7

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The review of the literature for this study focuses on procedures used to
identify
teaching and learning styles and what effect a match between the two has
on student
learning outcomes and evaluation of instructors. The review focuses on a
number of
different instruments used to identify teaching and learning styles. The
chapter begins
with a definition of learning styles, teaching styles, and matching,
followed by the
findings of researchers using various instruments to measure learning and
teaching styles.
The research outcomes germane to learning styles, teaching styles, and a
match between
the two in relation to course grades, final exam scores, and instructor
evaluations are
discussed.
Learning and Teaching Styles
Many researchers have proclaimed the significance of identifying
preferred
teaching styles and preferred learning styles. Claxton and Ralston (1978,
in Miller, 1982)
alluded to this significance:
The research findings on learning styles offer substantial promise to
teachers,
counselors, and the students themselves in terms of finding better ways for
students to learn. But while matching learning style with instructional
mode
apparently facilitates positive interpersonal relations, and while it would
seem to
point the way for increased learning, the empirical data that support this
idea are
rather scarce. Such a significant gap in the research must be filled if
knowledge
about learning styles is to become a significant force in improving college
and
university teaching (p. 36).
However, identifying and defining the vast number of learning styles can
become an enormous task. According to Cornett (1983), the myriad of
labels and
categories used in identifying the different areas of style can be
overwhelming for
educators. Corbett and Smith (1984) stated:
Learning style is a complex construct involving the interaction of
numerous
elements; thus, at the outset, the experimenter is faced with the difficult
task of
having to decide which dimensions of learning style to elucidate and
which
interactions might be meaningful, in a practical sense, in understanding
their
contribution to achievement (p. 212).
There are many definitions of learning styles in the literature. For example,
Cornett defined learning style as “a consistent pattern of behavior but with
a certain range
of individual variability” (p. 9). Hunt (1979) thought that learning style
“describes a
student in terms of those educational conditions under which he is most
likely to learn.
Learning style describes how a student learns, not what he has learned” (p.
27). From a
phenomenological viewpoint, Gregorc and Ward (1977) stated that
learning style
“consists of distinctive and observable behaviors that provide clues about
the mediation
abilities of individuals. In operational terms, people through their
characteristic sets of
behavior ‘tell’ us how their minds relate to the world, and therefore, how
they learn” (p.
19). Keefe and Languis, (1983) contended that “learning style is the
composite of
8
characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as
relatively stable
indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the
learning
environment” (p. 3). They suggested that it is within these domains that
instructors
identify learning styles and try to match them with an appropriate teaching
style. Cross
(1976) defined learning styles as the characteristic ways that individuals
collect, organize,
and transform information into useful knowledge. Learning style is
consistent across a
wide variety of tasks. It has a broad influence on how information is
processed and
problems are solved, and it remains stable over many years.
Teaching style was defined by Fischer and Fischer (1979) as “a pervasive
way of
approaching the learners that might be consistent with several methods of
teaching” (p.
251). Conti (1989) contended that “the overall traits and qualities that a
teacher displays
in the classroom and that are consistent for various situations can be
described as
teaching style” (p. 3). The instructors’ philosophical beliefs are portrayed
in the
classroom through their teaching style (Brookfield, 1988). Knowles (1970)
asserted that
“the behavior of the teacher probably influences the character of the
learning climate
more than any other single factor” (p. 41). Teaching style consists of an
instructor’s
personal behavior and the media used to transmit or receive data to or from
the learner
(Gregorc, 1979).
Matching is defined in terms of compatibility, the interactive effects of
person and
environment (Hunt, 1979). Anderson and Bruce (1979) suggested that
“matching
students with selected learning environments is an efficacious means of
increasing
student achievement, particularly when the matching is conducted on the
basis of a
student’s learning style” (p. 88). Matching teaching style with learning
style produces an
environment wherein students learn best (Gregorc & Butler, 1984).
Learning and Teaching Styles Instruments
Various instruments have been used to study learning styles and teaching
styles,
and examples are those developed by Canfield, Kolb, and Gregorc. Warren
(1974, in
Raines, 1978) stated that “New means of accommodating student diversity
are clearly
needed, and one approach is to assess the personal preferences or learning
styles of the
student and adopt instructional procedures accordingly” (p. 7). Warren
also contended
that a complex method for assessing and analyzing student and instructor
learning and
teaching styles is not necessary. He stated that “A simple questionnaire
survey of student
preferences throughout an institution, a program, or a department would
indicate the
proportion of students strongly inclined toward one instructional approach
or the other”
(p. 7). For this study, the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory and the
Canfield
Instructional Styles inventory were selected for reasons indicated by
Warren. They
measure preferences in learning styles and instructional styles. The
instructional styles
inventory parallels the learning styles inventory which provides a
comparative analysis
between the two. The Canfield instruments are relatively easy to
administer with
administration time averaging approximately 30 minutes.
Following is a summary of research that used various instruments to
investigate
the notion of teaching styles and learning styles. A review of literature
revealed several
main themes to which researchers have alluded. Researchers have
attempted to:
9
1.
determine if preferred teaching styles of instructors and preferred learning
styles
of students existed,
2.
determine if a match between learning styles and teaching styles existed,
3.
determine if a match between learning styles and teaching styles produced
higher
academic achievement as indicated by grades and exam scores,
4.
determine if students’ evaluations of instructors were higher if there was a
match
between students’ learning styles and instructors’ teaching styles.
Canfield (1977) reported findings from research on student majors
conducted at
an eastern community college as well as two classes of physical therapy
students and
faculty members from universities. Several statistically significant
differences were
found between all pairs of the following groups:
1.
52 criminal justice students (44 males and 8 females).
2.
208 business students (128 males and 80 females).
3.
109 education students (35 males and 74 females).
4.
63 physical therapy students (18 males and 45 females).
5.
42 physical therapy faculty (14 males and 28 females).
Canfield's outcomes revealed that “students enrolled in a pre-education
curriculum were more like that of the criminal justice students than any of
the other
groups, despite the difference in concentration of males and females in the
two groups.
The criminal justice group evidenced considerably stronger preferences for
organization
and the business majors evidenced generally lower interest in people” (p.
59).
Comparison studies were conducted by Brainard and Ommen (1976, in
Canfield,
1977) at Longview Community College which lended credence to the
belief that
preferred learning styles can be identified. The Canfield Learning Styles
Inventory and
the Canfield Instructional Styles Inventory were used to obtain the
following group
comparisons:
1. A group of 230 female secretarial students were compared to a general
group
of 1150 female students. The secretarial students were found to have
significantly:
a. Less preference for organization (.05 level).
b. More preference for competition (.01 level).
c. More interest in Inanimates (.05 level).
d. Less interest in the people area (.01 level).
2. A group of 24 data processing students, when compared to a general
group of
3,114 students, were significantly:
a. Less desirous of peer affiliation (.01 level) and teacher affiliation
(.05 level).
b. More concerned about detail and organization (well beyond the .01
level).
c. More interested in numbers (.01 level) and less interested in the people
content area (.05 level).
d. More expectant of doing well (.01 level).
10
3. A group of 161 female community college teachers were compared to a
sample of 1,208 female community college students. The teachers were
significantly:
a. More concerned with peer affiliation (.01 level) and teacher affiliation
(.05 level).
b. More desirous of organization (.05 level).
c. Less concerned about competition (.01 level) and detail (.01 level).
d. Less interested in numerics (.01 level) and more interested in
qualitative and people areas (.01 level.)
e. Less desirous of reading (.01 level) and more iconic (.01 level).
f. More expectant of doing well (.01 level).
Existence of Learning Style and Teaching Style Preferences
Researchers Heikkinen, Pettigrew, and Zakrajsek (1985), through use of
the
Canfield Learning Styles Inventory, found that learning style preferences
exist among
education majors. They suggested that if there is a link between learning
styles and
program selection and/or teaching styles then it is appropriate to conduct
an analysis of
learning styles among education majors. The subjects of their study were
students
enrolled at the University of Idaho. The sample consisted of students
enrolled in a junior
level education methods course. There were 149 usable inventories, about
80% of the
class roster. “The inventories were grouped according to gender (96
females, 46 males),
level of teaching (47 elementary, 94 secondary), and subject matter (36
elementary, 12
special education, 19 physical education, 15 vocational education, 12
art/music, 20
science/math, 15 English/communication/language, 15 social science). . .
.When the
subjects of this study were grouped by subject matter majors, 10 of the 16
learning style
variables were significant” (p. 83). These variables were organization,
authority, goal
setting, detail, people, inanimate, qualitative, numeric, listening, and direct
experience.
Vocational education majors consisting of business education, industrial
arts, and
distributive education demonstrated a preference for the inanimate
(working with things--
building, repairing, designing, and operating) and detail (specific
information on
assignments, requirements, rules, etc.) variables.
Heikkinen, Pettigrew, and Zakrajsek found that there was a correlation
between
the nature of the subject matter and the preferred learning style of students
across majors.
They questioned whether or not students selected a major based on
preferred learning
styles or whether students’ learning styles evolved as a result of the subject
matter.
Additionally, strong preferences for some learning variables were evident
in each group
of subject matter majors. Their research report suggested “the need for a
broader
understanding of individual learning styles or preferred conditions for
learning” (p. 85).
Payton, Hunter, and McDonald (1979) used the Canfield Learning Styles
Inventory to determine the preferred learning styles of first-year physical
therapy
students. There were a total of 1,099 students and 42 schools represented
in the study. A
subsequent study by Payton, Hunter, McDonald, and Hirt (1980) identified
the preferred
instructional style of 311 physical therapy faculty in 51 basic professional
programs
within the United States. These studies revealed that there was a high level
of agreement
13
These findings in the literature are important to my study. Through use of
the
Canfield instruments, I should be able to identify existing learning style
and teaching
style preferences as it pertains to the items within the Canfield
instrumentation.
Student Achievement and Learning Style/Teaching Style Match
Lyon (1991) conducted a study at Washington State University to
determine if a
relationship existed between teaching styles and learning styles in a real-
life adult
learning situation. Lyon investigated the assumption that “adults whose
learning style
matched the instructor’s teaching style would gain more knowledge than
others with a
different learning style” (p. 45). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory was
used to
determine learning style preferences. A pretest before the beginning of the
MS Word
course taught was administered to determine the participants’ present level
of knowledge
and familiarity with the microcomputer. A posttest was administered at the
completion
of the course to help estimate the acquisition of new knowledge. The
subjects were 35
individuals who had enrolled in four, four-hour sessions of Beginning IBM
MS Word
courses. The use of a variety of teaching techniques by the instructor led to
a significant
increase in knowledge gain for all participants. “The participant’s
achievement
associated with style-flexing supported the theory that if an instructor’s
teaching style
matches the participant’s learning style then participants would more
likely gain
knowledge and master skills” (p. 50). However, no significant difference
was found
between knowledge gain and a match of the teaching styles of the
instructor and the
learning styles of the participants. Furthermore, no significant correlations
were found
between knowledge gain and the ratings of instruction.
Charkins, O’Toole, and Wetzel (1985) conducted research at Purdue
University to
determine if there was a link between teaching styles and learning styles
and the effect of
any link on student learning. This study included 600 students, 20
instructors, and 3
teaching/learning styles. The Grasha-Riechmann Learning Styles
Questionnaire was
used to determine the types of learning styles. It was an ex post facto
design--prior to
data collection no controls were instituted. Their findings indicated that
“the larger the
divergence between teaching style and learning style, the lower the
student’s gain in
achievement” (p. 112). Implications for education as a result of their study
are that
students’ achievement should improve by matching students and
instructors who possess
similar learning and teaching styles. Because students react variously to
different
methods of teaching as a result of their varied learning styles, “some
students may gain,
but others may lose, from using a new teaching method....Researchers may
be able to
discover which types of students gain (or lose) from different types of
teaching methods”
(Charkins, O’Toole, & Wetzel, 1985, p. 112).
In summary, researchers differed in their findings. Lyon (1991)
determined that
while there was no significant difference in achievement when there was a
match
between teaching and learning styles, style-flexing by the instructor
supported the theory
that students gain knowledge when there is a style match. Charkins,
O’Toole, and
Wetzel (1985) contended that there should be an improvement in student
achievement
when there is a match between the instructors’ teaching style and the
students’ learning
style. This study will try to lend support to the theory that student
achievement improves
14
when there is a match between learning styles and teaching styles through
studying
business instructors and their students.
Student Achievement as Indicated by Course Grades
Battle (1982) conducted research to “investigate the extent to which
variations in
grade achievement corresponded with variations in total divergent
measures of
instructional/learning styles in Principles of Accounting I at Broward
Community
College and what significant differences existed between selected factors
of
instructional/learning style and grade achievement” (pp. 5-6). The
Canfield Learning
Styles Inventory and the Canfield Instructional Styles Inventory were
used. The study
included 758 students and 11 instructors. Battle found that differences
between instructor
teaching styles and student learning style preferences “were not clearly
indicative of
success or failure” (p. 122). Battle suggested that “the prediction of
expected grades
should be discouraged because the impact of instructional/learning
differences on
educational outcomes were not sufficiently strong” (p. 122).
Matthews (1995) studied the effect learning style had on grade point
average of
first year students in colleges and universities. The association of learning
style with
achievement as measured by grade point average showed that “Students
with the
social/applied, independent/applied and social styles had higher grades
than did students
with other styles. Students with neutral preference had the lowest grade
point averages
when compared with students in other categories. Grade point averages in
six categories
(social/applied, independent/applied, social, applied, social/conceptual,
and conceptual)
differed significantly from the averages in the low category (neutral
preference)” (pp.
112-113).
Raines (1978) conducted research using the Canfield Instructional Styles
Inventory and the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory to determine if
significant
differences existed between the teaching styles of math instructors and the
learning styles
of their students. Raines also compared the learning styles inventories of
students with
varying levels of grade achievement. Subjects consisted of six math
instructors and 575
mathematics students at Manatee Junior College. Results revealed that
“students with
higher grade levels of achievement had ‘learning styles’ more closely
related to instructor
‘teaching styles’ than the students achieving the lower grade levels” (p.
vii). Raines
concluded that grade achievement levels would likely improve as a result
of matching
learning styles and teaching styles between students and instructors. By
being able to
identify individual learning style preferences, an educational delivery
system in
mathematics could be developed which recognizes individual needs. This
recognition
could possibly help alleviate the low success rate of students enrolled in
mathematics.
Results of research conducted by Hunter (1979) revealed that only the
organization method was related to grade. To obtain this result, Hunter
investigated the
relationship between preferred learning style and grades in 15 courses at
three two-year
colleges in the North Central Accreditation Region. Subjects consisted of
five teachers
and 285 students. The Canfield Learning Styles Inventory and Canfield
Instructional
Styles Inventory were used.
15
Scerba (1979) determined that there was no significant interaction between
learning styles, teaching styles, and course grade. Scerba used the Canfield
Instructional
Styles Inventory and the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory, a posttest
achievement
measure for mathematics and English, and McKeachie’s teacher/course
evaluation
instrument. Subjects included 500 subjects at Miami Dade Community
College, North
Campus, who were placed in one of five teaching style settings as
determined by the
results of their Learning Styles Inventory. Scerba concluded that due to the
limitations of
his study, the trait-treatment interaction model that was used to predict
interaction effects
was ineffective.
Carthey (1993) conducted research to determine the relationship between
learning
styles and grade performance in Principles of Management, Principles of
Economics,
Intermediate Accounting, and Business Law. His subjects included 64
second-year
accounting students from Northeast Iowa Community College. The Kolb
Learning Style
Inventory was used to determine their learning styles. Students’ final grade
point
averages earned in Principles of Management, Business Law, Intermediate
Accounting,
and Principles of Economics were used to measure academic achievement.
The learning
style variable was reduced to four styles: Divergers--information was
perceived
concretely and processed reflectively by learners; Assimilators--
experience is perceived
abstractly and processed reflectively; Convergers--information is
perceived abstractly and
processed actively; and Accommodators--experience is perceived
concretely and
processed actively. The study showed a relationship between students with
the Converger
learning style and high academic achievement in all courses under study.
According to
Carthey, “Individuals with learning styles (Convergers and Assimilators)
that employ
abstract perception received the greatest percentage of A grades in all
courses when their
results were combined and compared to those learning styles (Divergers
and
Accommodators) which perceived concretely” (p. 42).
Miglietti (1994) conducted a study at Firelands College, a two-year branch
campus of Bowling Green State University in Huron, Ohio. The researcher
investigated
the relationship between “grade, sense of accomplishment, overall course
satisfaction,
and combinations of teaching styles, classroom environment, and learning
styles” (p. 49).
Subjects consisted of 10 remedial mathematics or remedial English
instructors and 156
students. The variables in this study were comprised of faculty self
descriptions of
teaching style’ students’ age, reports of preferred classroom environments,
learning
styles, course grades, sense of accomplishment, and overall satisfaction
with course. The
Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) developed by Conti (1979, in
Miglietti, 1994)
was used to determine the preferred teaching styles of faculty. The Adult
Classroom
Environment Scale (ACES) developed by Darkenwald and Valentine
(1986, in Miglietti,
1994) was used to measure students’ perceptions of the classroom
environment. The
Adaptive Style Inventory (ASI) developed by Kolb (1984, in Miglietti,
1994) was used to
determine the preferred learning styles of students. Results of this study
indicated that
two teaching style variables, learner-centered activities and flexibility for
personal
development produced significant differences in that “students in the
learner-centered
classes had higher grades, reported a greater sense of accomplishment, and
overall
satisfaction than those in teacher-centered classes” (p. 108).
16
In summary, researchers were divided in their findings. Two researchers,
Battle
(1982) and Scerba (1979) found that there was no relationship between
style match and
an improvement in course grades. However, five researchers found that
students whose
preferred learning styles matched the instructors’ preferred teaching styles
received
higher course grades than those who did not match (Matthews, 1995;
Raines, 1978;
Hunter, 1979; Carthey, 1993; Miglietti, 1994). This study will attempt to
add to the
growing body of research regarding the effect of learning and teaching
style match on
student achievement as measured by course grade.
Student Achievement as Indicated by Exam Scores
Campbell (1989) conducted research at Eastern Illinois University to
“determine
if students with certain learning styles can be expected to achieve higher
grades in
business communication classes which are taught on the computer than
can students with
other learning styles” (p. 1). The Gregorc Style Delineator was used to
define learning
styles. Achievement was based on an instructor-developed final
examination which
measured students’ knowledge about “acceptable business writing and
their ability to
compose a business letter using correct grammar, spelling, punctuation,
format,
reader/situation adaptation, proofreading and revising” (p. 1). Study
participants
consisted of 43 students enrolled in two Business Communication classes.
The
investigator was the instructor. Results revealed that in the business
communication
course, there was no relationship between students’ achievement and their
preferred
learning styles, no relationship when the students’ learning styles matched
or did not
match the learning style of the instructor, and there was no relationship
between students’
achievement and the students’ majors or previous experience with
computers or word
processing.
Van Vuren (1992) did an experimental investigation to determine the
effect of
matching learning styles and instruction upon academic achievement of
students
receiving an interactive learning experience. The experiment included 197
chemistry
students enrolled in Inorganic Chemistry 103. Students were divided into
one of four
learning styles: abstract sequential, abstract random, concrete sequential,
and concrete
random as specified by the Gregorc Style Delineator. Students received
style specific
instruction in an interactive learning environment. They were compared to
a randomly
selected control group. Analysis of variance results “revealed a statistically
significant
difference in academic achievement test scores between the treatment
groups which
received a matched tutorial, and the control group, which received an
unmatched tutorial”
(p. 39). This study “provided empirical data which supported the use of
interactive
learning environments as a facilitator between students’ learning style and
instructors’
teaching styles” (p. 45). This study suggested that students’ academic
achievement may
improve when information is presented to them in a format that best
matches their
learning style preferences. Implications of this study were that through the
use of an
interactive learning environment that utilizes type-specific instruction,
academic
achievement gains could be obtained. A relationship was demonstrated
between the
instructional designer and their instructional materials that suggested that
“care should be
taken to present information to students in a manner that enhanced their
learning” (p. 53).
17
Educators are challenged to provide instruction aimed at accommodating
individual
differences. It was suggested that curriculum specialists consider
incorporating learning
style as well as interactive learning experiences into the curriculum. They
were both
found to be an effective tool for educators.
As indicated earlier, the results of research conducted by Zippert (1985)
revealed
that achievement was higher for those students whose instructional style
matched their
learning style. Zippert used the College Level Examination Program
(CLEP) Social
Studies and History examination to measure achievement. The results of
this study were
supported by the writings of James and Galbraith (1985). They asserted
that when
individuals are placed in a setting that focuses on their dominant learning
style, learning
could be facilitated. Zippert determined that when learning environments
are designed to
match the learning preferences of students, achievement could be
enhanced. Further,
“even in situations where students indicate similar learning styles,
achievement gains can
be affected when teaching strategies are modified to correspond to student
learning
preferences” (pp. 87-88).
In summary, researchers were divided in their findings. Campbell (1989)
found
that there was no relationship between style match and exam scores.
However, Van
Vuren (1992) and Zippert (1985) found that students whose preferred
learning styles
matched the instructors’ preferred teaching styles received higher exam
scores than those
who did not match. This study will further study the effects of learning
style and
teaching style match and student achievement as indicated by final exam
scores.
Instructor Evaluations and Learning Style/Teaching Style Match
Hunter (1979) conducted research at three two-year colleges in the North
Central
Accreditation Region which included 285 students in 15 courses. Through
use of the
Canfield Learning Styles and Instructional Styles inventories, he
investigated the
relationship between preferred learning style and student ratings of
instruction. He found
that there was no significant relationship between student/teacher
differences and rating
of instruction. Hunter (1980) asserted that interaction of preferred learning
styles with
preferred teaching styles may affect student rating of instruction by
traditional rating
instruments.
Through use of the Grasha-Riechmann Learning Styles Questionnaire,
Charkins,
O’Toole, and Wetzel (1985) conducted research at Purdue University to
study the effects
of matching teaching and learning style and instructor evaluations. The
study included
600 students and 20 instructors. They concluded that teaching and learning
styles should
be considered when reviewing student evaluations of instructors because
student
responses may reflect differences in teaching styles as opposed to
evaluating the
instructor or teaching.
Campbell (1989) used of the Gregorc Style Delineator to conduct research
at
Eastern Illinois University. Study participants consisted of 43 students
enrolled in two
Business Communication classes. He found that there was no relationship
between
students’ ratings of the instructor when students’ learning styles matched
or did not
match the instructor’s learning style.
18
In summary, the above researchers concluded that there was no significant
difference between a match of teaching/learning style and instructor
evaluations.
Charkins, O’Toole, and Wetzel (1985) warned that when reviewing
student evaluations
of instructors, teaching and learning styles should be considered. The
students' responses
might reflect the difference in teaching style as opposed to the evaluation
of the teacher.
Summary
This review of related literature revealed that a variety of instruments have
been
used to identify existing preferred learning styles and teaching styles as
measured by
various instruments. Examples of these instruments include the Canfield
Learning Styles
and Instructional Styles Inventory (Heikkinen, Pettigrew, & Zakrajsek,
1985; Payton,
Hunter, & McDonald, 1979; Payton, Hunter, McDonald, & Hirt, 1980;
Matthews, 1995;
Grosse, 1985; Simon, 1987; Hunter, 1980; Battle, 1982; Raines, 1978;
Hunter, 1979).
Other instruments available for use include but are not limited to the Kolb
Learning Style
Inventory (Lyon, 1991; Carthey, 1993) and the Gregorc Style Delineator
(Campbell,
1989; Van Vuren, 1992). Researchers differed in their findings as to
whether a match
between students' learning styles and instructors' teaching styles
augmented student
success. Some researchers found that there were no significant correlations
between style
match and higher course grades (Battle, 1982; and Scerba, 1979); between
style match
and final exam scores Campbell (1989); and between style match and
instructor
evaluations (Lyon, 1991; Hunter, 1979; Campbell, 1989). However, the
majority of
researchers reported enhanced student achievement, as indicated by course
grade and
exam scores, when there was a match between students’ preferred learning
styles and
instructors’ preferred teaching styles (Matthews, 1995; Raines, 1976;
Hunter, 1979;
Carthey, 1993; Miglietti, 1994; Van Vuren, 1992; and Zippert, 1985). This
study added
to the growing body of research on the effect that learning style and
teaching style match
has on student achievement and instructor evaluations.

//////

"How to" Guideline series is coordinated by Helen Mongan-Rallis of the Education Department at the
University of Minnesota Duluth. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions to improve these
guidelines please me at e-mail hrallis@d.umn.edu.

Guidelines for writing a literature review

by Helen Mongan-Rallis. Last updated: November 21, 2014
[Note: For these guidelines, in some sections I have quoted directly some of the the steps
from: Galvan, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: a guide for students of the behavioral
sciences (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.]

What is a literature review?

A literature review is not an annotated bibliography in which you summarize briefly each
article that you have reviewed. While a summary of the what you have read is contained
within the literature review, it goes well beyond merely summarizing professional literature.
It focuses on a specific topic of interest to you and includes a critical analysis of the
relationship among different works, and relating this research to your work. It may be written
as a stand-alone paper or to provide a theoretical framework and rationale for a research
study (such as a thesis or dissertation).

Step-by-step guide
These guidelines are adapted primarily from Galvan (2006). Galvan outlines a very clear,
step-by-step approach that is very useful to use as you write your review. I have integrated
some other tips within this guide, particularly in suggesting different technology tools that
you might want to consider in helping you organize your review. In the sections from Step 6-
9 what I have included is the outline of those steps exactly as described by Galvan. I also
provide links at the end of this guide to resources that you should use in order to search the
literature and as you write your review.

In addition to using the step-by-step guide that I have provided below, I also recommend that
you (a) locate examples of literature reviews in your field of study and skim over these to get
a feel for what a literature review is and how these are written (I have also provided links to a
couple of examples at the end of these guidelines (b) read over other guides to writing
literature reviews so that you see different perspectives and approaches: Some examples are:

1. Review of Literature: University of Wisconsin - Madison The Writing Center.

2. How to ..Write a Literature Review: University of California, Santa Cruz University
Library).
3. Information Fluency - Literature Review: Washington & Lee University
4. How to Do A Literature Review? North Carolina A&T State University F.D. Bluford
Library.
5. Selected Links to Resources on Writing a Literature Review

Step 1: Review APA guidelines

Read through the links provided below on APA guidelines so that you become familiar with
the common core elements of how to write in APA style: in particular, pay attention to
general document guidelines (e.g. font, margins, spacing), title page, abstract, body, text
citations, quotations.

Step 2: Decide on a topic

It will help you considerably if your topic for your literature review is the one on which you
intend to do your final M.Ed. project, or is in some way related to the topic of your final
project. However, you may pick any scholarly topic.

Step 3: Identify the literature that you will review:

1. Familiarize yourself with online databases (see UMD library resource links below for
help with this), identifying relevant databases in your field of study.
2. Using relevant databases, search for literature sources using Google Scholar and also
searching using Furl (search all sources, including the Furl accounts of other Furl
members). Some tips for identifying suitable literature and narrowing your search :
1. Start with a general descriptor from the database thesaurus or one that you
know is already a well defined descriptor based on past work that you have
done in this field. You will need to experiment with different searches, such as
limiting your search to descriptors that appear only in the document titles, or
in both the document title and in the abstract.
2. Redefine your topic if needed: as you search you will quickly find out if the
topic that you are reviewing is too broad. Try to narrow it to a specific area of
interest within the broad area that you have chosen (remember: this is merely
 an introductory literature review for Educ 7001). It is a good idea, as part of
your literature search, to look for existing literature reviews that have already
been written on this topic.
3. As part of your search, be sure to identify landmark or classic studies and
theorists as these provide you with a framework/context for your study.
3. Import your references into your RefWorks account (see: Refworks Import Directions
for guide on how to do this from different databases). You can also enter references
manually into RefWorks if you need to.

Step 4: Analyze the literature

Once you have identified and located the articles for your review, you need to analyze them
and organize them before you begin writing:

1. Overview the articles: Skim the articles to get an idea of the general purpose and
content of the article (focus your reading here on the abstract, introduction and first
few paragraphs, the conclusion of each article. Tip: as you skim the articles, you may
want to record the notes that you take on each directly into RefWorks in the box for
User 1. You can take notes onto note cards or into a word processing document
instead or as well as using RefWorks, but having your notes in RefWorks makes it
easy to organize your notes later.
2. Group the articles into categories (e.g. into topics and subtopics and
chronologically within each subtopic). Once again, it's useful to enter this information
into your RefWorks record. You can record the topics in the same box as before (User
1) or use User 2 box for the topic(s) under which you have chosen to place this article.
3. Take notes:
1. Decide on the format in which you will take notes as you read the articles (as
mentioned above, you can do this in RefWorks. You can also do this using a
Word Processor, or a concept mapping program like Inspiration (free 30 trial
download), a data base program (e.g. Access or File Maker Pro), in an Excel
spreadsheet, or the "old-fashioned" way of using note cards. Be consistent in
how you record notes.
2. Define key terms: look for differences in the way keys terms are defined (note
these differences).
3. Note key statistics that you may want to use in the introduction to your review.
4. Select useful quotes that you may want to include in your review. Important:
If you copy the exact words from an article, be sure to cite the page number as
you will need this should you decide to use the quote when you write your
review (as direct quotes must always be accompanied by page references). To
ensure that you have quoted accurately (and to save time in note taking), if
you are accessing the article in a format that allows this, you can copy and
paste using your computer "edit --> copy --> paste" functions. Note: although
you may collect a large number of quotes during the note taking phase of your
review, when you write the review, use quotes very sparingly. The rule I
follow is to quote only when when some key meaning would be lost in
translation if I were to paraphrase the original author's words, or if using the
original words adds special emphasis to a point that I am making.
5. Note emphases, strengths & weaknesses: Since different research studies focus
on different aspects of the issue being studied, each article that you read will
have different emphases, strengths. and weaknesses. Your role as a reviewer is
 to evaluate what you read, so that your review is not a mere description of
different articles, but rather a critical analysis that makes sense of the
collection of articles that you are reviewing. Critique the research
methodologies used in the studies, and distinguish between assertions (the
author's opinion) and actual research findings (derived from empirical
evidence).
6. Identify major trends or patterns: As you read a range of articles on your topic,
you should make note of trends and patterns over time as reported in the
literature. This step requires you to synthesize and make sense of what you
read, since these patterns and trends may not be spelled out in the literature,
but rather become apparent to you as you review the big picture that has
emerged over time. Your analysis can make generalizations across a majority
of studies, but should also note inconsistencies across studies and over time.
7. Identify gaps in the literature, and reflect on why these might exist (based on
the understandings that you have gained by reading literature in this field of
study). These gaps will be important for you to address as you plan and write
your review.
8. Identify relationships among studies: note relationships among studies, such as
which studies were landmark ones that led to subsequent studies in the same
area. You may also note that studies fall into different categories (categories
that you see emerging or ones that are already discussed in the literature).
When you write your review, you should address these relationships and
different categories and discuss relevant studies using this as a framework.
9. Keep your review focused on your topic: make sure that the articles you find
are relevant and directly related to your topic. As you take notes, record which
specific aspects of the article you are reading are relevant to your topic (as you
read you will come up with key descriptors that you can record in your notes
that will help you organize your findings when you come to write up your
review). If you are using an electronic form of note taking, you might note
these descriptors in a separate field (e.g. in RefWorks, put these under User 2
or User 3; in Excel have a separate column for each descriptor; if you use
Inspiration, you might attach a separate note for key descriptors.
10. Evaluate your references for currency and coverage: Although you can always
find more articles on your topic, you have to decide at what point you are
finished with collecting new resources so that you can focus on writing up
your findings. However, before you begin writing, you must evaluate your
reference list to ensure that it is up to date and has reported the most current
work. Typically a review will cover the last five years, but should also refer to
any landmark studies prior to this time if they have significance in shaping the
direction of the field. If you include studies prior to the past five years that are
not landmark studies, you should defend why you have chosen these rather
than more current ones.

Step 5: Summarize the literature in table or concept map format

1. Galvan (2006) recommends building tables as a key way to help you overview,
organize, and summarize your findings, and suggests that including one or more of
the tables that you create may be helpful in your literature review. If you do include
tables as part of your review each must be accompanied by an analysis that
summarizes, interprets and synthesizes the literature that you have charted in the
 table. You can plan your table or do the entire summary chart of your literature using
a concept map (such as using Inspiration)
1. You can create the table using the table feature within Microsoft Word, or can
create it initially in Excel and then copy and paste/import the the Excel sheet
into Word once you have completed the table in Excel. The advantage of using
Excel is that it enables you to sort your findings according to a variety of
factors (e.g. sort by date, and then by author; sort by methodology and then
date)
2. Examples of tables that may be relevant to your review:
1. Definitions of key terms and concepts.
2. Research methods
3. Summary of research results

Step 6: Synthesize the literature prior to writing your review

Using the notes that you have taken and summary tables, develop an outline of your final
review. The following are the key steps as outlined by Galvan (2006: 71-79)

1. Consider your purpose and voice before beginning to write. In the case of this Educ
7001 introductory literature review, your initial purpose is to provide an overview of
the topic that is of interest to you, demonstrating your understanding of key works and
concepts within your chosen area of focus. You are also developing skills in
reviewing and writing, to provide a foundation on which you will build in subsequent
courses within your M.Ed. and ultimately in your final project. In your final project
your literature review should demonstrate your command of your field of study and/or
establishing context for a study that you have done.
2. Consider how you reassemble your notes: plan how you will organize your findings
into a unique analysis of the picture that you have captured in your notes. Important:
A literature review is not series of annotations (like an annotated bibliography).
Galvan (2006:72) captures the difference between an annotated bibliography and a
literature review very well: "...in essence, like describing trees when you really should
be describing a forest. In the case of a literature review, you are really creating a new
forest, which you will build by using the trees you found in the literature you read."
3. Create a topic outline that traces your argument: first explain to the reader your line or
argument (or thesis); then your narrative that follows should explain and justify your
line of argument. You may find the program Inspiration useful in mapping out your
argument (and once you have created this in a concept map form, Inspiration enables
you to convert this to a text outline merely by clicking on the "outline" button). This
can then be exported into a Microsoft Word document.
4. Reorganize your notes according to the path of your argument
5. Within each topic heading, note differences among studies.
6. Within each topic heading, look for obvious gaps or areas needing more research.
7. Plan to describe relevant theories.
8. Plan to discuss how individual studies relate to and advance theory
9. Plan to summarize periodically and, again near the end of the review
10. Plan to present conclusions and implications
11. Plan to suggest specific directions for future research near the end of the review
12. Flesh out your outline with details from your analysis

Step 7: Writing the review (Galvan, 2006: 81-90)

 1. Identify the broad problem area, but avoid global statements
2. Early in the review, indicate why the topic being reviewed is important
3. Distinguish between research finding and other sources of information
4. Indicate why certain studies are important
5. If you are commenting on the timeliness of a topic, be specific in describing the time
frame
6. If citing a classic or landmark study, identify it as such
7. If a landmark study was replicated, mention that and indicate the results of the
replication
8. Discuss other literature reviews on your topic
9. Refer the reader to other reviews on issues that you will not be discussing in details
10. Justify comments such as, "no studies were found."
11. Avoid long lists of nonspecific references
12. If the results of previous studies are inconsistent or widely varying, cite them
separately
13. Cite all relevant references in the review section of thesis, dissertation, or journal
article

Step 8: Developing a coherent essay (Galvan, 2006: 91-96)

1. If your review is long, provide an overview near the beginning of the review
2. Near the beginning of a review, state explicitly what will and will not be covered
3. Specify your point of view early in the review: this serves as the thesis statement of
the review.
4. Aim for a clear and cohesive essay that integrates the key details of the literature and
communicates your point of view (a literature is not a series of annotated articles).
5. Use subheadings, especially in long reviews
6. Use transitions to help trace your argument
7. If your topic teaches across disciplines, consider reviewing studies from each
discipline separately
8. Write a conclusion for the end of the review: Provide closure so that the path of the
argument ends with a conclusion of some kind. How you end the review, however,
will depend on your reason for writing it. If the review was written to stand alone, as
is the case of a term paper or a review article for publication, the conclusion needs to
make clear how the material in the body of the review has supported the assertion or
proposition presented in the introduction. On the other hand, a review in a thesis,
dissertation, or journal article presenting original research usually leads to the
research questions that will be addressed.
9. Check the flow of your argument for coherence.

Reference:

Galvan, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: a guide for students of the behavioral sciences (
3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Resources
1. UMD & library resources and links:
1. UMD library research tools: includes links to
 2. Refworks Import Directions: Links to step-by-step directions on how to
important to Refworks from different databases
2. Writing guidelines:
1. Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab): A user-friendly writing lab that parallels
with the 5th edition APA manual.
3. APA guidelines:
1. APA Style Essentials: overview of common core of elements of APA style.
2. APA Research Style Crib Sheet is a summary of rules for using APA style.
3. APA Style for Electronic Media and URL's: commonly asked questions
regarding how to cite electronic media
4. Examples of literature reviews:
1. Johnson, B. & Reeves, B. (2005). Challenges. Literature review chapter from
unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota Duluth, Minnesota.
2. Maguire, L. (2005). Literature review – faculty participation in online
distance education: barriers and motivators. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 2005. State University of
West Georgia, Distance Education Center.

Return to the Index of How To Guidelines