This assessment is the continuation of the Problem statement/ Research statement and Search strategy recent work. KINDLY acknowledge there may be minor changes in this work as I am awaiting official evaluation and father input from my lecturer. However, the criteria, rubrics and tips are self-explanatory and there won’t be major changes as per pervious work. I have attached the criteria, rubrics and additional tips from professor, kindly let me know if you require further info.
tips_for_writing_your_literature_review.docx
wirte_critical_litrature_review.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
some tips from professor, for writing your literature review:
Refining the topic – I suggest you read/revise your research question/topic as you
progress (considering the feedback you receive from facilitators and other peers).
This will help you to polish/adjust the wording. In general, research questions need
to be clear, succinct and at the same time, informative.
What study designs to include in your review (Original/Primary study only:
peer reviewed is best, max of 7 articles) – There is no limitation for this, you can
include: quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. However, if in your
inclusion criteria, you mentioned that you only focus on positivist studies (e.g.
quantitative studies), then, you need to follow that inclusion criteria. Overall, in
writing systematic literature review, it all depends on you, and how you adjust
your inclusion/exclusion criteria, this helps you to focus on a manageable number of
papers based on the gaps in previous literature.
Using other review papers in your review – It is OK to use other literature review
papers for your introduction/discussion sections. For
example, sometime other similar literature reviews have been conducted in your
area and you want to cite and discuss to justify why your study is different, what are
the similarities between previous reviews and your works, or what they suggest
about the significance/importance of your topic.
Including papers with different findings (not only the findings that author likes
and think is right) – Including opposite findings will help in the critical
synthesis/analysis of the work and also finding the key gaps.
Result section versus discussion section – It is important to distinguish between
result and discussion sections:
1) Result/finding section: more descriptive, provide information about the number of
included studies, designs of studies, the number and types of quantitative
studies (control, trial studies, cross sectional studies, etc.), the number and types of
qualitative studies (grounded theory, phenomenological studies, etc.), population of
the studies (males, females, age, etc.), the key quantitative results (statistics, such
as p-value), the key themes for qualitative results. Remember to provide all this
information in an integrative way, rather than only explaining the findings for each
single study (you have already provided the information of single studies in a table
which is a part of your finding, now you need to integrate that information together in
a more meaningful way via a few paragraphs).
2) Discussion section: in discussion section you need to mention what the findings
provided in result actually mean? Discussion section is about the “SO WHAT” of the
results, interpretation of the results and the gaps in the results. In addition, you can
discuss further research required for future studies based on the gaps, provide some
indications for policy makers and clinicians, benefits of the study for individuals,
practitioners and community/society as a whole. For discussion section, you need a
higher level of critical thinking/analysis/synthesis of the information. The discussion
sections of each single paper can be very helpful in the process of writing your own
discussion. I suggest you also to read the strengths/limitations of each single studies
as it provides you good information for a critical argument in your discussion.
Structure of result section: Feel free to structure paragraphs/numbers of
paragraphs as it works the best for you (e.g. including smaller paragraphs discussing
different topics). However, the finding should not get too crowded (my suggestion is
to integrate the key findings from table and present them using sub-headings and/or
allocate one paragraph to each key point). Although there can be different ways of
presenting findings, it needs to be clear, coherent and consistent.
Providing statistics for the result section – the result section and particularly the
statistical analysis/findings can be a bit confusing, so, I do not expect you to provide
too many statistics – Please mainly focus on the key findings/outcomes (using
descriptive statistics such as increase/decrease of a trend, p value to show if the
result is significant or not – p value equal and less than 0.05 indicates the significant
result). You can just simply mention in the finding that how different variables affect
each other [e.g. the result of control, trial studies about depression showed that,
cognitive therapy significantly enhanced depression in comparison with antidepressant medication (p value=0.02)]
Reading and writing simultaneously – while writing a paper, try to read & perceive
the key ideas in your point of view, and at the same time, start writing the key
points (including citations/refs), then, focus on editing and polishing the work
Citing two/more refs from same author – When citing two/more refs from same
author – based on APA style, rather than using numbers, you need to
use alphabetic letters (lower case): a, b, c. for example: “Salehi’s (2017 a) study of
social capital in young women indicates that….” Also, organise the refs
in reference list, alphabetically (by the topic of research and/or chapter title), and use
a, b, c letter after the year of publication
Checking similarities – I suggest that you upload your assignment early and check
the similarity. If you submit a draft earlier, you will have time to make any changes if
needed and re-submit before the due date.
Assessment 2: Write a critical literature review based topic: “A prognostic review that looks
at the relationship between diet and progression of cancer” and as per ( Search strategy recent
work)
( 3500 words-excluding method, tables , graphs and reference). Weightage 70%
Overview
Produce a robust, reproducible, comprehensive critique of the literature relevant to your
discipline and research interest.
Learning outcomes
This assessment task is aligned to the following learning outcomes:
1. Analyse, refine and manage results of a systematic literature search
2. Provide an evidence-based rationale for further research or practice change
Assessment details
“Your aim is to produce a robust, reproducible, comprehensive critique of the literature” in an
appropriate format that includes a discussion justifying future research and/or practice
change. A structure for assignment was provided below. An estimation of the maximum
word count per section is provided but there can be variations.
Title: 20 words [not included in word count total]
– Provide a succinct, clear and informative title for your critical review.
Introduction: 1000 words
– Give a justification for conducting the review specifying what his review will add to the
existing literature. Consider: How? Why? What could happen if this important review of
information on this topic is not done, distributed and used? Outline who will benefit (e.g.
consumers, carers, professionals, policy makers, and community and society as a whole).
Include your problem statement and background to clarify what is already known on your
topic and to define relevant key terms/theories. Your research question and an aim should
also be included along with, ideally, a thesis statement.
Method: 1000 words [not included in word count total]
– You should incorporate your revised Assignment1(the Method section) Into this critical
literature review – to a maximum of 1000 words. You will have used the feedback provided to
make any necessary changes to the method.
Result: 1000, excluding table/s
•
•
•
– Present a summary of the final included studies in an integrated way including
descriptive findings such as population of the studies and their characteristics,
designs, countries studies being conducted.
– Provide more advanced synthesis of the information (e.g. Different interventions
being used in the studies, comparisons between them, different themes and key
issues emerging).
– Include result stable/s, e.g. Table 2 with sample size, age range of participants,
method of data collection, findings and other relevant study variables. Do not do
critically interpret any of the studies in this section (save for Discussion).
Discussion: 1000
•
•
•
•
– Link to content of introduction while avoiding repetition; discuss extent of current
knowledge on topic referring to background citations.
– Provide critical interpretation of the key findings while referring to the studies in
results table/s (e.g., Table 2) but do not introduce new results in this section (revise
Results sections if you become aware of new results). Identify current issues,
concerns, viewpoints, and arguments.
– Comment on strengths and weaknesses of your methods, the included study
designs, and your key findings.
– Discuss implications for future research and/or practice change, justifying
recommendations and including (e.g. possible study designs or strategies to
implement).
Conclusion and recommendations: 500
– Summarise the main ideas presented in the review, repeating thesis statement (if given in
Introduction) and give recommendation/s. Only include information already presented and
discussed in the review; this is a summary in your own words so no in-text citations are
required and you should not introduce any new material or ideas (if you think of anything
new, go back and add it to the relevant section).
References
– Support statements correctly within-text citations and appropriate referencing. Apply the
APA 6th edition style correctly throughout, including a correctly formatted References
section.
Presentation
– The tone should be directed toward an intelligent, non-expert audience. Avoid plagiarism
and self-plagiarism by allowing time to check the similarity report on Turnitin and revising, resubmitting before the due date. Use an easily readable typeface (e.g., Times New Roman, a
12-point font and set the paper at one and a half line spaces). Follow conventions for
labelling tables (above the table) and graphics (centred below). Write all numbers less than
ten in words and never start a sentence with a numeric symbol. For example, “Thirteen
studies met the inclusion criteria for this literature review. Three of the 11 retrospective
studies used a control group.”
Marking rubrics
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
