How to write a body

Goals:
Student is able to write and format a body of a literature review

What was a literature review again?

The American Psychological Association [APA], (2010) defines literature reviews as

critical evaluations of material that has already been published. (.) By organizing,
integrating, and evaluating previously published material, authors of literature reviews
consider the progress of research toward clarifying a problem. () authors
define and clarify the problem;
summarize previous investigations to inform the reader of the state of research;
identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the literature; and
suggest the next step or steps in solving the problem.
The components of literature reviews can be arranged in various ways (e.g., by
grouping research based on similarity in the concepts or theories of interest,
methodological similarities among the studies reviewed, or the historical development
of the field). (p. 10)

What is a body of a literature review?

You may want to have a look at the Kim (2011) paper. Student Kim did quite a decent job in
his literature review. Look for example at the way he structured the body of his review in
chapters that coincide with subquestions. Together these subquestions cover the whole of his
research question, no more, no less. After he has found an answer to all the subquestions, the
answer to his research question is there as well. In every chapter he answers a subquestion.
Some of the papers he discussed appear in several chapters, as they contribute to the answers
on several subquestions. Each chapter ends with a subconclusion, which is the answer to the
subquestion discussed in the paragraph. In the subconclusion, like in the final conclusion, he
does not discuss things that have not appeared earlier in the chapter or earlier in the paper (so
no new information in the (sub)conclusion). Notice also how well the chapters are linked. He
has offered the answer to the one subquestion in a subconclusion and then links it to the next
subquestion to be discussed in the next chapter. In general he linked sentences quite well,
although this could have been improved. There were no big jumps from the one subject to the
other. For every paper he discussed he should have mentioned what the purpose of the
investigation was, then briefly the method, then the results, and then the conclusion (which he
did sometimes, but not all the time). And what is highly appreciated in his work is that he
showed himself very critical in his evaluation of the studies. He discussed the pitfalls of the
methodology wherever he could, and did not subscribe to the authors conclusion if he was
not convinced by the results himself. And most of the time, he did so in a well-argued way.

3
Assessment criteria chapter:
Content
- All references used
- References correct
- For every study presentation of purpose, method, results, and conclusion
- Critical evaluation of studies
- Subconclusion at end of each chapter
- No new information in subconclusion
- Well-argued
Language
- Divided in paragraphs
- Paragraphs are well-connected
- Sentences are well-connected
- Readable
- Spelling mistakes
- Grammar mistakes
- Style mistakes
Layout
- Running head, in capitals
- Page numbers
- Centered chapter title in bold
- Times Roman 12pt
- Double spacing
- Margins of 2.5 cm (or 1 inch) on all sides
- Every first line of a paragraph indented
- Lines not justified