3.

1 Review of Related Literature

Introduction

What is the content of the chapter on review of literature, and how are you going to arrange the materials in it?
Unlike the theoretical materials presented under the section for theoretical/ conceptual background/foundation
in the first chapter, here the researcher should present and critically analyze the empirical experiences of other
researchers like him/her who had tried to contribute solutions to problems similar or related to his/her problem.
In quantitative research, the literature reviewed under this chapter is seen as important data or input into the
research process as it provides the researcher a source of materials with which to revise one’s problem, topic,
and hypotheses and an informed source for writing one’s methodology. It also provides important inputs into
the discussion of the research findings.

Literature Review
Review other researchers’ empirical experience (theoretical review belongs to the section on the theoretical
background) with your, related or similar problems? Critically and analytically review the experiences, findings,
and the design, method, analysis used, and such results. What are others’ views based on the results/findings of
these relevant studies? Organize and present these reviews in a systematic way in related sections, in terms of
relationships between variables as implied by your hypotheses. This should not be merely descriptive or
narrative, but critical and analytic. When you review others’ studies, pinpoint or indicate flaws, and other
technicalities that may seriously distract from their validity (Mouly 1978, p. 92). The guiding questions here
are: When other researchers like you tried to contribute a solution to this, related or similar problems: What did
they do? How did they do it? What population, strategy, method, and measures did they use? What did they do
wrong? What did they find out? What have they or others said about what they did and what they found out?
What are the inherent weaknesses/strengths of the strategies, methods? measures? How (if at all) did the
researchers mitigate/ address the weaknesses? (Did they acknowledge the weaknesses?). Think of these
questions when you are planning your literature review. To maintain the systematic nature of research, present
your reviewed materials in sections according to your research questions or hypotheses. For example, if your
first research question was: “To what extent does the level of teachers’ extrinsic motivation influence students’
performance in mathematics?” The first hypothesis might be the “level of teachers’ extrinsic motivation has a
significant influence on students’ mathematics performance.” Then the first section in the literature review
following the introduction should be headed: “level of teachers’ extrinsic motivation and Mathematics
Performance.” Under this heading, relevant and current empirical experiences of other researchers like you on
this area should be critically reviewed, analyzed, and arranged systematically to show a trend in the
development of empirical knowledge in the area. Have a specific reason for reviewing a particular research
study. This might be its importance given your problem; its unique methodology, data analysis procedure, and
findings (GS/COE-UFL 2005). While empirical literature from studies undertaken within the last 10 years is
generally accepted as current, literature from classic/ important studies in the area should also be reviewed.

Reviewing Literature
The most important skill for an efficient review of literature is the ability to read fast, comprehend, and
summarize material quickly and put it in a form that can easily be retrieved and used in the future. During a
review, a researcher’s activities are quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, and evaluating. Each of these should
be done in a manner to protect the right of the author and avoid plagiarism.
Summary of Literature Reviewed and Justification
(Rationale) for the Study
Provide a comprehensive summary of the reviewed materials. How are you going to use them in your study? In
other words, what is the place of the reviewed materials in your study? Present a brief appraisal of the need or
justification for your study in the light of the reviewed materials. Generally, what is known so far in the area of
your problem, what remains to be done? (Selamat 2008). These should be taken into consideration at the end of
the report when writing your recommendations. What are the materials you have reviewed in terms of coverage
by the studies reviewed, the methodology used, types of analysis done, findings, etc. justifies the need for your
research study? Given other related studies reviewed, why is this study necessary? What are the gaps,
inconsistencies, inadequacies, or deficiencies in the existing literature which you are trying to fill or correct
through your study?

Importance, Purposes, and Functions of Related

Literature and Studies
 Help or guide the researcher is searching for or selecting a better research problem or topic
 Help the investigator understand his topic for research better
 Ensure that there will be no duplication of other studies
 Help and guide the researcher in locating more sources of related information
 Help and guide the researcher in making his research design
 Help and guide the researcher in making a comparison between his findings with the findings of other
researchers on similar studies

Sources of Related Literature and Studies

 Books, encyclopedias, almanacs and other similar references
 Articles published in professional journals, magazines, periodicals, newspapers and other publications
 Manuscripts, monographs, memoirs, speeches, letters, and diaries
 Unpublished theses and dissertations
 The Constitution, and laws and statutes of the land

3.2 Citing Sources

Citing Sources

There are three major underlying reasons why researchers cite sources:

1. To avoid plagiarism,
2. To give credits to the author/s; and
3. To give credibility to what you have written.

Ways of Citing Sources

 American Psychological Association (APA) – used commonly in social sciences

 Modern Language Association (MLA) – liberal arts and the humanities
  Chicago Manual of Style – used in the United States

3.3 Conceptual Framework

CREATING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Conceptual Framework:

 Choose your topic.

 Do a literature review.
 Isolate the important variables.
 Generate the conceptual framework.

WRITING THE CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The 'theoretical framework' poses a problem to students when they are unable to articulate convincingly during
their thesis defense when asked,

 "What is the theoretical framework of your study?"

 "Can you explain the underlying theory of your study"?
 "How do the findings of your study contribute to the theory your study is based on"?

According to Maxwell (2005), students find the theoretical framework a daunting task and feel intimidated by
the notion of theory. 'Theoretical framework' consists of two key words 'theoretical' and
'framework'. 'Theoretical' (or theory) is the interaction of two or more variables (or factor) telling a story about a
phenomenon while providing an insight about the phenomenon (Anfara and Mertx, 2009). In some instances,
one theory may be sufficient to explain the phenomenon you are studying while in other instances a
combination of theories may be developed as a unique framework of several theories or models. A 'framework'
is the structure that connects or knits the theories together in explaining a phenomenon.

All great inventions, discoveries, and innovations began from a theory, hypothesis, or belief. Thomas Edison
invented the incandescent bulb by conducting a detailed analysis of the whole electric lighting system based on
Joule's and Ohm's laws. Similarly, your study should be based on a theoretical framework that explains the
phenomenon you plan to investigate.

 Examples of Theories in Education - Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development, Kohlberg's Theory of

Moral Development, Bowlby's Attachment Theory and Bandura's Social Learning Theory
 Examples of Theories in Management & Leadership - Contingency Theory, Systems Theory, Theory X
& Theory Y and Chaos Theory

Every attempt should be made to state explicitly the theoretical framework of your study so that readers
understand what you are talking about. Oftentimes, students just throw in a bunch of theories in Chapter 2
without knowing how these theories are related to the problem statement, research questions, hypotheses, and
methodology. You should highlight the specific theory or theories; the proponents; a short historical perspective
and the main aspects that are closely aligned to your problem statement and research questions.

The theoretical framework is like the framework of a house that is essential in supporting the building
(see picture). The pillars, beams, and foundation combine to support the house. Similarly, the different theories
or models combine to form the underlying foundation of your study, combine to explain the phenomenon being
studied, combine to justify why the study should be conducted and what it does not explain.

The theoretical framework is also like the electricity in a house that must flow through all rooms in the house.
For example, if you are studying 'leadership styles and job satisfaction', you will discuss theory or a
combination of theories on leadership styles and job satisfaction which will be aligned to the problem statement,
purpose, significance, research questions/hypotheses, and methodology.
3.4 Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Characteristics:

 It is a tentative conclusion or answer to a specific question raised at the beginning of the investigation.
 It is an educated guess about the answer to a specific question.
 It is a statement about some real-world phenomenon that can be tested through observations.
 It is a proposition that suggests that change in one variable will result in some change in another.

Forms:

 Operational Form / Alternative Hypothesis

o Stated in the affirmative
o States that there is a difference between the two phenomena
 Null Form / Null Hypothesis
o Stated in the negative
o States that there is no difference between the two phenomena
o More commonly used

Guidelines in Writing Hypothesis

 In experimental, correlational, or comparative investigations, hypotheses have to explicitly express.

 In descriptive and historical investigations, hypotheses are seldom expressed if not absent. The specific
questions serve as the hypotheses.
 Hypotheses are usually stated in the null form.
 Hypotheses are formulated from the specific questions upon which they are based.
Examples of the Null Hypothesis

 There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the teachers and those of the students
concerning the different aspects of the teaching of science.
 There is no significant difference between the effectiveness of the inductive method and that of the
deductive methods in the teaching of science.

3.5 Summary
The second chapter of your research contains The Conceptual Framework, Review of Related Literature and
Studies, Hypothesis and Definition of Terms.

You have to take note that

 the RRLS (Review of Related Literature and Studies) and Conceptual Framework should go hand in
hand and should be connected with one another;
 the hypothesis should be written in the null form;
 the definition of terms should be written in the operational form.