highlight the additional complexity of reading in a new language, and how the SOR for MLs could enhance the SVR and Reading Rope with the addition of key L1 components to support English language development and reading (Goldenberg, 2020 ; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009 ; Huang et al., 2022 ).

Although the components identified in this review of reviews are in many ways consistent with the SVR and the Reading Rope but require the addition of L1 components, some aspects of the SVR and Reading Rope were not explicitly identified in the reviews. For example, within decoding/word recognition, sight word recognition is listed in the models but was not explicitly identified in the reviews as an evidence-based component of the SOR for MLs. While it may be possible that sight word recognition is not important for MLs’ proficient reading, it is more likely that sight word recognition was implicit within word recognition or decoding in many of the studies reviewed since it results from orthographic mapping in increasingly sophisticated phases of letter, sound, and word knowledge (Ehri, 2014 ). Thus, although not identified in any of the systematic reviews we examined, we hypothesize that as a key part of word recognition more broadly, sight word recognition is similarly important for MLs as it is for monolingual English-speaking students. Correspondingly, within linguistic or language comprehension, background knowledge and literacy knowledge were not explicitly identified in the reviews. However, again we hypothesize the importance of these aspects of reading for MLs, particularly given the importance of developing these types of knowledge in the new language or drawing upon these funds of knowledge from students’ L1 to support their English reading comprehension (e.g., González et al., 2005 ).

Instructional Practices and Programs for Multilingual Learners

Consistent with the perspectives that emphasize discriminating between the SOR and the science of reading instruction (e.g., Goldenberg, 2020 ; Shanahan, 2020 ), we also examined instructional practices and programs aligned with the SOR components for MLs identified in our first research question. The effective instructional practices identified within the review of reviews include, but are not limited to, the use of peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping, explicit instruction, and strategic use of MLs’ L1. Peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping supported MLs’ English vocabulary, English phonological awareness, English decoding and oral reading fluency, and English comprehension. Explicit instruction was effective in supporting MLs’ English vocabulary, English phonological awareness and decoding, and English comprehension. Notably, strategic use of MLs’ L1 supported MLs’ English vocabulary, English decoding, and English comprehension. The effective programs and interventions identified within the review of reviews include, but are not limited to, K-PALS , Ladders to Literacy , Proactive Reading , ELLA , PALS , Lectura Proactiva , Read Well , Success for All , Sound Partners , Corrective Reading , Reading Mastery , and Read Naturally . Across these effective programs, there was a range in the types of instruction provided by each program, the reading components targeted through instruction, and program characteristics relevant to delivery. Many effective programs were described as providing explicit and/or systematic instruction and programs ranged from supplemental instruction to whole-school reform models. Across the programs, a wide range of reading components was targeted with some programs focusing on a single component, such as vocabulary, while other programs focused on a range of components often through multicomponent instructional programs, which included components such as PA, alphabet knowledge, oral language, vocabulary, decoding, spelling, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Across the effective programs identified, characteristics relevant to program delivery varied as well. Formats included a range of groupings, including one-on-one, various types of small groups, and whole class instruction. Dosage and duration varied, ranging from a small number of weeks to multiple years. Effective programs were delivered by a variety of personnel.

Limitations

While the review of reviews methodology used in the current study has the advantage of providing a broad look at the field, one potential limitation is that findings from individual studies could become subsumed through synthesis across studies and reviews. Given that the level of analysis was systematic reviews rather than individual studies, the data drawn from the systematic reviews were syntheses made by researchers based on multiple studies. Furthermore, through the synthesis process, specific findings from individual studies may have been subsumed and are therefore not present in the current review of reviews. For example, authors of one of the systematic reviews could have reviewed a study that showed a positive relationship between sight word knowledge and English reading comprehension. But, when the authors synthesized across the studies they reviewed, this finding could have become part of a conclusion related to the positive relationship between word recognition and reading comprehension more broadly. Moreover, our review of reviews integrates multiple synthesized conclusions across reviews. Future research should address similar research questions using individual studies and include contextual information such as the grade/age of students, the number of participants, and their levels of English proficiency to help answer questions relative to whom, how, and under what circumstances instructional practices have been found to be effective. Finally, it is important to note that the identified reviews included a mix of research designs and findings synthesized from correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental studies. As such, it is possible that causality cannot be assumed for some conclusions.

In addition, through the systematic review process, we were not able to account for the ways particular theories, especially those related to the SVR and Reading Rope, have influenced the content and topics that have already been reviewed, included, or excluded in existing systematic reviews (and their studies). Future research may need to explicitly seek out and review theories related to multilingual reading and education that are relevant to potentially identify additional constructs important for MLs.

Finally, while findings from the current review of reviews related to the importance of L1 components and instruction mostly focused on Spanish (or Chinese in one case) as an L1, this is not unexpected given the high percentage of Spanish-speaking MLs in U.S. public schools, 76.4%, or 4 million students (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]  2024 ), and the structural similarities between Spanish and English. Aspects of cross-linguistic transfer may be script-dependent as structural similarities more readily facilitate cross-linguistic transfer (Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ). Future research should consider a broad range of L1s and evidence of their cross-linguistic relationships with English reading.

Implications

The current review of reviews about the SOR for MLs has implications for theory and research as well as policy, curriculum, and instruction. Implications are described below.

Implications for Theory and Research

Findings from this review of reviews provide mixed evidence related to theory. On one hand, the findings related to evidence-based components provide support for the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and Scarborough’s ( 2001 ) Reading Rope as many of the components identified for MLs align with those from those two models. On the other hand, questions remain about whether the SVR and the Reading Rope adequately capture the complexity of reading in an additional language without explicit reference to L1 components related to L2 reading. Given the importance of both L1 and L2 oral language and reading skill components identified in the current review as well as cross-linguistic transfer to support English reading, enhancements to the SVR and Reading Rope would benefit MLs. Research has considered both the L1 and L2 in the SVR for MLs (e.g., Gottardo & Mueller, 2009 ; Huang et al., 2022 ), providing unique insights into the importance of L1 components, in addition to English components, in supporting English reading comprehension. In addition, multilingual/multiliteracy theories of reading such as the compensatory model (Bernhardt, 2005 ) should be examined as an alternative way to frame the SOR for MLs.

Future research should focus on two complementary areas of inquiry. First, researchers should continue to conduct studies that identify and replicate (Plucker & Makel, 2021 ) findings related to key components of the SOR for MLs and effective instructional practices, programs, and interventions that relate to proficient L2 English reading for MLs. Studies such as these will build and inform the research base, and replications can provide confirmation and confidence in key findings. In addition, research that identifies consistent patterns of moderators that could potentially influence the relationship between evidence-based instruction and reading outcomes for MLs would benefit the field. Second, fellow researchers must conduct studies that systematically examine and test multilingual reading theories (e.g., Bernhardt, 2005 ). Empirical data that can be modeled to provide support or contradictory information related to multilingual reading theory could provide additional enhancements to the SOR for MLs.

Implications for Policy, Curriculum, and Instruction

There are implications for policy, curriculum, and instruction based on the findings of the current review of reviews. Since 2013, at least 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation and policy related to the science of reading (Neuman et al., 2023 ). In states’ legislation, many mention MLs, but only 13 actually describe specific strategies or interventions for MLs, and only three require those interventions be evidence-based (Neuman et al., 2023 ). Given that MLs comprise 10.6% of the public school population (NCES, 2024 ), this lack of policy-driven equitable support is cause for concern.

While the intent of states’ reading policies is to support students and develop proficient reading, future and revised policies should address the heterogeneity of the student population and students’ unique literacy needs based on the research evidence (i.e., science) that details the most effective reading instruction to support attaining proficient English reading.

Additionally, with respect to curriculum and instruction for MLs, there is a clear need for emphasis on both L1 and L2 oral language development and linguistic comprehension as well as proficient decoding. As demonstrated by findings from the current review, aspects of language beyond background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge (i.e., those specified in the Reading Rope; Scarborough, 2001 ) are necessary for MLs. Including direct instruction in and curricular materials that use aspects of the L1 such as decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension strategy instruction are likely effective strategies for developing proficient English reading comprehension for MLs. In addition, an intentional and systematic focus on English oral language development and proficiency as key components of curriculum and instruction will support MLs’ English reading development.

*Systematic reviews included in this systematic review of reviews †Systematic reviews included but not cited in text

†Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2011). Pedagogical strategies for teaching literacy to ESL immigrant students: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 81 (4), 629–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02015.x

*August, D., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). Literacy instruction for language-minority children in special education settings. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 523–553). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

*August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on “developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth.” Journal of Literacy Research , 42 (3), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745

*August, D., Goldenberg, C., Saunders, W. M., & Dressler, C. (2010). Recent research on English language and literacy instruction. In M. Shatz & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), The education of English language learners (pp. 272–297). The Guilford Press.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20 (1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x

Article   Google Scholar  

*Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014–4012). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/19

*Baker, D. L., Basaraba, D. L., & Polanco, P. (2016). Connecting the present to the past: Furthering the research on bilingual education and bilingualism. Review of Research in Education , 40 (1), 821–883. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16660691

*Beneville, M. A., & Li, C. (2018). Evidence-based literacy interventions for East/Southeast Asian English language learners: A review of the research and recommendations for practice. Journal for Multicultural Education , 12 (1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-12-2016-0061

Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25 , 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000073

Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1 (4), 289–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802400072

*Boon, R. T., & Barbetta, P. M. (2017). Reading interventions for elementary English language learners with learning disabilities: A review. Insights into Learning Disabilities , 14 (1), 27–52.

*Brandes, D. R., & McMaster, K. L. (2017). A review of morphological analysis strategies on vocabulary outcomes with ELLs. Insights into Learning Disabilities , 14 (1), 53–72.

Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S99–S107. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338

Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21 (1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2011.0007

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., ... & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly , 39 (2), 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 48 (3), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0033

*Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research , 82 (4), 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312465472

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222

*Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 197–238). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch8

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

*Fitton, L., McIlraith, A. L., & Wood, C. L. (2018). Shared book reading interventions with English learners: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research , 88 (5), 712–751. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318790909

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention . Guilford Publications.

Google Scholar  

Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions . (Under cooperative agreement grant S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf

*Genesee, F., & Riches, C. (2006). Literacy: Instructional issues. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 109–175). Cambridge University Press.

*Ginns, D. S., Joseph, L. M., Tanaka, M. L., & Xia, Q. (2019). Supplemental phonological awareness and phonics instruction for Spanish-speaking English learners: Implications for school psychologists. Contemporary School Psychology , 23 (1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-00216-x

Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms . Routledge.

Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. T. (2020). The science of reading: Supports, critiques, and questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S7–S16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.360

Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (2), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014320

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

†Graham, S., Silva, M., & Restrepo, M. A. (2022). Reading intervention research with emergent bilingual students: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing , 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10399-8

Hall, C., Steinle, P. K., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Reading instruction for English learners with learning disabilities: What do we already know, and what do we still need to learn? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 166 , 145–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20302

Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., & Dryden, D. M. (2012). A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS ONE, 7 (11), e49667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049667

Hindman, A. H., Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Connor, J. A. (2020). Bringing the science to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S197–S206. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.345

Huang, B. H., Bedore, L. M., Ramírez, R., & Wicha, N. (2022). Contributions of oral narrative skills to English reading in Spanish-English Latino/a dual language learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65 (2), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00105

Hurford, D. P. (2020, February). The science of reading (a response to the New York Times). IDA Examiner , 9 (1). https://dyslexiaida.org/the-science-of-reading-a-response-to-the-new-york-times/

*Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39 (2), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020101

Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2017). Oral language and listening comprehension: Same or different constructs? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60 (5), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0039

Li, J. (2012). Principles of effective English language learner pedagogy . College Board.

Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1–33). University of Michigan Press.

Lipsey, M. W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M. A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M. W., Roberts, M., Anthony, K. S., Busick, M. D. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms . (NCSER 2013–3000). National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537446.pdf

†Ludwig, C., Guo, K., & Georgiou, G. K. (2019). Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 (3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419825855

MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L. J., & Paugh, P. (2021). Conflict or conversation? Media portrayals of the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S145–S155. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.384

*Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading , 34 (1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01477.x

Moats, L. C., & Tolman, C. (2009). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling . Sopris West.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups . National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). English learners in public schools . Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners

Neuman, S. B., Quintero, E., & Reist, K. (2023). Reading reform across America: A survey of state legislation . Albert Shanker Institute. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/ReadingReform%20ShankerInstitute%20FullReport.pdf

Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research (pp. 3–22). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ , n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2021). Replication is important for educational psychology: Recent developments and key issues. Educational Psychologist, 56 (2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796

*Polanco, P., & Baker, D. L. (2018). Transitional bilingual education and two-way immersion programs: Comparison of reading outcomes for English learners in the United States. Athens Journal of Education , 5 (4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.5-4-5

Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M., Mesman, J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Within- and cross-language relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children with an immigrant background: A meta-analytical study. Review of Educational Research, 86 (1), 237–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315584685

Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M., & Barr, C. (2010a). Language maintenance versus language of instruction: Spanish reading development among Latino and Latina bilingual learners. Journal of Social Issues, 66 (1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01634.x

Proctor, C. P., August, D., Snow, C., & Barr, C. D. (2010b). The interdependence continuum: A perspective on the nature of Spanish-English bilingual reading comprehension. Bilingual Research Journal, 33 (1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235881003733209

*Pyle, D., Pyle, N., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Duran, L., & Akers, J. (2017). Academic effects of peer-mediated interventions with English language learners: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research , 87 (1), 103–133. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653663

Rand, M. K., & Morrow, L. M. (2021). The contribution of play experiences in early literacy: Expanding the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S239–S248. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.383

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading comprehension . RAND Publications.

Relyea, J. E., & Amendum, S. J. (2020). English reading growth in Spanish-speaking bilingual students: Moderating effect of English proficiency on cross-linguistic influence. Child Development, 91 (4), 1150–1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13288

*Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children , 82 (2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483

*Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Literacy: Crosslinguistic and crossmodal issues. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 64–108). Cambridge University Press.

†Roberts, G. J., Hall, C., Cho, E., Coté, B., Lee, J., Qi, B., & Van Ooyik, J. (2021). The state of current reading intervention research for English learners in grades K–2: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Psychology Review , 34 , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09629-2

*Saunders, W. M., & O'Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 14–63). Cambridge University Press.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.

Seidenberg, M. S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S119–S130. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341

*Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 415–488). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes the science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S235–S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349

*Silverman, R. D., Johnson, E., Keane, K., & Khanna, S. (2020). Beyond decoding: A meta-analysis of the effects of language comprehension interventions on K–5 students’ language and literacy outcomes. Reading Research Quarterly , 55 (S1), S207–S233. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.346

†Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research , 75 (2), 247–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002247

*Snyder, E., Witmer, S. E., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth , 61 (2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1219301

*Solari, E. J., Kehoe, K. F., Cho, E., Hall, C., Vargas, I., Dahl-Leonard, K., Richmond, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., & Conner, C. (2022). Effectiveness of interventions for English learners with word reading difficulties: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 37 (3), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12286

*Tang, S., Irby, B. J., Tong, F., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2021). The effects of cooperative, collaborative, and peer-tutoring strategies on English learners’ reading and speaking proficiencies in an English-medium context: A research synthesis. SAGE Open , 11 (4), 21582440211060823. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211060823

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Delaware School of Education, 16 W. Main Street, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

Jonathan M. Kittle, Steven J. Amendum & Christina M. Budde

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan M. Kittle .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 228 KB)

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kittle, J.M., Amendum, S.J. & Budde, C.M. What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K-5 Multilingual Learners? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 108 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09942-6

Download citation

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 12 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09942-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Science of reading
• Multilingual learners
• Systematic review
• Oral language
• Cross-linguistic transfer
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• DOI: 10.55041/ijsrem33393
• Corpus ID: 269677556

A Systematic Literature Review of Working Capital Management in Business Organizations

• MONISHA.Y. Naidu
• Published in INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF… 9 May 2024

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers