educational research literature review

• Library databases
• Library website

Education Literature Review: Education Literature Review

What does this guide cover.

Writing the literature review is a long, complex process that requires you to use many different tools, resources, and skills.

This page provides links to the guides, tutorials, and webinars that can help you with all aspects of completing your literature review.

The Basic Process

These resources provide overviews of the entire literature review process. Start here if you are new to the literature review process.

• Literature Reviews Overview : Writing Center
• How to do a Literature Review : Library
• Video: Common Errors Made When Conducting a Lit Review (YouTube)  

The Role of the Literature Review

Your literature review gives your readers an understanding of the evolution of scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

• survey the scholarly landscape
• provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts
• possibly provide some historical background

Review the literature in two ways:

• Section 1: reviews the literature for the Problem
• Section 3: reviews the literature for the Project

The literature review is NOT an annotated bibliography. Nor should it simply summarize the articles you've read. Literature reviews are organized thematically and demonstrate synthesis of the literature.

For more information, view the Library's short video on searching by themes:

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

Search for Literature

The iterative process of research:

• Find an article.
• Read the article and build new searches using keywords and names from the article.
• Mine the bibliography for other works.
• Use “cited by” searches to find more recent works that reference the article.
• Repeat steps 2-4 with the new articles you find.

These are the main skills and resources you will need in order to effectively search for literature on your topic:

• Subject Research: Education by Jon Allinder Last Updated Aug 7, 2023 5207 views this year
• Keyword Searching: Finding Articles on Your Topic by Lynn VanLeer Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 25338 views this year
• Google Scholar by Jon Allinder Last Updated Aug 16, 2023 16232 views this year
• Quick Answer: How do I find books and articles that cite an article I already have?
• Quick Answer: How do I find a measurement, test, survey or instrument?

Video: Education Databases and Doctoral Research Resources

(6 min 04 sec) Recorded April 2019 Transcript 

Staying Organized

The literature review requires organizing a variety of information. The following resources will help you develop the organizational systems you'll need to be successful.

• Organize your research
• Citation Management Software

You can make your search log as simple or complex as you would like.  It can be a table in a word document or an excel spread sheet.  Here are two examples.  The word document is a basic table where you can keep track of databases, search terms, limiters, results and comments.  The Excel sheet is more complex and has additional sheets for notes, Google Scholar log; Journal Log, and Questions to ask the Librarian.  

• Search Log Example Sample search log in Excel
• Search Log Example Sample search log set up as a table in a word document.
• Literature Review Matrix with color coding Sample template for organizing and synthesizing your research

Writing the Literature Review

The following resources created by the Writing Center and the Academic Skills Center support the writing process for the dissertation/project study. 

• Critical Reading
• What is Synthesis 
• Walden Templates
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden EdD (Doctor of Education) studies?
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden PhD dissertations?

Beyond the Literature Review

The literature review isn't the only portion of a dissertation/project study that requires searching. The following resources can help you identify and utilize a theory, methodology, measurement instruments, or statistics.

• Education Theory by Jon Allinder Last Updated May 17, 2024 633 views this year
• Tests & Measures in Education by Kimberly Burton Last Updated Nov 18, 2021 51 views this year
• Education Statistics by Jon Allinder Last Updated Feb 22, 2022 63 views this year
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services

Books and Articles about the Lit Review

The following articles and books outline the purpose of the literature review and offer advice for successfully completing one.

• Chen, D. T. V., Wang, Y. M., & Lee, W. C. (2016). Challenges confronting beginning researchers in conducting literature reviews. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2015.1030335 Proposes a framework to conceptualize four types of challenges students face: linguistic, methodological, conceptual, and ontological.
• Randolph, J.J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14(13), 1-13. Provides advice for writing a quantitative or qualitative literature review, by a Walden faculty member.
• Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606 This article presents the integrative review of literature as a distinctive form of research that uses existing literature to create new knowledge.
• Wee, B. V., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper?. Transport Reviews, 36(2), 278-288. http://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456 Discusses how to write a literature review with a focus on adding value rather and suggests structural and contextual aspects found in outstanding literature reviews.
• Winchester, C. L., & Salji, M. (2016). Writing a literature review. Journal of Clinical Urology, 9(5), 308-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415816650133 Reviews the use of different document types to add structure and enrich your literature review and the skill sets needed in writing the literature review.
• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971 Examines different types of literature reviews and the steps necessary to produce a systematic review in educational research.

• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

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 July 15, 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”

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Literature Reviews

Introduction, what is a literature review.

• Literature Reviews for Thesis or Dissertation
• Stand-alone and Systemic Reviews
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Texts on Conducting a Literature Review
• Identifying the Research Topic
• The Persuasive Argument
• Searching the Literature
• Creating a Synthesis
• Critiquing the Literature
• Building the Case for the Literature Review Document
• Presenting the Literature Review

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Higher Education Research
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mixed Methods Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Politics of Education
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Educational Research Approaches: A Comparison
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• History of Education in Europe
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Literature Reviews by Lawrence A. Machi , Brenda T. McEvoy LAST REVIEWED: 27 October 2016 LAST MODIFIED: 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0169

Literature reviews play a foundational role in the development and execution of a research project. They provide access to the academic conversation surrounding the topic of the proposed study. By engaging in this scholarly exercise, the researcher is able to learn and to share knowledge about the topic. The literature review acts as the springboard for new research, in that it lays out a logically argued case, founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about the topic. The case produced provides the justification for the research question or problem of a proposed study, and the methodological scheme best suited to conduct the research. It can also be a research project in itself, arguing policy or practice implementation, based on a comprehensive analysis of the research in a field. The term literature review can refer to the output or the product of a review. It can also refer to the process of Conducting a Literature Review . Novice researchers, when attempting their first research projects, tend to ask two questions: What is a Literature Review? How do you do one? While this annotated bibliography is neither definitive nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject, it is designed to provide a beginning researcher, who is pursuing an academic degree, an entry point for answering the two previous questions. The article is divided into two parts. The first four sections of the article provide a general overview of the topic. They address definitions, types, purposes, and processes for doing a literature review. The second part presents the process and procedures for doing a literature review. Arranged in a sequential fashion, the remaining eight sections provide references addressing each step of the literature review process. References included in this article were selected based on their ability to assist the beginning researcher. Additionally, the authors attempted to include texts from various disciplines in social science to present various points of view on the subject.

Novice researchers often have a misguided perception of how to do a literature review and what the document should contain. Literature reviews are not narrative annotated bibliographies nor book reports (see Bruce 1994 ). Their form, function, and outcomes vary, due to how they depend on the research question, the standards and criteria of the academic discipline, and the orthodoxies of the research community charged with the research. The term literature review can refer to the process of doing a review as well as the product resulting from conducting a review. The product resulting from reviewing the literature is the concern of this section. Literature reviews for research studies at the master’s and doctoral levels have various definitions. Machi and McEvoy 2016 presents a general definition of a literature review. Lambert 2012 defines a literature review as a critical analysis of what is known about the study topic, the themes related to it, and the various perspectives expressed regarding the topic. Fink 2010 defines a literature review as a systematic review of existing body of data that identifies, evaluates, and synthesizes for explicit presentation. Jesson, et al. 2011 defines the literature review as a critical description and appraisal of a topic. Hart 1998 sees the literature review as producing two products: the presentation of information, ideas, data, and evidence to express viewpoints on the nature of the topic, as well as how it is to be investigated. When considering literature reviews beyond the novice level, Ridley 2012 defines and differentiates the systematic review from literature reviews associated with primary research conducted in academic degree programs of study, including stand-alone literature reviews. Cooper 1998 states the product of literature review is dependent on the research study’s goal and focus, and defines synthesis reviews as literature reviews that seek to summarize and draw conclusions from past empirical research to determine what issues have yet to be resolved. Theoretical reviews compare and contrast the predictive ability of theories that explain the phenomenon, arguing which theory holds the most validity in describing the nature of that phenomenon. Grant and Booth 2009 identified fourteen types of reviews used in both degree granting and advanced research projects, describing their attributes and methodologies.

Bruce, Christine Susan. 1994. Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education 19.2: 217–229.

DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382057

A phenomenological analysis was conducted with forty-one neophyte research scholars. The responses to the questions, “What do you mean when you use the words literature review?” and “What is the meaning of a literature review for your research?” identified six concepts. The results conclude that doing a literature review is a problem area for students.

Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing research . Vol. 2. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

The introductory chapter of this text provides a cogent explanation of Cooper’s understanding of literature reviews. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive discussion of the synthesis review. Chapter 5 discusses meta-analysis and depth.

Fink, Arlene. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper . 3d ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

The first chapter of this text (pp. 1–16) provides a short but clear discussion of what a literature review is in reference to its application to a broad range of social sciences disciplines and their related professions.

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26.2: 91–108. Print.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

This article reports a scoping review that was conducted using the “Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis” (SALSA) framework. Fourteen literature review types and associated methodology make up the resulting typology. Each type is described by its key characteristics and analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . London: SAGE.

Chapter 1 of this text explains Hart’s definition of a literature review. Additionally, it describes the roles of the literature review, the skills of a literature reviewer, and the research context for a literature review. Of note is Hart’s discussion of the literature review requirements for master’s degree and doctoral degree work.

Jesson, Jill, Lydia Matheson, and Fiona M. Lacey. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 1: “Preliminaries” provides definitions of traditional and systematic reviews. It discusses the differences between them. Chapter 5 is dedicated to explaining the traditional review, while Chapter 7 explains the systematic review. Chapter 8 provides a detailed description of meta-analysis.

Lambert, Mike. 2012. A beginner’s guide to doing your education research project . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 6 (pp. 79–100) presents a thumbnail sketch for doing a literature review.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2016. The literature review: Six steps to success . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The introduction of this text differentiates between a simple and an advanced review and concisely defines a literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2012. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . 2d ed. Sage Study Skills. London: SAGE.

In the introductory chapter, Ridley reviews many definitions of the literature review, literature reviews at the master’s and doctoral level, and placement of literature reviews within the thesis or dissertation document. She also defines and differentiates literature reviews produced for degree-affiliated research from the more advanced systematic review projects.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Achievement
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Adolescence
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Black Women in Academia
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• English as an International Language for Academic Publishi...
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Achievement
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School Culture
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Context of Education
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

• Library Search
• View Library Account
• The Claremont Colleges Library
• Research Guides
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Getting Started With Research
• Finding Scholarly Articles
• Finding Books & Papers
• Finding Education Data & Testing Resources

What is a Literature Review?

Basics of a literature review, types of literature reviews.

• Citing Your Information (Attribution)

A Literature Review is a systematic and comprehensive analysis of books, scholarly articles and other sources relevant to a specific topic providing a base of knowledge on a topic. Literature reviews are designed to identify and critique the existing literature on a topic to justify your research by exposing gaps in current research .  This investigation should provide a description, summary, and critical evaluation of works related to the research problem and should also add to the overall knowledge of the topic as well as demonstrating how your research will fit within a larger field of study.  A literature review should offer critical analysis of the current research on a topic and that analysis should direct your research objective. This should not be confused with a book review or an annotated bibliography both research tools but very different in purpose and scope.  A Literature Review can be a stand alone element or part of a larger end product, know your assignment.  Key to a good Literature Review is to document your process. For more information see:

Planning a Literature Review .

There are many different ways to organize your references in a literature review, but most reviews contain certain basic elements.

• Objective of the literature review - Clearly describe the purpose of the paper and state your objectives in completing the literature review.
•   Overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration – Give an overview of your research topic and what prompted it.
• Categorization of sources – Grouping your research either historic, chronologically or thematically
• Organization of Subtopics – Subtopics should be grouped and presented in a logical order starting with the most prominent or significant and moving to the least significant
• Discussion – Provide analysis of both the uniqueness of each source and its similarities with other source
• Conclusion   - Summary of your analysis and evaluation of the reviewed works and how it is related to its parent discipline, scientific endeavor or profession

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

• << Previous: Finding Education Data & Testing Resources
• Next: Citing Your Information (Attribution) >>
• : Jun 17, 2024 4:11 PM
• URL: https://libguides.libraries.claremont.edu/education

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
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Learning objectives.

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify the purpose of the literature review in  the research process
• Distinguish between different types of literature reviews

1.1 What is a Literature Review?

Pick up nearly any book on research methods and you will find a description of a literature review.  At a basic level, the term implies a survey of factual or nonfiction books, articles, and other documents published on a particular subject.  Definitions may be similar across the disciplines, with new types and definitions continuing to emerge.  Generally speaking, a literature review is a:

• “comprehensive background of the literature within the interested topic area…” ( O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015, p. 31 ).
• “critical component of the research process that provides an in-depth analysis of recently published research findings in specifically identified areas of interest.” ( House, 2018, p. 109 ).
• “written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study” ( Machi & McEvoy,  2012, p. 4 ).

As a foundation for knowledge advancement in every discipline, it is an important element of any research project.  At the graduate or doctoral level, the literature review is an essential feature of thesis and dissertation, as well as grant proposal writing.  That is to say, “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research…A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.” ( Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3 ).  It is by this means, that a researcher demonstrates familiarity with a body of knowledge and thereby establishes credibility with a reader.  An advanced-level literature review shows how prior research is linked to a new project, summarizing and synthesizing what is known while identifying gaps in the knowledge base, facilitating theory development, closing areas where enough research already exists, and uncovering areas where more research is needed. ( Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xiii )

A graduate-level literature review is a compilation of the most significant previously published research on your topic. Unlike an annotated bibliography or a research paper you may have written as an undergraduate, your literature review will outline, evaluate and synthesize relevant research and relate those sources to your own thesis or research question. It is much more than a summary of all the related literature.

It is a type of writing that demonstrate the importance of your research by defining the main ideas and the relationship between them. A good literature review lays the foundation for the importance of your stated problem and research question.

Literature reviews:

• define a concept
• map the research terrain or scope
• systemize relationships between concepts
• identify gaps in the literature ( Rocco & Plathotnik, 2009, p. 128 )

The purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that your research question  is meaningful. Additionally, you may review the literature of different disciplines to find deeper meaning and understanding of your topic. It is especially important to consider other disciplines when you do not find much on your topic in one discipline. You will need to search the cognate literature before claiming there is “little previous research” on your topic.

Well developed literature reviews involve numerous steps and activities. The literature review is an iterative process because you will do at least two of them: a preliminary search to learn what has been published in your area and whether there is sufficient support in the literature for moving ahead with your subject. After this first exploration, you will conduct a deeper dive into the literature to learn everything you can about the topic and its related issues.

Literature Review Tutorial

1.2 Literature Review Basics

An effective literature review must:

• Methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic
• Provide a firm foundation to a topic or research area
• Provide a firm foundation for the selection of a research methodology
• Demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge of advances the research field’s knowledge base. ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

All literature reviews, whether they are qualitative, quantitative or both, will at some point:

• Introduce the topic and define its key terms
• Establish the importance of the topic
• Provide an overview of the amount of available literature and its types (for example: theoretical, statistical, speculative)
• Identify gaps in the literature
• Point out consistent finding across studies
• Arrive at a synthesis that organizes what is known about a topic
• Discusses possible implications and directions for future research

1.3 Types of Literature Reviews

There are many different types of literature reviews, however there are some shared characteristics or features.  Remember a comprehensive literature review is, at its most fundamental level, an original work based on an extensive critical examination and synthesis of the relevant literature on a topic. As a study of the research on a particular topic, it is arranged by key themes or findings, which may lead up to or link to the  research question.  In some cases, the research question will drive the type of literature review that is undertaken.

The following section includes brief descriptions of the terms used to describe different literature review types with examples of each.   The included citations are open access, Creative Commons licensed or copyright-restricted.

1.3.1 Types of Review

1.3.1.1 conceptual.

Guided by an understanding of basic issues rather than a research methodology. You are looking for key factors, concepts or variables and the presumed relationship between them. The goal of the conceptual literature review is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to your study or topic and outline a relationship between them. You will include relevant theory and empirical research.

Examples of a Conceptual Review:

• Education : The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review. ( Dohn, 2010 ).
• Education : Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. ( Amundsen & Wilson, 2012 ).

1.3.1.2 Empirical

An empirical literature review collects, creates, arranges, and analyzes numeric data reflecting the frequency of themes, topics, authors and/or methods found in existing literature. Empirical literature reviews present their summaries in quantifiable terms using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Examples of an Empirical Review:

• Nursing : False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: An empirical review. ( Imberger, Thorlund, Gluud, & Wettersley, 2016 ).
• Education : Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review ( Mwakyusa & Mwalyagile, 2016 ).

1.3.1.3 Exploratory

Unlike a synoptic literature review, the purpose here is to provide a broad approach to the topic area. The aim is breadth rather than depth and to get a general feel for the size of the topic area. A graduate student might do an exploratory review of the literature before beginning a synoptic, or more comprehensive one.

Examples of an Exploratory Review:

• Education : University research management: An exploratory literature review. ( Schuetzenmeister, 2010 ).
• Education : An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. ( Rosario & Widmeyer, 2009 ).

1.3.1.4 Focused

A type of literature review limited to a single aspect of previous research, such as methodology. A focused literature review generally will describe the implications of choosing a particular element of past research, such as methodology in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Examples of a Focused Review:

• Nursing : Clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A focused literature review. ( Khunti, Davies, & Khunti, 2015 ).
• Education : Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature. ( Stainton, 1992 ).

1.3.1.5 Integrative

Critiques past research and draws overall conclusions from the body of literature at a specified point in time. Reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way. Most integrative reviews are intended to address mature topics or  emerging topics. May require the author to adopt a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about a topic.  For more description of integrative reviews, see Whittemore & Knafl (2005).

Examples of an Integrative Review:

• Nursing : Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: An integrative review. ( Franklin,  Bernhardt, Lopez, Long-Middleton, & Davis, 2015 ).
• Education : Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review. ( Brock & Ryan, 2016 ).

1.3.1.6 Meta-analysis

A subset of a  systematic review, that takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures to pool together data. Integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding, draw conclusions, and detect patterns and relationships. Gather data from many different, independent studies that look at the same research question and assess similar outcome measures. Data is combined and re-analyzed, providing a greater statistical power than any single study alone. It’s important to note that not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis but a meta-analysis can’t exist without a systematic review of the literature.

Examples of a Meta-Analysis:

• Education : Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. ( Capar & Tarim, 2015 ).
• Nursing : A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students. ( Lee, Lee, Gong, Bae, & Choi, 2016 ).
• Education : Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. ( Weinburgh, 1995 ).

1.3.1.7 Narrative/Traditional

An overview of research on a particular topic that critiques and summarizes a body of literature. Typically broad in focus. Relevant past research is selected and synthesized into a coherent discussion. Methodologies, findings and limits of the existing body of knowledge are discussed in narrative form. Sometimes also referred to as a traditional literature review. Requires a sufficiently focused research question. The process may be subject to bias that supports the researcher’s own work.

Examples of a Narrative/Traditional Review:

• Nursing : Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. ( Morris, King, Turner, & Payne, 2015 ).
• Education : Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. ( Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997 ).
• Education : Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. ( Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014 ).
• Nursing : Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: A narrative review, implications, and directions for future research. ( Williams & Skinner, 2003 ).

1.3.1.8 Realist

Aspecific type of literature review that is theory-driven and interpretative and is intended to explain the outcomes of a complex intervention program(s).

Examples of a Realist Review:

• Nursing : Lean thinking in healthcare: A realist review of the literature. ( Mazzacato, Savage, Brommels, 2010 ).
• Education : Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. ( Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen, & Dolmans, 2017 ).

1.3.1.9 Scoping

Tend to be non-systematic and focus on breadth of coverage conducted on a topic rather than depth. Utilize a wide range of materials; may not evaluate the quality of the studies as much as count the number. One means of understanding existing literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research; preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research on topic. May include research in progress.

Examples of a Scoping Review:

• Nursing : Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: A scoping review. ( Khanassov, Pluye, Descoteaux, Haggerty,  Russell, Gunn, & Levesque, 2016 ).
• Education : Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review. ( Vanstone, Hibbert, Kinsella, McKenzie, Pitman, & Lingard, 2013 ).
• Nursing : A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. ( Ridde, & Morestin, 2011 ).

1.3.1.10 Synoptic

Unlike an exploratory review, the purpose is to provide a concise but accurate overview of all material that appears to be relevant to a chosen topic. Both content and methodological material is included. The review should aim to be both descriptive and evaluative. Summarizes previous studies while also showing how the body of literature could be extended and improved in terms of content and method by identifying gaps.

Examples of a Synoptic Review:

• Education : Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review. ( Ghaicha, 2016 ).
• Education : School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future. ( Cuttance, 1981 ).

1.3.1.11 Systematic Review

A rigorous review that follows a strict methodology designed with a presupposed selection of literature reviewed.  Undertaken to clarify the state of existing research, the evidence, and possible implications that can be drawn from that.  Using comprehensive and exhaustive searching of the published and unpublished literature, searching various databases, reports, and grey literature.  Transparent and reproducible in reporting details of time frame, search and methods to minimize bias.  Must include a team of at least 2-3 and includes the critical appraisal of the literature.  For more description of systematic reviews, including links to protocols, checklists, workflow processes, and structure see “ A Young Researcher’s Guide to a Systematic Review “.

Examples of a Systematic Review:

• Education : The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review ( Hartmann, Braae, Pedersen, & Khalid, 2017 )
• Nursing : Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality. ( Pimpin, Wu, Haskelberg, Del Gobbo, & Mozaffarian, 2016 ).
• Education : The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. ( Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003 ).
• Nursing : Using computers to self-manage type 2 diabetes. ( Pal, Eastwood, Michie, Farmer, Barnard, Peacock, Wood, Inniss, & Murray, 2013 ).

1.3.1.12 Umbrella/Overview of Reviews

Compiles evidence from multiple systematic reviews into one document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address those interventions and their effects. Often used in recommendations for practice.

Examples of an Umbrella/Overview Review:

• Education : Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review. ( Fragknos, 2016 ).
• Nursing : Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. ( Seida, Ospina, Karkhaneh, Hartling, Smith, & Clark, 2009 ).

For a brief discussion see “ Not all literature reviews are the same ” (Thomson, 2013).

1.4 Why do a Literature Review?

The purpose of the literature review is the same regardless of the topic or research method. It tests your own research question against what is already known about the subject.

1.4.1 First – It’s part of the whole. Omission of a literature review chapter or section in a graduate-level project represents a serious void or absence of critical element in the research process.

The outcome of your review is expected to demonstrate that you:

• can systematically explore the research in your topic area
• can read and critically analyze the literature in your discipline and then use it appropriately to advance your own work
• have sufficient knowledge in the topic to undertake further investigation

1.4.2 Second – It’s good for you!

• You improve your skills as a researcher
• You become familiar with the discourse of your discipline and learn how to be a scholar in your field
• You learn through writing your ideas and finding your voice in your subject area
• You define, redefine and clarify your research question for yourself in the process

1.4.3 Third – It’s good for your reader. Your reader expects you to have done the hard work of gathering, evaluating and synthesizes the literature.  When you do a literature review you:

• Set the context for the topic and present its significance
• Identify what’s important to know about your topic – including individual material, prior research, publications, organizations and authors.
• Demonstrate relationships among prior research
• Establish limitations of existing knowledge
• Analyze trends in the topic’s treatment and gaps in the literature

1.4.4 Why do a literature review?

• To locate gaps in the literature of your discipline
• To avoid reinventing the wheel
• To carry on where others have already been
• To identify other people working in the same field
• To increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
• To find the seminal works in your field
• To provide intellectual context for your own work
• To acknowledge opposing viewpoints
• To put your work in perspective
• To demonstrate you can discover and retrieve previous work in the area

1.5 Common Literature Review Errors

Graduate-level literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic.  As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews are a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing.  We will explore these topics more in the next chapters.  Some things to keep in mind as you begin your own research and writing are ways to avoid the most common errors seen in the first attempt at a literature review.  For a quick review of some of the pitfalls and challenges a new researcher faces when he/she begins work, see “ Get Ready: Academic Writing, General Pitfalls and (oh yes) Getting Started! ”.

As you begin your own graduate-level literature review, try to avoid these common mistakes:

• Accepts another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
• Contrary findings and alternative interpretations are not considered or mentioned
• Findings are not clearly related to one’s own study, or findings are too general
• Insufficient time allowed to define best search strategies and writing
• Isolated statistical results are simply reported rather than synthesizing the results
• Problems with selecting and using most relevant keywords, subject headings and descriptors
• Relies too heavily on secondary sources
• Search methods are not recorded or reported for transparency
• Summarizes rather than synthesizes articles

In conclusion, the purpose of a literature review is three-fold:

• to survey the current state of knowledge or evidence in the area of inquiry,
• to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and
• to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area.

A literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases, often working with a trained librarian or information expert. Keywords can be combined using the Boolean operators, “and”, “or” and sometimes “not”  to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a list of articles is generated from the keyword and subject heading search, the researcher must then manually browse through each title and abstract, to determine the suitability of that article before a full-text article is obtained for the research question.

Literature reviews should be reasonably complete, and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology or research design. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables, and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix.

A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.

The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions and may provide evidence to inform policy or decision-making. ( Bhattacherjee, 2012 ).

Read Abstract 1.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of literature review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Nursing : To describe evidence of international literature on the safe care of the hospitalised child after the World Alliance for Patient Safety and list contributions of the general theoretical framework of patient safety for paediatric nursing.

An integrative literature review between 2004 and 2015 using the databases PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library, and the descriptors Safety or Patient safety, Hospitalised child, Paediatric nursing, and Nursing care.

Thirty-two articles were analysed, most of which were from North American, with a descriptive approach. The quality of the recorded information in the medical records, the use of checklists, and the training of health workers contribute to safe care in paediatric nursing and improve the medication process and partnerships with parents.

General information available on patient safety should be incorporated in paediatric nursing care. ( Wegner, Silva, Peres, Bandeira, Frantz, Botene, & Predebon, 2017 ).

Read Abstract 2.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of lit review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Education : The focus of this paper centers around timing associated with early childhood education programs and interventions using meta-analytic methods. At any given assessment age, a child’s current age equals starting age, plus duration of program, plus years since program ended. Variability in assessment ages across the studies should enable everyone to identify the separate effects of all three time-related components. The project is a meta-analysis of evaluation studies of early childhood education programs conducted in the United States and its territories between 1960 and 2007. The population of interest is children enrolled in early childhood education programs between the ages of 0 and 5 and their control-group counterparts. Since the data come from a meta-analysis, the population for this study is drawn from many different studies with diverse samples. Given the preliminary nature of their analysis, the authors cannot offer conclusions at this point. ( Duncan, Leak, Li, Magnuson, Schindler, & Yoshikawa, 2011 ).

Test Yourself

See Answer Key for the correct responses.

The purpose of a graduate-level literature review is to summarize in as many words as possible everything that is known about my topic.

A literature review is significant because in the process of doing one, the researcher learns to read and critically assess the literature of a discipline and then uses it appropriately to advance his/her own research.

Read the following abstract and choose the correct type of literature review it represents.

Nursing: E-cigarette use has become increasingly popular, especially among the young. Its long-term influence upon health is unknown. Aim of this review has been to present the current state of knowledge about the impact of e-cigarette use on health, with an emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe. During the preparation of this narrative review, the literature on e-cigarettes available within the network PubMed was retrieved and examined. In the final review, 64 research papers were included. We specifically assessed the construction and operation of the e-cigarette as well as the chemical composition of the e-liquid; the impact that vapor arising from the use of e-cigarette explored in experimental models in vitro; and short-term effects of use of e-cigarettes on users’ health. Among the substances inhaled by the e-smoker, there are several harmful products, such as: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acroleine, propanal, nicotine, acetone, o-methyl-benzaldehyde, carcinogenic nitrosamines. Results from experimental animal studies indicate the negative impact of e-cigarette exposure on test models, such as ascytotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammation, airway hyper reactivity, airway remodeling, mucin production, apoptosis, and emphysematous changes. The short-term impact of e-cigarettes on human health has been studied mostly in experimental setting. Available evidence shows that the use of e-cigarettes may result in acute lung function responses (e.g., increase in impedance, peripheral airway flow resistance) and induce oxidative stress. Based on the current available evidence, e-cigarette use is associated with harmful biologic responses, although it may be less harmful than traditional cigarettes. (J ankowski, Brożek, Lawson, Skoczyński, & Zejda, 2017 ).

• Meta-analysis
• Exploratory

Education: In this review, Mary Vorsino writes that she is interested in keeping the potential influences of women pragmatists of Dewey’s day in mind while presenting modern feminist re readings of Dewey. She wishes to construct a narrowly-focused and succinct literature review of thinkers who have donned a feminist lens to analyze Dewey’s approaches to education, learning, and democracy and to employ Dewey’s works in theorizing on gender and education and on gender in society. This article first explores Dewey as both an ally and a problematic figure in feminist literature and then investigates the broader sphere of feminist pragmatism and two central themes within it: (1) valuing diversity, and diverse experiences; and (2) problematizing fixed truths. ( Vorsino, 2015 ).

Image Attributions

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students Copyright © by Linda Frederiksen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Research Guides
• CECH Library

Education Complete

• Checklist for Education Literature Review
• Search Word Help
• ASL and Deaf Studies Journals
• Children's and Young Adult Literature Journals
• Content-Subject Area Journals
• Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, and Secondary Education Journals
• Educational Psychology Journals
• Gifted Education Journals
• Higher Education Journals
• Instructional Design and Technology Journals
• Multicultural Education Journals
• Special Education Journals
• TEFL Journals
• Tests and Measurements
• Theses & Dissertations
• Professional Organizations
• Systematic Review Resources
• Other Relevant Library Guides

There are eight general steps in conducting an education literature review.  Please follow the eight numbered boxes, starting below.

Please note that the general framework for this guide is derived from the work of Joyce P. Gall, M.D. Gall, and Walter R. Borg in Applying Educational Research: a Practical Guide (5th ed., 2005). Also, much of the information on framing the research question comes from Emily Grimm's "Selected Reference Sources for Graduate Students in Education and Education Related Areas" (1995).

Step 1: Frame Your Research Question

Basic questions.

• What do I want to know?  For what purpose? Consider subject terms, synonyms, related concepts and approaches.
• What do I know already?
• Who else might have performed similar research and why? Consider individuals, institutions, governmental agencies and other groups.
• What summarizing or descriptive information is already available? Consider the secondary sources found below.

Time Questions

• For which time span(s) do I need information?
• Would recurrent or temporal events in education affect my research?  For example: school terms, budget hearings, conference proceedings, legislative sessions, policy decisions, elections, administrative procedural changes.

Limitation(s) Questions

• Do I have other limitations?  For example:  language, age group, grade level, type of student, type of school, type of district, geography, curricular area, or style of teaching.

Aspect Questions

• What aspects of education interest me?  For example:  financial, administrative, teaching, legislative, gender, parental, theoretical, research, developmental, practical or other.

Subjective Aspect Questions

• What are my values, prejudices, biases, and areas of ignorance in regard to my research question(s)?
• Will I let these prejudices limit my research?
• Will I let these prejudices influence my note taking, choice of vocabulary and indexing terms, selection of data, evaluations of the work of other researchers, inclusion of conflicting theories, reporting of data, or my conclusions?

Step 2: Contact Experts to Get Answers or for Guidance to Relevant Publications

Consider consulting other educators, faculty or government officials who may specialize in your research area.

You may also want to consult the American Educational Research Association's Special Interest Groups (SIGs) for the names of groups and individuals who have expertise in different educational areas.  

Step 3: Read Secondary Sources to Gain a Broad Overview of the Literature Related to Your Research Area

Use secondary sources to further define your research question and to expand your literature search.  Secondary sources include encyclopedias, handbooks, dictionaries, and thesauri. Secondary sources are resources that review research that others have done.  They provide a general overview, will give you ideas for key search terms, and often include useful bibliographies for further reading.

Here are some key secondary sources and books on doing educational research:

• Educational Psychology Review Educational Psychology Review is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed integrative review articles, special thematic issues, reflections or comments on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners.
• NSSE Yearbook (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education) Two issues are published annually; each focuses on a major education topic.
• The Phi Delta Kappan Contains many articles that cite research and analyze practical implications.
• Review of Educational Research Quarterly journal that consists of reviews of educational research literature.

Handbooks and Encyclopedias 

• Encyclopedia of Education by James W. Guthrie Call Number: Online Book Publication Date: 2004
• Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory by Michael A. Peters (Editor) Call Number: Online Book Publication Date: 2017
• Encyclopedia of Special Education by Cecil R. Reynolds (Editor); Elaine Fletcher-Janzen (Editor); Kimberly J. Vannest (Editor) Call Number: Online Book Publication Date: 2014
• Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education by Eugene F. Provenzo (Editor); John Philip Renaud (Editor) Call Number: Online Book Publication Date: 2008
• Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology by J. Michael Spector (Editor); M. David Merrill (Editor); Jan Elen (Editor); M. J. Bishop (Editor) Call Number: Online Book ISBN: 9781461431855 Publication Date: 2013
• Handbook of Research on Teaching by Drew Gitomer Call Number: Online Book Publication Date: 2016
• Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children by Olivia N. Saracho (Editor); Bernard Spodek (Editor) Call Number: Online Book Publication Date: 2012
• Philosophy : Education by Brian Warnick Call Number: Online book Publication Date: 2017

Step 4: Select Preliminary Sources that Index Relevant Research Literature

Preliminary sources index primary research resources such as journal articles, conference proceeding papers, technical reports, government documents, dissertations and more. See below for key education databases:

Step 5: Identify Subject Terms, or Descriptors, and Use Them to Search Preliminary Sources

Choosing the most appropriate subject search terms, or descriptors, for searching indexes and catalogs can greatly influence your search results.  A good place to start is ERIC's thesaurus of descriptors:

Step 6: Read and Evaluate Primary Sources Discovered Through Indexes

For assistance in obtaining copies of primary sources, please consult online tutorials from UC Libraries .

As you print out copies of articles, review copies of books or reports, remember to look in the sources for bibliographies, names of individuals or groups who have done research on the topic, and for additional subject terms to help you narrow or broaden your research.

Step 7: Classify the Publications You Have Reviewed into Meaningful Categories

As you review the sources you find, classify them into meaningful categories.  This will help you prioritize reading them and may indicate useful ways to synthesize what you discover.  You may want to create a simple code for the different categories.

Step 8: Prepare Your Literature Review Report

The following books can help you assemble a literature review report. The resource icons indicate whether the book is available in print or as an e-book.

• << Previous: Theses & Dissertations
• Next: Professional Organizations >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 2:55 PM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/edcomplete

University of Cincinnati Libraries

PO Box 210033 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0033

Phone: 513-556-1424

Contact Us | Staff Directory

University of Cincinnati

Alerts | Clery and HEOA Notice | Notice of Non-Discrimination | eAccessibility Concern | Privacy Statement | Copyright Information

© 2021 University of Cincinnati

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Delays in shipping:  Due to current delays in our warehouse shipping services, please expect longer than usual delivery times for any print book and journal orders. If you need access to content immediately, please consider ordering a digital product. We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

If you need further assistance please visit our Contact us page for further information. 

Review of Educational Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The Review of Educational Research ( RER , quarterly, begun in 1931; approximately 640 pp./volume year) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.

The Review of Educational Research publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research, and all analyses should be incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented. The following types of manuscripts fall within the journal’s purview:

Integrative reviews pull together the existing work on an educational topic and work to understand trends in that body of scholarship. In such a review, the author describes how the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how research methods and theories have shaped the outcomes of scholarship, and what the strengths and weaknesses of the literature are. Meta-analyses are of particular interest when they are accompanied by an interpretive framework that takes the article beyond the reporting of effect sizes and the bibliographic outcome of a computer search.

Theoretical reviews should explore how theory shapes research. To the extent that research is cited and interpreted, it is in the service of the specification, explication, and illumination of a theory. Theoretical reviews and integrative reviews have many similarities, but the former are primarily about how a theory is employed to frame research and our understandings, and refer to the research as it relates to the theory.

Methodological reviews are descriptions of research design, methods, and procedures that can be employed in literature reviews or research in general. The articles should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of methodological tools and explore how methods constrain or open up opportunities for learning about educational problems. They should be written in a style that is accessible to researchers in education rather than methodologists.

Historical reviews provide analyses that situate literature in historical contexts. Within these reviews, explanations for educational phenomena are framed within the historical forces that shape language and understanding.

Commissioned reviews and thematic issues. The editors may commission and solicit authors to review areas of literature. In all other respects, commissioned reviews are subject to the same review process as submitted reviews. The editors also encourage readers to propose thematic topics for special issues and, as potential guest editors, to submit plans for such issues.

In addition to review articles, RER will occasionally publish notes and responses which are short pieces of no more than 1,200 words on any topic that would be of use to reviewers of research. Typically, they point out shortcomings and differences in interpretation in RER articles and policy.

The standards and criteria for review articles in RER are the following:

1. Quality of the Literature. Standards used to determine quality of literature in education vary greatly. Any review needs to take into account the quality of the literature and its impact on findings. Authors should attempt to review all relevant literature on a topic (e.g., international literature, cross-disciplinary work, etc.).

2. Quality of Analysis. The review should go beyond description to include analysis and critiques of theories, methods, and conclusions represented in the literature. This analysis should also examine the issue of access—which perspectives are included or excluded in a body of work? Finally, the analysis should be reflexive—how does the scholars’ framework constrain what can be known in this review?

3. Significance of the Topic. The review should seek to inform and/or illuminate questions important to the field of education. While these questions may be broad-based, they should have implications for the educational problems and issues affecting our national and global societies.

4. Impact of the Article. The review should be seen as an important contribution and tool for the many different educators dealing with the educational problems and issues confronting society.

5. Advancement of the Field. The review should validate or inform the knowledge of researchers and guide and improve the quality of their research and scholarship.

6. Style. The review must be well written and conform to style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Authors should avoid the use of unexplained jargon and parochialism.

7. Balance and Fairness. The review should be careful not to misrepresent the positions taken by others, or be disrespectful of contrary positions.

8. Purpose. Any review should be accessible to the broad readership of RER. The purpose of any article should be to connect the particular problem addressed by the researcher(s) to a larger context of education.

We also encourage all authors interested in submitting a manuscript to RER to read our Editorial Vision for more information on our publication aims.

• Academic Search - Premier
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Elite
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Elite
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Premier
• EBSCO: Professional Development Collection
• EBSCO: Sales & Marketing Source
• EBSCOhost: Current Abstracts
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
• Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F)
• Higher Education Abstracts
• MasterFILE Select - EBSCO
• ProQuest Education Journals
• Social SciSearch
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Teacher Reference Center
• Wilson Education Index/Abstracts

1. Publication Standards 2. Submission Preparation Checklist 3. How to Get Help With the Quality of English in Your Submission 4. Copyright Information 5. For authors who use figures or other materials for which they do not own copyright 6. Right of Reply 7. Sage Choice and Open Access

The Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes comprehensive reviews of literature related to education and does not publish new empirical work, except in the context of meta-analytic reviews of an area. Please check the journal’s Aims and Scope to see if your manuscript is appropriate to submit to RER.

All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the editorial team at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rer . For questions or inquiries about manuscripts, email us at [email protected] . Manuscripts may not be submitted via e-mail.

Publication Standards

Researchers who intend to submit studies for publication should consult the Standards for Research Conduct adopted by the AERA Council. We also recommend consulting (a) the Guidelines for Reviewers , which outline the criteria under which manuscripts are reviewed for publication by AERA and (b) recent previous editions of the journal. Individuals submitting systematic reviews or meta-analyses should also consult The PRISMA Statement ( http://www.prisma-statement.org ) as well the article on “Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology” in American Psychologist, 63 , 839 – 851 (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839).

Submission Preparation Checklist

When you upload your initial submission, upload (1) a separate title page that is not anonymized. Please format the title page as described by the 7th edition of the APA Manual and (2) the main manuscript, which includes an ANONYMIZED title page, an abstract with keywords at the bottom, and the rest of the document including tables and figures, and finally (c) Author Bios.

Please ensure that your manuscript complies with the “ RER Formatting Requirements and Common Formatting Errors ” (see PDF on the RER website). If your submission does not meet these requirements, it will be returned to you.

Additionally, your submission should meet the following guidelines:

1. The submission has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; or an explanation has been provided in the Cover Letter. Authors should indicate in the Author Note on the separate title page if sections of the manuscript have been published in other venues.

2. THE MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, EVEN ON THE ANONYMIZED TITLE PAGE. Please anonymize any work of limited circulation (e.g., in press papers, manuscripts under submission) that would point to the author, both in the body of the manuscript and the reference list. More information on anonymizing is described subsequently. Please double check that the author’s name has been removed from the document’s Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu (select “File,” “Properties,” “Summary,” and remove the author’s name; select “OK” to save).

3. The text conforms to APA style (currently the 7th ed.). Consult the guidelines spelled out under “Manuscript Style, Length, and Format” on this webpage and in the RER Formatting Requirements PDF included on our website.

4. The submission must be in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx), which will be converted into a PDF file. Please do not upload PDF files, or they will be returned to you.

5. All URL addresses and DOIs in the manuscript (e.g., http://www.aera.net ) should be activated and ready to click.

6. An abstract of 150 words maximum is included (both separately and on the second page of the main document after the ANONYMIZED title page). Please also include three to five keywords—the terms that researchers will use to find your article in indexes and databases.

Manuscript Style, Length, and Format

The style guide for the Review of Educational Research and all AERA journals is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed., 2020. The manual is available for purchase here . Guidelines are also available on the APA website .

Manuscripts should NOT exceed 65 pages (or 15,000 words), including tables, figures, appendices, notes, and references, but excluding anonymized title page, abstract, and any supplementary files. Pages should be numbered consecutively in the top right-hand corner, with a fully capitalized running head in the top-left corner. All manuscripts should begin with the anonymized title page (p.1). Manuscripts should be typed for 8½” x 11” paper, in upper and lower case, with 1-inch margins on all sides. Manuscripts should be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font. Manuscripts that exceed 65 pages may be returned without review.

All text, from the title page to the end of the manuscript should be double-spaced , including the abstract, block quotations, bulleted text, and the reference list. Single-spacing is allowed in tables when it is useful in making the table clearer. Do not leave blank lines after paragraphs or before sub-headings. However, if a heading or subheading is the last line on a page, use a page break to move it to the top of the next page. The Abstract, Introduction (beginning with the title), the References, and all tables and figures begin on new pages.

Please use the five subheadings as appropriate based on the 7th edition of the APA style manual. In addition to being on the title page, the title should also be placed at the beginning of the Introduction (in lieu of the word, “Introduction,” which should not appear) and the title at the beginning of the Introduction should be a Level 1 heading.

Tables and figures are to be placed after the references—all tables precede all figures—and should not be included in the body of the text. Each figure and table should begin on a separate page. Do NOT use the “Place Table 5 here” or “Place Figure 1 here” convention. The tables and figures will be placed nearest to where they are mentioned as appropriate when copyediting is done.

Figures and tables should present data to the reader in a clear and unambiguous manner, and should be referred to in the text. If the illustration/table/figure and text are redundant, eliminate the illustration or reduce the amount of detail provided in text. The use of lines in tables is limited (please consult the APA style manual for formatting guidelines ). Figure captions should be placed at the bottom of the figure. One high-quality electronic version of each figure must be submitted with the manuscript. Tables will be typeset. Note that any figures and tables uploaded separately from the main manuscript will still count toward the total 65-page limit.

Italics can be used for emphasis or contrast in special situations but should be used sparingly. Ideally, sentence structure should be used for these issues. All words to be set in italics (e.g., book titles, journal names) should be typed in italics. There should be no underlined text . Abbreviations and acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are mentioned unless they are found as entries in their abbreviated form in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , 11th ed., 2003 (e.g., “IQ” can be used without being spelled out). Mathematical symbols and symbols for vectors should be clearly formatted in italics and boldface, respectively.

You can use the footnote or endnote feature of Microsoft Word. However, notes are only for explanations or amplifications of textual material that cannot be incorporated into the regular text; they are not for reference information. Moreover, notes are distracting to readers and expensive to produce and should be used sparingly and avoided whenever possible.

The reference list should contain only references that are cited in the text. Its accuracy and completeness are the responsibility of the authors. Reference each publicly available dataset with its title, author, date, and a persistent Web identifier such as a digital object identifier (doi), a handle, or a uniform resource name (URN). If necessary, this last element may be replaced by a web address. Additionally, any references that were included in the analysis but not cited in-text in the main manuscript can be included in a separate reference list that is uploaded as a Supplementary File for Review (this may assist in meeting the page limit).

Authors should anonymize their manuscripts for review . Anonymizing does not mean removing all self-citations. Authors should only anonymize citations of limited circulation (e.g., forthcoming, in press, unpublished) that point to the author. Publications already in the extant literature (e.g., books, book chapters, journal articles) should be cited normally, but authors should include self-citations judiciously . When anonymizing, please use “Author” or “Authors” as in the examples below and place this alphabetically in the reference list and not where the author’s actual name would typically appear.

For examples of common types of references, consult the APA 7th edition manual, or visit the webpage here: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references

How to Get Help with the Quality of English in Your Submission

Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using the services of a professional English-language editing company. We highlight some of these companies at  https://languageservices.sagepub.com/en/ .

Please be aware that Sage has no affiliation with these companies and makes no endorsement of them. An author's use of these services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the particular company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.

Copyright Information Accepted authors will be asked to  assign copyright  to AERA, in return for which AERA grants several rights to authors.

Permission to reproduce your own published material

No written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from this journal, or to make photocopies for classroom use. Authors are granted permission, without fee, to photocopy their own material or make printouts from the final pdf of their article. Copies must include a full and accurate bibliographic citation and the following credit line: “Copyright [year] by the American Educational Research Association; reproduced with permission from the publisher.” Written permission must be obtained to reproduce or reprint material in circumstances other than those just described. Please review Sage Publishing’s  Journal Permissions  for further information on policies and fees.

Permission to submit material for which you do not own copyright

Authors who wish to use material, such as figures or tables, for which they do not own the copyright must obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher) and submit it along with their manuscript. However, no written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from an AERA journal.

Copyright transfer agreements for accepted works with more than one author

This journal uses a transfer of copyright agreement that requires just one author (the corresponding author) to sign on behalf of all authors. Please identify the corresponding author for your work when submitting your manuscript for review. The corresponding author will be responsible for the following:

1. Ensuring that all authors are identified on the copyright agreement, and notifying the editorial office of any changes in the authorship.

2. Securing written permission (by letter or e-mail) from each co-author to sign the copyright agreement on the co-author’s behalf.

3. Warranting and indemnifying the journal owner and publisher on behalf of all co-authors. Although such instances are very rare, you should be aware that in the event that a co-author has included content in his or her portion of the article that infringes the copyright of another or is otherwise in violation of any other warranty listed in the agreement, you will be the sole author indemnifying the publisher and the editor of the journal against such violation.

Please contact the publications office at  AERA  if you have questions or if you prefer to use a copyright agreement for all coauthors to sign.

Right of Reply

The right of reply policy encourages comments on recently published articles in AERA publications. They are, of course, subject to the same editorial review and decision process as articles. If the comment is accepted for publication, the editor shall inform the author of the original article. If the author submits a reply to the comment, the reply is also subject to editorial review and decision. The editor may allot a specific amount of journal space for the comment (ordinarily about 1,500 words) and for the reply (ordinarily about 750 words). The reply may appear in the same issue as the comment or in a later issue (Council, June 1980).

If an article is accepted for publication in an AERA journal that, in the judgment of the editor, has as its main theme or thrust a critique of a specific piece of work or a specific line of work associated with an individual or program of research, then the individual or representative of the research program whose work is critiqued should be notified in advance about the upcoming publication and given the opportunity to reply, ideally in the same issue. The author of the original article should also be notified. Normal guidelines for length and review of the reply and publication of a rejoinder by the original article’s author(s) should be followed. Articles in the format “an open letter to …” may constitute prototypical exemplars of the category defined here, but other formats may well be used, and would be included under the qualifications for response prescribed here (Council, January 2002).

Sage Choice and Open Access

If you or your funder wish your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in Sage Choice, subject to payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let Sage know directly if you are choosing Sage Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit  Sage Choice . For more information on open access options and compliance at Sage, including self author archiving deposits (green open access) visit  Sage Publishing Policies  on our Journal Author Gateway.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

EDUC 760 Literature Review in Education Research

• Course Description

This course provides education practitioners in the doctoral program with research skills and strategies for conducting a literature review. Critical thinking skills, synthesis of information, and application of the literature are emphasized to support the feasibility and relevance of a research study.

For information regarding prerequisites for this course, please refer to the  Academic Course Catalog .

Course Guide

View this course’s outcomes, policies, schedule, and more.*

Requires a student login to access.

*The information contained in our Course Guides is provided as a sample. Specific course curriculum and requirements for each course are provided by individual instructors each semester. Students should not use Course Guides to find and complete assignments, class prerequisites, or order books.

A literature review is a comprehensive investigation of previous research and scholarly articles on a topic. Beginning with a theory that serves to frame, or orient, the study, Chapter Two continues with a comprehensive review of the literature that addresses sufficient directly and indirectly related bodies of literature to show the reader that the researcher has a complete understanding of the topic. By conducting a thorough review, the researcher identifies any gaps in the literature and, therefore, a need for a study. Literature reviews are not merely listings or descriptions of the literature but are critiques of the literature that, when synthesized, create a conversation, or dialogue, among the various scholars that comes alive and inspires your reader to be even more interested in the topic and to be ready to consume the study’s findings. Poor literature reviews reflect poorly on the scholar, and, in the case of Christian scholars, reflect poorly on Christianity. As such, the need for Christian scholars to generate exemplary literature reviews is paramount to representing God as the supreme authority and creator of all knowledge. 

Course Assignment

Textbook readings and presentations.

The Claxton and Dolan (2021) textbook is used for this course and includes any readings necessary for the candidate to ensure competence with basic literature review development. Additionally, the Galvan and Galvan (2017) text will be used for supplemental material. Finally, the latest APA Style Guide and dissertation templates are required for this course.

Course Requirements Checklist

As the first activity in this course, the candidate will read the Syllabus and Student Expectations and complete the related checklist found in the Course Overview.

Discussions (2)

Discussions are collaborative learning experiences. Therefore, the candidate will complete the discussions in two parts. First, the candidate will post a new thread of 400-500 words in response to the provided discussion prompt. Then, the candidate will reply to at least two classmates, 150-200 words each reply.  (CLO: A, E)

Literature Review: Topic Identification Essay Assignment

The candidate will submit a document containing two paragraphs identifying his/her proposed topic for the dissertation. The first paragraph will identify and discuss the topic, including a brief summary of its social and historical contexts, as well as its relationship to education. The second paragraph will give an explanation as why the candidate considers this a worthwhile topic, which may include personal experience and research goals. At least two scholarly, peer-reviewed articles published within the past five years must be cited in the essay with an appropriate reference page attached.  (CLO: A, E)

Literature Review: Overview Assignment

The candidate will submit a document containing a one-paragraph overview for the literature review. The overview will follow the template provided, be written in present tense, and be specific to the candidate’s topic from Module 1 (based upon professor feedback).  (CLO: E)

Literature Review: Theory Identification Essay Assignment

The candidate will identify 1-2 theories related to the selected topic of study and write a 2-4 paragraph essay. The first paragraph for each theory will explain the theory using the publication(s) of the primary theorist and at least one other work. In the second paragraph, the candidate will justify why the theory was chosen and connect it to the topic. A correctly formatted reference page must be included. (CLO: B, E)

Literature Review Outline Assignment

The candidate will develop a complete literature review outline that will include an improved overview and identify the theory (or theories) of the Theoretical Framework section based on previous professor feedback. The outline must include a title page, the four required level 1 headings (Overview, Theoretical Framework, Related Literature, and Summary), a one-paragraph (improved) Overview, and the name(s) of the theory (or theories) in the Theoretical Framework. The outline must also include the level 2 and 3 APA headings (headings only) identifying the themes and subthemes of the Related Literature section, the Summary section, and the completed reference list., The outline should be 2-3 pages in length, excluding the title page and reference list section. (CLO: A, B, C, E)

Literature Review: Theoretical Framework Section Assignment

The candidate will write the theoretical framework section of the literature review and include it in the working literature review document with the title page, revised Overview, revised Related Literature outline headings (with sources only, no written content), revised Summary, and reference list pages. The assignment should be a total of 2-3 pages, excluding title and reference list pages.  (CLO: B, E)

Literature Review: Synthesis Essay Assignment

The candidate will demonstrate an understanding of how to synthesize literature by researching at least 5 sources related to his/her topic, identifying 2 themes evident across those 5 sources, and synthesizing the concepts and source material related to those two themes. Synthesizing and writing concisely are learned skills, and this assignment is an opportunity to practice those skills. This essay must follow APA standards and will include a title page, 2-3 full pages of content, and a reference list. (CLO: D, E)

Literature Review Rough Draft Assignment

The candidate will develop a rough draft of the literature review including the title page, Overview, Theoretical Framework, Related Literature section, Summary, and reference list. All work must be updated and developed based on previous professor feedback. While the Related Literature section may not include content under every level 2 (or level 3) APA heading, all headings must be updated per professor feedback, and the Summary section must be revised. The document must include a minimum of 4 full pages of content (excluding the title and reference list pages). (CLO: C, D, E)

Literature Review Final Assignment

The candidate will develop a final draft of the literature review containing a minimum of 8 full pages of content (excluding the title and reference list pages). The literature review must also use appropriate APA format, incorporate professor feedback. (CLO: E)

Quizzes (4)

Each quiz will cover the Learn section material for the module in which it is assigned. Each quiz will be open-book/open-notes; contain multiple-choice, true/false, or checklist completion questions; and have a 1-hour time limit. (CLO: D, E)

Have questions about this course or a program?

Speak to one of our admissions specialists.

Inner Navigation

• Assignments

Have questions?

Are you ready to change your future?

Apply FREE This Week*

Request Information

*Some restrictions may occur for this promotion to apply. This promotion also excludes active faculty and staff, military, non-degree-seeking, DGIA, Continuing Education, WSB, and certificate students.

Request Information About a Program

Request info about liberty university online, what program are you interested in, choose a program level.

Choose a program level

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Certificate

Select a Field of Study

Select a field of study

Select a Program

Select a program

Next: Contact Info

Legal first name.

Enter legal first name

Legal Last Name

Enter legal last name

Enter an email address

Enter a phone number

Full Address

Enter an address

Apt., P.O. Box, or can’t find your address? Enter it manually instead .

Select a Country

Street Address

Enter Street Address

Enter State

ZIP/Postal Code

Enter Zip Code

Back to automated address search

Start my application now for FREE

Research in Education

• Lit Review - Best Sources
• Books and Dissertations
• Interlibrary Loan
• How-To for Google Scholar
• How-To for ERIC (EBSCO)
• How-To for ERIC (Free)
• How-To for APA PsycInfo
• How-To for OneSearch
• Is it Peer Reviewed?
• Finding the DOI

Contact Your Librarian

Top Sources for Literature Reviews in Education

Eric , education full text , and google scholar - best options for education research.

Use these databases to broaden your literature searches.              

Additional Sources for Locating Education Research

Multidisciplinary databases for education research.

Use these databases to broaden your literature searches.            

Historical education research .

• Next: Books and Dissertations >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 3:29 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uni.edu/education-research

Educational Leadership Doctoral Program

• Background Sources & Research Methods
• Identifying Empirical Articles
• Writing a Literature Review
• Citing Sources

Literature Review Tips

• Literature Review and APA Tips

Literature Review Examples

To give you some examples of writing a literature review and an article analysis matrix to keep track of the themes of your articles, I have created a partial literature review and corresponding analysis matrix to demonstrate. My topic is the special education early intervention program called First Step to Success (FSS).

• Synthetic Writing/Literature Example (First Steps to Success)
• Article Analysis Spreadsheet Example (First Step to Success)
• Article Analysis Spreadsheet Example (First Step to Success - PDF Version)

The Process of Writing a Literature Review

Mastering synthetic writing is key to a successful literature review. Use these resources to learn how to analyze the articles you want to use for your literature review, keep track of common themes using an article analysis matrix, and how to convert the notes in the analysis matrix into a piece of synthetic writing.

Think of working on your literature review as a multi-step process:

• Identify a topic.
• Find research articles on that topic.
• Read and analyze each article. (Use the Individual Article Analysis Worksheet )
• Compare all of the themes addressed in the articles. (Use the Article Analysis Matrix )
• Use your notes from the article analysis matrix to decide how to organize your literature review (make an outline).
• Write your literature review by discussing one theme at a time--how is this theme covered in the literature?
• Your literature review will also need an introduction and a conclusion. Some students like to start with the introduction, while others find it is easier to write the introduction after they have written the body of their literature review.
• Don't forget to include References at the end of your paper (and to cite them properly within the text)!
• Individual Article Analysis Worksheet Use this to analyze each of your articles. Focus on questions #4 - #6. These will help you identify the major themes/main ideas in each article you read.
• Article Analysis Matrix After completing the Individual Article Analysis Worksheet for each of your articles, use this Article Analysis Matrix to compile all of the information you have gathered. Use the Example Article Analysis Matrix below as a guide to get started.

Synthetic Writing

A literature review is not the same as a research paper. The point of a literature review is to synthesize the research of others without making a new argument or scholarly contribution. A literature review is also not an annotated bibliography. You should not write about each study you are reviewing in turn, but instead write synthetically to highlight the current state of the literature.

Key Points to Consider:

• The purpose of a literature review is to report the current state of the topic. Literature reviewed should be relatively recent, unless you are delving into the history of the topic.
• Discuss different themes within your literature review rather than individual articles. It will help if you pull information from 2-3 articles for each theme you discuss.
• All works cited should be both in the text of the literature review and the bibliography
• Avoid passive voice (ex: It was found that...); Use active voice ("Smith (2013) reported that...")
• Report what the literature says, not what you think

Writing Your Literature Review

The sites below offer a range of considerations and steps for writing the literature review.

• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature From the University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.
• Literature Reviews From the UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center.
• Literature Review From the University of Houston-Victoria, Texas.
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It From the University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.
• Writing Literature Reviews From the Temple University Writing Center.
• Getting Started on Your Literature Review From the University of New South Wales Learning Centre.
• << Previous: Journals
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 18, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://library.ship.edu/eldp

Contact the Ezra Lehman Memorial Library

• Shippensburg on Facebook
• Shippensburg on Twitter
• Shippensburg on YouTube
• Shippensburg on Instagram

• Open access
• Published: 05 July 2024

Mentoring as a complex adaptive system – a systematic scoping review of prevailing mentoring theories in medical education

• Mac Yu Kai Teo 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Halah Ibrahim 4 ,
• Casper Keegan Ronggui Lin 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 ,
• Nur Amira Binte Abdul Hamid 3 ,
• Ranitha Govindasamy 1 , 3 , 6 ,
• Nagavalli Somasundaram 3 , 7 , 8 ,
• Crystal Lim 8 , 9 ,
• Jia Ling Goh 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Yi Zhou 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Kuang Teck Tay 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Ryan Rui Song Ong 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Vanessa Tan 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Youru Toh 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Anushka Pisupati 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Vijayprasanth Raveendran 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Keith Zi Yuan Chua 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Elaine Li Ying Quah 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Jeevasuba Sivakumar 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Samyuktha Dhanalakshmi Senthilkumar 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Keerthana Suresh 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Wesley Teck Wee Loo 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Ruth Si Man Wong 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Yiying Pei 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Julia Huina Sng 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Simone Qian Min Quek 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Jasmine Lerk Juan Owyong 3 ,
• Ting Ting Yeoh 3 , 5 ,
• Eng Koon Ong 2 , 3 , 7 , 10 ,
• Gillian Li Gek Phua 2 , 11 ,
• Stephen Mason 12 ,
• Ruaraidh Hill 13 ,
• Anupama Roy Chowdhury 7 , 14 ,
• Simon Yew Kuang Ong 3 , 7 , 8 &
• Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 13 , 15  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  726 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

347 Accesses

Metrics details

Effective mentorship is an important component of medical education with benefits to all stakeholders. In recent years, conceptualization of mentorship has gone beyond the traditional dyadic experienced mentor-novice mentee relationship to include group and peer mentoring. Existing theories of mentorship do not recognize mentoring’s personalized, evolving, goal-driven, and context-specific nature. Evidencing the limitations of traditional cause-and-effect concepts, the purpose of this review was to systematically search the literature to determine if mentoring can be viewed as a complex adaptive system (CAS).

A systematic scoping review using Krishna’s Systematic Evidence-Based Approach was employed to study medical student and resident accounts of mentoring and CAS in general internal medicine and related subspecialties in articles published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2023 in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The included articles underwent thematic and content analysis, with the themes identified and combined to create domains, which framed the discussion.

Of 5,704 abstracts reviewed, 134 full-text articles were evaluated, and 216 articles were included. The domains described how mentoring relationships and mentoring approaches embody characteristics of CAS and that mentorship often behaves as a community of practice (CoP). Mentoring’s CAS-like features are displayed through CoPs, with distinct boundaries, a spiral mentoring trajectory, and longitudinal mentoring support and assessment processes.

Recognizing mentorship as a CAS demands the rethinking of the design, support, assessment, and oversight of mentorship and the role of mentors. Further study is required to better assess the mentoring process and to provide optimal training and support to mentors.

Peer Review reports

Effective mentorship during medical training fosters professional development, personal growth, and ethical guidance [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. For host institutions, established mentorship programs facilitate knowledge transfer, improve recruitment and retention, and contribute to a culture of continuous learning and growth, ultimately advancing the quality of healthcare delivery and research within the organization [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 ]. Yet, despite its importance, medical education still lacks a widely accepted operational definition of mentoring [ 10 ]. Mentorship is often conflated with advising or coaching. While advisors assist trainees in making informed academic decisions and coaches provide training and guidance to help trainees reach specific goals, mentorship is a bidirectional relationship whereby an experienced mentor provides personalized guidance and support to facilitate a mentee’s development [ 11 ]. In recent years, conceptualizations of mentorship have also evolved from this traditional dyadic experienced mentor and novice mentee relationship to peer and group mentoring formats and mentoring networks [ 11 ]. Recent reviews highlight the challenges related to mentoring and attribute multiple ethical issues, including bullying, coercion, misappropriation of mentee funding and resources, and publication parasitism to inadequate structuring, support, and oversight of mentorship programs [ 1 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. As accounts of ethical, legal, and professional issues related to mentoring continue to grow, the need for a common understanding and consistent approach to mentoring is evident [ 1 , 18 ].

Current theories of mentoring struggle to contend with mentoring’s personalized, evolving, and reciprocal nature, which is often goal-sensitive and context-specific [ 20 , 21 ]. Several authors have criticized conventional models that do not recognize the dynamic relationship between mentors and mentees and the influence of external factors [ 11 , 12 ]. Some studies suggest that mentoring should be considered a complex adaptive system (CAS) [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. With such a shift in thinking likely to change the design, support, and oversight of mentoring programs, we evaluate if mentoring displays the characteristics and functions of a CAS to address our primary research question “does mentoring function as a complex adaptive system?”

• Complex adaptive systems

Some authors propose that a CAS-led perspective better captures mentoring’s non-linear, diverse, individualized, and unpredictable interrelationships [ 25 ]. A CAS is a system composed of many interacting and interdependent components (agents), whereby one agent’s actions can change the context for the others [ 26 ]. Features of CAS include complexity, adaptation, non-linearity, and self-organization, resulting in the spontaneous emergence of new and unpredictable patterns, behaviors, and trajectories. We define these features throughout the manuscript and summarize the terms in Table  1 as characterized by Ellis et al. [ 27 ] and Gear et al. [ 28 ].

Theoretical lens

A mentoring ecosystem encompasses a broad range of mentors, mentees, and stakeholders, including institutions, all contributing to individual growth and development through mentorship. The concept of the mentoring ecosystem is like a Community of Practice, or a social network with mutual experiences and values [ 29 ], and is shaped around a predetermined course from marginal participation at the periphery of the mentoring program to a more central role within the mentoring program [ 29 ] (Fig.  1 ). This mentoring trajectory is framed on mentoring stages [ 30 , 31 ], or clearly delineated phases of the mentoring process. Transitions from one stage to another create ideal assessment points, which in turn, inform the longitudinal mentoring support system, or mentoring umbrella. The mentoring umbrella is a framework where multiple forms of mentoring and support, including supervision, coaching, tutoring, instruction, and teaching, are provided to support an individual’s growth and development, like how an umbrella provides protection and coverage [ 32 ]. This approach ensures that mentees receive comprehensive support from different sources to enhance their learning, skill development, and career advancement [ 32 ]. The combination of the mentoring trajectory and mentoring umbrella creates the mentoring tube, which guides mentoring progress.

Mentoring ecosystem. The yellow circles represent the mentee’s microenvironment while the blue circles symbolize other stakeholders’ microenvironments. The dark green spiral represents the mentoring tube, and the thin blue lines represent the changing course of the mentoring relationship along the mentoring trajectory. The mentoring trajectory is framed around key stages of development. Some of these stages are highlighted. The mentoring trajectory is not depicted as a smooth course underlining the inevitable changes apparent across the mentoring stages

SEBA review methodology

Using Krishna’s Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA) to guide our scoping review [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], we explore mentoring in medical education as a sociocultural construct shaped by multiple stakeholder and host organization-related factors. This approach also accommodates the CAS lens through which we evaluate the different aspects of mentoring for features of CAS. SEBA is a methodologic framework for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The steps of the SEBA process involve: (1) a systematic approach whereby teams of medical education experts and researchers agree upon the research questions, search terms, and databases to be included; (2) the split approach in which a research team conducts inductive thematic analysis of the included articles allowing themes to emerge from the data while other research team(s) independently use a predefined set of codes to guide the analysis and identify themes; (3) the jigsaw perspective involves combining overlapping and complementary themes to create larger categories of themes; (4) a comparison process with the features of CAS ensures that relevant themes are not omitted; (5) analysis of data and non-data driven literature compares the themes derived from evidenced-based publications with those from non-data-based articles (editorials, grey literature, letters, opinion pieces, and perspectives) for similarity to ensure that the non-data-based articles do not bias the analysis; and (6) synthesis where the derived themes create the domains that inform the discussion (Fig.  2 ).

The SEBA process

Reflexivity

The research team consisted of medical students and research assistants, guided by Internal Medicine and Palliative Care consultants, with expertise in medical education, qualitative analysis, and conducting systematic reviews. The medical students were members of a peer-mentorship research program; their personal experiences influenced the study design and data interpretation. To provide a balanced review, an expert team comprising of a librarian from the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (YLLSoM) and local educational experts and clinicians at YLLSoM, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, and Duke-NUS Medical School guided the 6-stages of the SEBA process. The teams also engaged in personal and group reflexivity throughout the process to minimize the impact of personal experience bias.

Stage 1: systematic approach

This SEBA-systematic scoping review is guided by the PRISMA-P checklist to ensure a reproducible and robust mapping of current notions of mentoring.

Identifying the research question

Guided by the expert team, the research team determined the primary research question to be: “does mentoring function as a complex adaptive system?” The secondary research question is: “what characteristics of CAS are evident in mentoring?”

Inclusion criteria

A population, concept, context (PCC) study design format was adopted to guide the research [ 36 ] (Table  2 ). We included all study types (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods) and non-empirical manuscripts (perspectives, editorials, letters) involving medical students and medical trainees and physicians in Internal Medicine and its related subspecialties. We excluded studies from other disciplines and those involving mentorship by patients or interdisciplinary mentors, along with studies dealing with supervision, coaching, role-modeling, advising, or sponsorship. In keeping with Pham et al.’s [ 37 ] recommendations on sustaining the research process and accommodating existing manpower and time constraints, the research team restricted the searches to articles published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2023.

Database searching

Eleven members of the research teams searched five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus) between 13 February 2023 and 20 April 2024 (Table  3 ). The research teams, each comprised of medical students and a senior reviewer, independently carried out the searches. The search terms and strategies used for database searching are detailed in Appendix  1 .

Extracting and charting the data

Each group independently reviewed the abstracts and titles and discussed their findings at online meetings where Sandelowski and Barroso [ 148 ]’s ‘negotiated consensual validation’ was used to achieve consensus on the final list of full-text articles to be reviewed. Data extracted from each manuscript meeting inclusion criteria included the author, year of publication, study type, study population, study location, components of the mentorship ecosystem, including mentoring approach/theories, stakeholders, mentoring structure and relationships, environment and external influences, and main findings of the study. The characteristics of all included studies are listed in Appendix  1 .

Stage 2: Split approach

Krishna’s ‘Split Approach’ [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 ] was employed to enhance the reliability of the data analyses. This approach involves the research team dividing (or ‘splitting’) into different groups to independently analyze the manuscripts. This concurrent analysis enables review of data from different perspectives while also aiming to reduce omission of new findings or negative reports. For this review, three groups of researchers independently analyzed the included articles. Using best practices, the first team summarized and tabulated the included full-text articles [ 152 , 153 ] (Appendix  1 ). Concurrently, the second team analyzed the included articles using Braun and Clarke’s approach to thematic analysis [ 154 ]. A third team of researchers employed Hsieh and Shannon’s [ 155 ] approach to directed content analysis to analyze the included articles using pre-determined codes drawn from several published manuscripts on mentorship in medical education [ 7 , 156 , 157 ]. These studies were chosen because they provide the most recent review of mentoring practice at the time of this review [ 7 ] and offer the most recent longitudinal work on the subject [ 156 , 157 ].

Stage 3: Jigsaw perspective

In keeping with SEBA’s iterative process, the themes were reviewed by the expert and research teams. Overlaps between the themes were viewed as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle with the intention of combining overlapping or complementary pieces to create a bigger piece of the puzzle to form larger categories of themes.

Stage 4: Comparison

Comparisons of the themes were made with the features of CAS identified by Ellis et al. [ 27 ] and Gear et al. [ 28 ], specifically multiple agents, self-organizing networks, co-evolution, system adaptation, non-linearity, feedback loops, emergence, boundaries, path dependency, and ‘far from equilibrium (Table  1 ). This step ensures that important themes were not omitted.

The PRISMA diagram illustrates the process (Fig.  3 ). Of 5,704 abstracts reviewed, 134 full-text articles were evaluated, and 216 articles were included (additional articles included following snowballing, or review of the references of included articles). The themes elicited during thematic analysis of all 216 manuscripts were overlapped and combined (jigsaw approach) into larger categories of themes and compared with features of CAS to create 2 domains, namely mentoring relationships and mentoring programs, each with sub-themes as detailed below.

PRISMA flowchart. Snowballing articles were derived from searching the references of all included articles

Domain 1. Mentoring relationships

Mentoring relationships are influenced by the various stakeholders (agents) and the mentoring process.

Multiple stakeholders (agents)

A key feature of CAS is the presence of multiple agents interacting within collaborative networks [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 158 , 159 , 160 ]. Our results support that mentors, mentees, institutional leaders, and multiple other stakeholders interact within the mentorship ecosystem by exchanging resources and information, thereby influencing each other’s perspectives and behaviors and collectively shaping the trajectory and outcomes of the mentorship dynamic. Several authors explored the roles of mentors, peer-mentors, mentees, and the host organization in mentoring programs and noted that the nature of collaborative networks can be a mix of formal and informal approaches [ 7 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 ]. Even within formal programs [ 30 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 ], with their clearly defined roles and responsibilities, expectations, and codes of conduct, the presence of multiple agents, each with their roles, goals, responsibilities, and areas of interest, suggests that interactions may veer toward the informal. Such variation draws attention shifting nature of the relationships between different stakeholders throughout a mentorship.

Similarly, stakeholder influence on mentees varies according to the circumstances and time. Some studies described fluidity in the nature of interactions between stakeholders, suggesting that membership in the mentoring relationship can change [ 7 , 34 , 157 , 163 ]. New members may replace those who have completed their respective tasks, while other members may leave and re-enter the mentoring program at different points with different roles and responsibilities and varying levels of participation. Re-forming and adjusting mentoring relationships between new and returning stakeholders introduces more complexity. In addition, medical education’s hierarchical nature also impacts mentoring interactions and relationships, particularly when considering evolving circumstances and changing goals, expectations, and timelines.

The presence of multiple agents highlights the bilateral, but not necessarily equal, impact that mentoring relationships have on individual members. Stakeholder views and responses to their mentoring experiences are influenced by multiple factors, including their personal belief systems, developing competencies, coping strategies, psycho-emotional state, and maturing relationships with other stakeholders. Concurrently, the agent’s conduct, actions, and motivations are also influenced by contextual considerations, including changes to their professional roles and responsibilities, as well as stage-specific modifications to the curricula, host organization-related factors, mentoring culture, and access to support (Table  3 ).

Mentoring structures

The process, or structures (7, 49, 56, 60–63), of mentoring play a key role in shaping mentoring relationships [ 168 , 171 , 172 ]. We use Krishna et al.’s [ 6 ] concept of the mentoring ecosystem to illustrate the role that mentoring stages, mentoring trajectory, mentoring environment, mentoring umbrella, and the mentoring approach have on the CAS-related concepts of path dependency, boundaries, and adaptations in mentoring relationships [ 47 ].

Path dependency

Current concepts of path dependency [ 165 , 173 , 174 ] focus on the impact of past experiences or trajectories [ 7 ] on the current and future state of the system, suggesting that the cumulative effects of individual and programmatic experiences within the system have an enduring impact on its current structure and future potential [ 27 , 28 , 159 ]. Path dependency acknowledges that previous mentorship experiences [ 158 , 175 ], historical choices [ 170 ] made by mentors and mentees, and the development of mentoring structures can shape the current dynamics and long-term possibilities of mentoring relationships. The impact of many of these effects is managed through the alignment of expectations [ 171 ] and available support.

Boundaries in CAS represent sociocultural constructs that highlight points of contact with other entities. Mentorship programs often span multiple levels of organization, including individual, interpersonal, institutional, and societal levels. These ‘fuzzy boundaries’ surrounding the micro-environments of each stakeholder [ 176 ] underscore the connections that influence the environment and adjacent micro-environments, adding another layer of complexity to the system and influencing the types of outcomes that can be achieved. The impact of these changes on the micro-environment depends on various factors, including the nature and duration of the mentoring relationship, the seniority, roles [ 166 ], and motivations of the stakeholders, the roles and expectations [ 170 , 177 ] within the specific stages of mentoring, and the support provided by the mentoring umbrella [ 33 , 35 , 157 , 178 ]. Moreover, the ‘fuzzy boundaries’ also enable the mentoring umbrella to shape micro-environments by providing timely and appropriate feedback, support, and remediation along the mentoring trajectory.

System adaptation

System adaptation refers to a system’s ability to modify itself to maintain stability, optimize performance, or achieve objectives despite disturbances [ 27 , 28 ]. Within CAS, adaptations [ 179 ] are made to avoid major changes [ 180 ] to the system. Here, adaptability hinges on finding a balance between flexibility and consistency [ 7 ], focusing on making the smallest possible changes to the least significant elements to facilitate meaningful changes within the evolving micro-environments along the mentoring trajectory. In the mentoring ecosystem [ 181 ], the aim is to prioritize changes at the individual level and among a select few stakeholders [ 158 , 176 ] to preserve stability in the broader program [ 182 ] while nurturing the mentorship process.

Co-evolution

Within CAS, interactions between agents give rise to mutual transformations [ 171 , 183 , 184 ]. As mentees adapt to the different goals, roles, and situated learning requirements across distinct mentoring stages along the mentoring trajectory, their interactions with other stakeholders [ 163 ] lead to changes in these stakeholders. This co-evolution is focused on preserving the quality of interactions within their mentoring relationship, referred to as mentoring dynamics. These dynamics are pivotal in shaping the personalized and enduring mentoring relationships that underpin mentoring success [ 6 , 185 , 186 ]. For example, as a mentee gains confidence and skills through effective feedback, the mentor can gain valuable insights to improve communication and feedback practices.

Feedback loops

Reflections on new mentoring experiences [ 171 , 180 ], adaptations, and co-evolutions serve to reinforce positive changes while mitigating the repercussions of negative changes. This recursive influence of feedback loops also extends to thought processes, decision-making, and future actions [ 33 , 35 , 157 , 168 , 178 , 187 ].

The processes of adaptation [ 176 ], co-evolution, and feedback loops [ 163 ] give rise to the concept of ‘emergent behavior,’ behavior that emerges from interactions within the system, often focused on sustaining specific goals [ 27 , 28 ]. ‘Emergent behaviour’ is shaped by the prevailing conditions, available resources and options, guidance received, and stakeholder interpretation of unfolding events.

Self-organization

When individuals experience shifts in their attitudes, thinking [ 32 , 188 ], practice, and belief systems in response to ongoing changes, feedback, and environmental shifts, self-organization occurs. The mentoring framework, development of competencies [ 189 ], coping strategies, meaning-making process, and psycho-emotional state of individuals are pivotal in shaping self-organization within their micro-environment. These transformations in thoughts, emotions, and practices are guided by regnant standards [ 1 , 7 , 151 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 ].

Self-organization subsequently influences the mentoring trajectory. When these changes align with mentoring objectives and approach, and are consistent with the overall trajectory, they facilitate goal attainment. However, if the trajectory deviates from alignment with these elements, mentees may struggle to reach their goals.

Non-linearity

This evolving membership [ 158 , 171 , 180 , 202 ] of mentoring programs set within a hierarchical environment characterized by differences in diversity [ 174 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 ], gender [ 206 , 207 ], seniority, roles, and responsibilities [ 7 , 163 ], coupled with adaptations, co-evolution, and the emergence of new behaviours, lead to non-linear responses [ 32 , 164 , 170 ] in interactions among stakeholders with diverse roles and responsibilities. This non-linearity [ 156 , 159 , 163 , 208 ] is also apparent in the way individuals respond to various stimuli [ 1 , 18 , 33 , 35 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 ].

Far from equilibrium

The evolving processes [ 173 ] of adaptations [ 211 ], co-evolution, emergent behaviour, self-organization, non-linearity, and the influence of feedback loops [ 163 , 187 ] expose a system in a state ‘far from equilibrium’ [ 27 , 28 ], highlighted further during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 158 , 212 , 213 ] .In this context, even minor changes can lead to disproportionate impacts on mentoring relationships and processes [ 1 , 7 , 18 , 21 , 29 , 35 , 95 , 156 , 198 , 210 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 ]. In mentorship, being ‘far from equilibrium’ can also suggest a state of continuous learning, growth, and innovation, where mentor and mentees interactions are dynamic, challenging existing norms and practices and creating new possibilities for personal and professional development.

Domain 2. Mentoring programs

Mentoring programs [ 30 , 169 , 179 , 210 , 212 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 ] are often integrated [ 188 , 208 , 228 ] within the formal curriculum [ 7 ] and subject to oversight [ 176 , 229 ] and evaluation by the host organization [ 53 , 156 , 230 ]. The increased emphasis on oversight within mentorship has grown amidst mounting concerns about ethical issues in mentoring [ 1 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. While mentoring programs allow for a degree of flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness, these functions are constrained by host organization-related factors and standards [ 231 ]. There are concerted efforts to instil consistency into practice, as evident in the structuring of the mentoring trajectory through the mentoring framework, the personalization of mentoring experiences, support, and assessments [ 189 ], and the establishment of clear transition points from one mentoring stage to the next, ensuring that the required knowledge, skills [ 232 ], and competencies for progression have been acquired. Furthermore, there is an emphasis on establishing clear expectations [ 233 , 234 ] for the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders at each stage, particularly in light of their differing roles along the mentoring trajectory and maintaining clear standards for their engagement [ 202 ] as some stakeholders move in and out of various mentoring stages.

Moreover, mentoring programs can also establish clear areas of interest, goals, expectations, timelines, and entry criteria [ 210 ]. The mentoring project, setting, structure, and the faculty involved also help distinguish the mentoring process from other mentoring projects [ 38 ]. For example, the Palliative Medicine Initiative (PMI), as described by Krishna and colleagues, represents a structured research mentoring program jointly established within the Division of Supportive and Palliative Care and the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine at the University of Singapore. Comprised mainly of palliative care physicians and ethicists as mentors, the PMI is framed as a unique research-oriented mentoring program, with a specific focus on ethics and palliative care research.

Several authors frame mentoring projects in medical education as a community of practice (CoP). In CoPs, learning is a collaborative and social process. The unique nature of each mentoring project, with its specific inclusion and exclusion criteria [ 188 ], focal points, approaches, and distinct project boundaries underlie the notion that each project functions as a CoP. As most programs host more than one mentoring project, the mentoring program can be viewed as a landscape of practice (LoP), a complex tapestry of various CoPs [ 199 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 ]. This view of mentoring programs as LoPs is supported by recent studies [ 156 , 157 ], which reveal complexities within the mentoring process that arise when members of the host organization, mentors, or peer mentors engage in more than one project or CoP simultaneously, leading to a situation in which events or adaptations in one project can not only affect stakeholders in other CoPs but, perhaps more importantly, can also impact the nature and quality of their mentoring relationships in other projects within the LoP [ 156 ].

Stage 5: analysis of evidence-based and non-data driven literature

Evidenced-based data from bibliographic databases were separated from grey literature and opinion, perspectives, editorials, letters, and non-data-based articles drawn from bibliographic databases and both groups were thematically analysed separately. The themes from both groups were compared to determine if there were additional themes in the non-data-driven group that could influence the narrative. There was consensus from the research team that themes from non-data-driven and peer-reviewed evidence-based publications were similar and did not bias the analysis.

Stage 6: synthesis

In answering the research question “what characteristics of CAS are evident in mentoring?”, this review highlights how mentoring relationships involve multiple stakeholders and exhibit CAS-like features, such as emergence, adaptability, self-organization, co-evolution, non-linearity, path dependency, and a state far-from-equilibrium. These dynamics highlight the unpredictable and nonlinear nature of mentorship. However, traditional views of mentoring relationships impose rigid boundaries and predefined trajectories, akin to CoPs, which can stifle the natural evolution and complexity of mentoring relationships. The data challenge us to rethink how we define and approach mentorship, emphasizing the need to embrace its adaptability and self-organizing nature. They suggest that by acknowledging and leveraging the CAS-like characteristics of mentorship, we can foster more innovative and effective mentoring processes.

Our findings also emphasize that efforts to guide the mentoring process can occur at all stages of this journey. This is evident in how emergent behavior, adaptations, co-evolution, and self-organization are influenced by many host organization-related factors and are incorporated within professional codes of conduct, ethical standards, and organizational expectations. These features underscore the need for a more nuanced CAS-based theory to describe mentoring relationships and the factors that impact them. Adapting a resilience framework, or a model that emphasizes the capacity of systems to absorb disturbances, adapt to changing conditions, and maintain core functions [ 241 ], for example, to the context of CAS and mentorship in medical education can provide a different perspective on the dynamic and non-linear nature of mentorship relationships and how they can be influenced by factors such as feedback loops, emergence, self-organization, and adaptation. Ultimately, this can promote more supportive and sustainable approaches to mentoring to better address the diverse and evolving needs of mentees.

Our findings have several curricular and policy implications. First, given the multiple agents involved and the unpredictable nature of mentoring relationships [ 27 , 28 ], mentoring programs should be embedded within a formal framework. This structure allows the host organization to establish clear guidelines and align expectations, timelines, and support. Moreover, it promotes consensus on the mentoring approach, structure, trajectory, and stages. Within this formal structure, accessible, longitudinal training opportunities should be established. Communication, assessment, and support systems for all stakeholders can also be put in place to create an environment that is conducive to effective mentoring, thereby minimizing path dependency, or the impact of historical decisions or biases [ 27 , 28 ]. As mentorship relationships are non-linear whereby small changes can have a disproportionate impact on the mentee’s development and career trajectory [ 27 , 28 ], the host organization should take an active role in supporting mentor training and conducting regular assessments of individual projects and the program as a whole. This is particularly important as mentoring is recognized as a proactive process that relies on the involvement of mentoring faculty. This also acknowledges co-evolution in mentorship and supports bidirectional growth and learning between mentors and mentees. Formal recognition of mentor contributions is warranted, along with the allocation of protected time from clinical service to ensure that mentors can effectively meet their mentoring obligations.

To mitigate the risks and biases of path dependency [ 27 , 28 ], host organizations should evaluate institutional practices that may be influenced by historical factors and biases and conduct comprehensive, longitudinal assessments of the stakeholders, their mentoring relationships, progress, development, the program environment, structure, and approach. As part of this process, the use of mentoring diaries can provide a better understanding of mentee and mentor experiences over time and changing situations. Additionally, mentoring portfolios can provide multisource feedback and evidence of research, clinical, and professional development.

Limitations

Analysis of literature on mentoring programs in medical schools is largely drawn from North American and European practices, possibly limiting generalizability to non-Western settings. We limited the search to studies involving medical students and residents in internal medicine and related sub-specialties. Mentoring experiences of surgical and other non-medical specialty residents may be different. While introducing perspective data gives insights into the initiation and development of mentoring programs, selection or reporting bias may be introduced. Further, the applicability of the findings in other healthcare settings may be compromised by conflations of mentoring in clinical and non-clinical settings.

The literature supports the resemblance between mentorship and complex adaptive systems, highlighting the dynamic, emergent, and nonlinear nature of mentoring relationships, while advocating for a paradigm shift towards more supportive and efficient mentorship practices in medical education. Further study of the environments and boundaries of mentoring relationships are needed to guide our evolving perspective of mentoring.

Data availability

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional files.

Abbreviations

Complex Adaptive System

Systematic Evidence-Based Approach

Population, Concept Context

Professional Identity Formation

Community of Practice

Landscape of Practice

Cheong CWS, Chia EWY, Tay KT, Chua WJ, Lee FQH, Koh EYH, et al. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in internal medicine, family medicine and academic medicine. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020;25(2):415–39.

Article   Google Scholar  

Choo Hwee P, Hwee Sing K, Yong Hwang MK, Hum Yin Mei A. A qualitative study on the experiences and reflections of junior doctors during a palliative care rotation: perceptions of challenges and lessons learnt. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60(3):549–e558541.

Aslakson R, Kamal A, Gelfman L, Mazanec P, Morrison RS, Ferrell B, et al. Are you my mentor? A panel discussion featuring an all-star cast of AAHPM and HPNA mentors and mentees (th319). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015;49(2):342–3.

Zhukovsky DS, Bruera E, Rajagopal MR, Rodin G. B07-B building the future of palliative care: Mentoring our people. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;52(6):e18–9.

Defilippi KM, Cameron S. Promoting the integration of quality palliative care: the South African mentorship program. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;33(5):552–7.

Krishna LKR, Tan LHE, Ong YT, Tay KT, Hee JM, Chiam M, et al. Enhancing mentoring in palliative care: an evidence based mentoring framework. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520957649–2382120520957649.

Goh S, Wong RSM, Quah ELY, Chua KZY, Lim WQ, Ng ADR et al. Mentoring in palliative medicine in the time of COVID-19: A systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):Article 359.

Carey EC, Weissman DE. Understanding and finding mentorship: a review for junior faculty. J Palliat Med. 2010;13(11):1373–9.

Kashiwagi DT, Varkey P, Cook DA. Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88(7):1029–37.

Jacobi M. Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: a literature review. Rev Educ Res. 1991;61(4):505–32.

Ramani S, Kusurkar RA, Lyon-Maris J, Pyorala E, Rogers GD, Samarasekera DD et al. Mentorship in health professions education - an AMEE guide for mentors and mentees: AMEE guide 167. Med Teach. 2023:1–13.

Singh T, Singh A. Abusive culture in medical education: mentors must mend their ways. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(2):145–7.

Mahmoudi M. The need for a global committee on academic behaviour ethics. Lancet. 2019;394(10207):1410.

Abu-Zaid A. Protecting medical students against workplace research bullying: a graduate’s experience and standpoint. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2020;33(2):79–80.

Olaussen A, Reddy P, Irvine S, Williams B. Peer-assisted learning: time for nomenclature clarification. Med Educ Online. 2016;21(1):30974–8.

Gray K, Annabell L, Kennedy G. Medical students’ use of Facebook to support learning: insights from four case studies. Med Teach. 2010;32(12):971–6.

Klarare A, Hansson J, Fossum B, Fürst CJ, Lundh Hagelin C. Team type, team maturity and team effectiveness in specialist palliative home care: an exploratory questionnaire study. J Interprof Care. 2019;33(5):504–11.

Kow CS, Teo YH, Teo YN, Chua KZY, Quah ELY, Kamal NHBA, et al. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):Article246.

Kwok LS. The white bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. J Med Ethics. 2005;31(9):554–6.

Yeam CT, Wesley LTW, Margaret EHF, Kanesvaran R, Krishna LKR. An evidence-based evaluation of prevailing learning theories on mentoring in palliative medicine. Palliat Med Care. 2016;3(1):1–7.

Google Scholar  

Wesley L, Ikbal M, Wu J, Wahab M, Yeam C. Towards a practice guided evidence based theory of mentoring in palliative care. J Palliat Care Med. 2017;7(296):2.

Jones R, Brown D. The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: finding a model for our experience. Mentor Tutoring: Partnersh Learn. 2011;19(4):401–18.

Jones R, Corner J. Seeing the forest and the trees: a complex adaptive systems lens for mentoring. Hum Relat. 2012;65(3):391–411.

Woodruff JN. Accounting for complexity in medical education: a model of adaptive behaviour in medicine. Med Educ. 2019;53(9):861–73.

Smith PA, Palmberg K. Complex adaptive systems as metaphors for organizational management. Learn Organ. 2009;6(16).

Mennin S. Self-organisation, integration and curriculum in the complex world of medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):20–30.

Ellis B, Herbert S. Complex adaptive systems (cas): an overview of key elements, characteristics and application to management theory. Inf Prim Care. 2011;19:33–7.

Gear C, Eppel E, Koziol-McLain J. Advancing complexity theory as a qualitative research methodology. Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17:1–10.

Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Steinert Y. Medicine as a community of practice: implications for medical education. Acad Med. 2018;93(2):185–91.

Haas DM, Hadaie B, Ramirez M, Shanks AL, Scott NP. Resident research mentoring teams: a support program to increase resident research productivity. J Grad Med Educ. 2023;15(3):365–72.

Ravishankar M, Areti A, Kumar VR, Rani TS, Ananthakrishnan P. Competency-based postgraduate training: mentoring and monitoring using entrustable professional activities with descriptive rubrics for objectivity— a step beyond Dreyfus. Natl Med J India. 2024;36(3):176–81.

Toh RQE, Koh KK, Lua JK, Wong RSM, Quah ELY, Panda A et al. The role of mentoring, supervision, coaching, teaching and instruction on professional identity formation: A systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):Article 531.

Lim JY, Ong SYK, Ng CYH, Chan KLE, Wu SYEA, So WZ et al. A systematic scoping review of reflective writing in medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):Article 12.

Tay KT, Tan XH, Tan LHE, Vythilingam D, Chin AMC, Loh V, et al. A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of interprofessional mentoring in medicine from 2000 to 2019. J Interprof Care. 2021;35(6):927–39.

Teo KJH, Teo MYK, Pisupati A, Ong RSR, Goh CK, Seah CHX, et al. Assessing professional identity formation (PIF) amongst medical students in oncology and palliative medicine postings: a SEBA guided scoping review. BMC Palliat Care. 2022;21(1):Article200.

Osama T, Brindley D, Majeed A, Murray KA, Shah H, Toumazos M, et al. Teaching the relationship between health and climate change: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(5):e020330.

Pham MT, Rajic A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

Keating JA, Jasper A, Musuuza J, Templeton K, Safdar N. Supporting midcareer women faculty in academic medicine through mentorship and sponsorship. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2022;42(3):197–203.

Crampton PES, Afzali Y. Professional identity formation, intersectionality and equity in medical education. Med Educ. 2021;55(2):140–2.

Wyatt TR, Balmer D, Rockich-Winston N, Chow CJ, Richards J, Zaidi Z. Whispers and shadows’: a critical review of the professional identity literature with respect to minority physicians. Med Educ. 2021;55(2):148–58.

Chow CJ, Byington CL, Olson LM, Ramirez KPG, Zeng S, López AM. A conceptual model for understanding academic physicians’ performances of identity: findings from the University of Utah. Acad Med. 2018;93(10):1539–49.

Ong E, Krishna L. Perspective from Singapore. NUS; 2014.

Ong E, Krishna L, Neo P. The sociocultural and ethical issues behind the decision for artificial hydration in a young palliative patient with recurrent intestinal obstruction. Ethics Med. 2015;31(1):39–51.

Surbone A, Baider L. Personal values and cultural diversity. J Med Person. 2013;11(1):11–8.

Au A. Online physicians, offline patients. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2018;38(5–6):474–83.

Al-Abdulrazzaq D, Al-Fadhli A, Arshad A. Advanced medical students’ experiences and views on professionalism at Kuwait University. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):Article150.

Kavas MV, Demirören M, Koşan AMA, Karahan ST, Yalim NY. Turkish students’ perceptions of professionalism at the beginning and at the end of medical education: a cross-sectional qualitative study. Med Educ Online. 2015;20(1):26614.

Byszewski A, Hendelman W, McGuinty C, Moineau G. Wanted: role models - medical students’ perceptions of professionalism. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12(1):115.

Smith SE, Tallentire VR, Cameron HS, Wood SM. The effects of contributing to patient care on medical students’ workplace learning. Med Educ. 2013;47(12):1184–96.

Kenny NP, Mann KV, MacLeod H. Role modeling in physicians’ professional formation: reconsidering an essential but untapped educational strategy. Acad Med. 2003;78(12):1203–10.

Rosenblum ND, Kluijtmans M, Ten Cate O. Professional identity formation and the clinician–scientist: a paradigm for a clinical career combining two distinct disciplines. Acad Med. 2016;91(12):1612–7.

Meyer EM, Zapatka S, Brienza RS. The development of professional identity and the formation of teams in the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System’s Center of Excellence in Primary Care Education Program (CoEPCE). Acad Med. 2015;90(6):802–9.

Birden H, Glass N, Wilson I, Harrison M, Usherwood T, Nass D. Teaching professionalism in medical education: a best evidence medical education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide 25 Med Teach. 2013;35(7):e1252–1266.

Gilligan C, Loda T, Junne F, Zipfel S, Kelly B, Horton G, et al. Medical identity; perspectives of students from two countries. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):Article420.

Wang XM, Swinton M, You JJ. Medical students’ experiences with goals of care discussions and their impact on professional identity formation. Med Educ. 2019;53(12):1230–42.

Witman Y. What do we transfer in case discussions? The hidden curriculum in medicine…. Perspect Med Educ. 2014;3(2):113–123.

Hafferty FW, Franks R. The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Acad Med. 1994;69(11):861–71.

Whitehead C, Kuper A, Freeman R, Grundland B, Webster F. Compassionate care? A critical discourse analysis of accreditation standards. Med Educ. 2014;48(6):632–43.

Seoane L, Tompkins LM, De Conciliis A, Boysen PG. Virtues education in medical school: the foundation for professional formation. Ochsner J. 2016;16(1):50–5.

Gaufberg E, Bor D, Dinardo P, Krupat E, Pine E, Ogur B, et al. In pursuit of educational integrity: Professional identity formation in the Harvard Medical School Cambridge Integrated Clerkship. Perspect Biol Med. 2017;60(2):258–74.

Monrouxe LV. Identity, identification and medical education: why should we care? Med Educ. 2010;44(1):40–9.

Chuang AW, Nuthalapaty FS, Casey PM, Kaczmarczyk JM, Cullimore AJ, Dalrymple JL et al. To the point: Reviews in medical education - taking control of the hidden curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):316.e311-316.e316.

Kay D, Berry A, Coles NA. What experiences in medical school trigger professional identity development? Teach Learn Med. 2019;31(1):17–25.

Jarvis-Selinger S, Pratt DD, Regehr G. Competency is not enough: integrating identity formation into the medical education discourse. Acad Med. 2012;87(9):1185–90.

Frost HD, Regehr G. I am a doctor: negotiating the discourses of standardization and diversity in professional identity construction. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1570–7.

MacLeod A. Caring, competence and professional identities in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Prac. 2011;16(3):375–94.

Rodríguez C, López-Roig S, Pawlikowska T, Schweyer FX, Bélanger E, Pastor-Mira MA, et al. The influence of academic discourses on medical students’ identification with the discipline of family medicine. Acad Med. 2015;90(5):660–70.

Warmington S, McColl G. Medical student stories of participation in patient care-related activities: the construction of relational identity. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Prac. 2017;22(1):147–63.

Foster K, Roberts C. The heroic and the villainous: a qualitative study characterising the role models that shaped senior doctors’ professional identity. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):Article206.

Hendelman W, Byszewski A. Formation of medical student professional identity: categorizing lapses of professionalism, and the learning environment. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):Article139.

Sternszus R, Boudreau JD, Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Macdonald ME, Steinert Y. Clinical teachers’ perceptions of their role in professional identity formation. Acad Med. 2020;95(10):1594–9.

Jarvis-Selinger S, MacNeil KA, Costello GRL, Lee K, Holmes CL. Understanding professional identity formation in early clerkship: a novel framework. Acad Med. 2019;94(10):1574–80.

Sadeghi Avval Shahr H, Yazdani S, Afshar L. Professional socialization: an analytical definition. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2019;12(17).

Brody H, Doukas D, Professionalism. A framework to guide medical education. Med Educ. 2014;48(10):980–7.

Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Boudreau JD, Snell L, Steinert Y. A schematic representation of the professional identity formation and socialization of medical students and residents: a guide for medical educators. Acad Med. 2015;90(6):718–25.

Irby DM, Hamstra SJ. Parting the clouds: three professionalism frameworks in medical education. Acad Med. 2016;91(12):1606–11.

Huda N, Faden L, Wilson CA, Plouffe RA, Li E, Saini MK et al. The ebb and flow of identity formation and competence development in sub-specialty residents: study of a continuity training setting. [Preprint]. 2020.

Remmen R, Denekens J, Scherpbier A, Hermann I, van der Vleuten C, Royen PV, et al. An evaluation study of the didactic quality of clerkships. Med Educ. 2000;34(6):460–4.

Wearne SM, Butler L, Jones JA. Educating registrars in your practice. Aust Fam Physician. 2016;45(5):274–7.

Balmer DF, Serwint JR, Ruzek SB, Giardino AP. Understanding paediatric resident-continuity preceptor relationships through the lens of apprenticeship learning. Med Educ. 2008;42(9):923–9.

Leeuw J-VD, Buwalda HGAR, Wieringa-De Waard N, Van Dijk M. Learning from a role model: a cascade or whirlpool effect? Med Teach. 2015;37(5):482–9.

Lightman E, Kingdon S, Nelson M. A prolonged assistantship for final-year students. Clin Teach. 2015;12(2):115–20.

Nirodi P, El-Sayeh H, Henfrey H. Applying the apprenticeship model to psychiatry: an evaluation. Prog Neurol Psychiatry. 2018;22(1):25–9.

Ratanawongsa N, Teherani A, Hauer KE. Third-year medical students’ experiences with dying patients during the internal medicine clerkship: a qualitative study of the informal curriculum. Acad Med. 2005;80(7):641–7.

Dréano-Hartz S, Rhondali W, Ledoux M, Ruer M, Berthiller J, Schott A-M, et al. Burnout among physicians in palliative care: impact of clinical settings. Palliat Support Care. 2016;14(4):402–10.

Koh MYH, Hum AYM, Khoo HS, Ho AHY, Chong PH, Ong WY, et al. Burnout and resilience after a decade in palliative care: what survivors have to teach us. A qualitative study of palliative care clinicians with more than 10 years of experience. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;59(1):105–15.

Lehto RH, Heeter C, Forman J, Shanafelt T, Kamal A, Miller P, et al. Hospice employees’ perceptions of their work environment: a focus group perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):6147.

Koh MYH, Chong PH, Neo PSH, Ong YJ, Yong WC, Ong WY, et al. Burnout, psychological morbidity and use of coping mechanisms among palliative care practitioners: a multi-centre cross-sectional study. Palliat Med. 2015;29(7):633–42.

Back AL, Steinhauser KE, Kamal AH, Jackson VA. Building resilience for palliative care clinicians: an approach to burnout prevention based on individual skills and workplace factors. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;52(2):284–91.

Kavalieratos D, Siconolfi DE, Steinhauser KE, Bull J, Arnold RM, Swetz KM, et al. “It is like heart failure. It is chronic...And it will kill you”: A qualitative analysis of burnout among hospice and palliative care clinicians. J Pain Symptom Manage 2017;53(5):901–910.e901.

Ercolani G, Varani S, Peghetti B, Franchini L, Malerba MB, Messana R, et al. Burnout in home palliative care: what is the role of coping strategies? J Palliat Care. 2020;35(1):46–52.

Tan BYQ, Kanneganti A, Lim LJH, Tan M, Chua YX, Tan L, et al. Burnout and associated factors among health care workers in Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(12):1751–e17581755.

Dijxhoorn A-FQ, Brom L, van der Linden YM, Leget C, Raijmakers NJ. Prevalence of burnout in healthcare professionals providing palliative care and the effect of interventions to reduce symptoms: a systematic literature review. Palliat Med. 2021;35(1):6–26.

Teo YH, Peh TY, Abdurrahman A, Lee A, Chiam M, Fong W et al. A modified delphi approach to enhance nurturing of professionalism in postgraduate medical education in Singapore. Singap Med J. 2021.

Hee JM, Yap HW, Ong ZX, Quek SQM, Toh YP, Mason S, et al. Understanding the mentoring environment through thematic analysis of the learning environment in medical education: a systematic review. JJ Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(10):2190–9.

Lim SYS, Koh EYH, Tan BJX, Toh YP, Mason S, Krishna LKR. Enhancing geriatric oncology training through a combination of novice mentoring and peer and near-peer mentoring: a thematic analysis ofmentoring in medicine between 2000 and 2017. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11(4):566–75.

Kilbertus F, Ajjawi R, Archibald DB. You’re not trying to save somebody from death: learning as becoming in palliative care. Acad Med. 2018;93(6):929–36.

Burford B. Group processes in medical education: learning from social identity theory. Med Educ. 2012;46(2):143–52.

Sawatsky AP, Nordhues HC, Merry SP, Bashir MU, Hafferty FW. Transformative learning and professional identity formation during international health electives: a qualitative study using grounded theory. Acad Med. 2018;93(9):1381–90.

Soo J, Brett-MacLean P, Cave M-T, Oswald A. At the precipice: a prospective exploration of medical students’ expectations of the pre-clerkship to clerkship transition. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(1):141–62.

Hamstra SJ, Woodrow SI, Mangrulkar RS. Feeling pressure to stay late: Socialisation and professional identity formation in graduate medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(1):7–9.

Wilson I, Cowin LS, Johnson M, Young H. Professional identity in medical students: pedagogical challenges to medical education. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(4):369–73.

Wald HS, White J, Reis SP, Esquibel AY, Anthony D. Grappling with complexity: medical students’ reflective writings about challenging patient encounters as a window into professional identity formation. Med Teach. 2019;41(2):152–60.

Matthews R, Smith-Han K, Nicholson H. From physiotherapy to the army: negotiating previously developed professional identities in mature medical students. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020;25(3):607–27.

Stuart E, O’Leary D, Rowntree R, Carey C, O’Rourke L, O’Brien E, et al. Challenges in experiential learning during transition to clinical practice: a comparative analysis of reflective writing assignments during general practice, paediatrics and psychiatry clerkships. Med Teach. 2020;42(11):1275–82.

Rosenthal S, Howard B, Schlussel YR, Herrigel D, Smolarz BG, Gable B, et al. Humanism at heart: preserving empathy in third-year medical students. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):350–8.

Wright SM, Levine RB, Beasley B, Haidet P, Gress TW, Caccamese S, et al. Personal growth and its correlates during residency training. Med Educ. 2006;40(8):737–45.

Levine RB, Haidet P, Kern DE, Beasley BW, Bensinger L, Brady DW, et al. Personal growth during internship. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):564–9.

Fischer MA, Haley H-L, Saarinen CL, Chretien KC. Comparison of blogged and written reflections in two medicine clerkships. Med Educ. 2011;45(2):166–75.

Kern DE, Wright SM, Carrese JA, Lipkin M Jr., Simmons JM, Novack DH, et al. Personal growth in medical faculty: a qualitative study. West J Med. 2001;175(2):92–8.

Kimmons R, Veletsianos G. The fragmented educator 2.0: Social networking sites, acceptable identity fragments, and the identity constellation. Comput Educ. 2014;72:292–301.

Gosselink MJ. Medical weblogs: advocacy for positive cyber role models. Clin Teach. 2011;8(4):245–8.

Fieseler C, Meckel M, Ranzini G. Professional personae - how organizational identification shapes online identity in the workplace. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2014;20(2):153–70.

Stokes J, Price B. Social media, visual culture and contemporary identity. Open Cybern Syst J. 2017:159–63.

Maghrabi RO, Oakley RL, Nemati HR. The impact of self-selected identity on productive or perverse social capital in social network sites. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;33:367–71.

Hojat M, Vergare MJ, Maxwell K, Brainard G, Herrine SK, Isenberg GA, et al. The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):1182–91.

Newton BW, Barber L, Clardy J, Cleveland E, O’Sullivan P. Is there hardening of the heart during medical school? Acad Med. 2008;83(3):244–9.

Kaczmarczyk JM, Chuang A, Dugoff L, Abbott JF, Cullimore AJ, Dalrymple J, et al. E-professionalism: a new frontier in medical education. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(2):165–70.

Brown J, Reid H, Dornan T, Nestel D. Becoming a clinician: Trainee identity formation within the general practice supervisory relationship. Med Educ. 2020;54(11):993–1005.

Henschen BL, Bierman JA, Wayne DB, Ryan ER, Thomas JX, Curry RH, et al. Four-year educational and patient care outcomes of a team-based primary care longitudinal clerkship. Acad Med. 2015;90(11 Suppl):S43–49.

Lim-Dunham JE, Ensminger DC, McNulty JA, Hoyt AE, Chandrasekhar AJ. A vertically integrated online radiology curriculum developed as a cognitive apprenticeship: impact on student performance and learning. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(2):252–61.

Sen Gupta TK, Muray RB, McDonell A, Murphy B, Underhill AD. Rural internships for final year students: clinical experience, education and workforce. Rural Remote Health. 2008;8(1):827.

Yardley S, Teunissen PW, Dornan T. Experiential learning: AMEE guide 63. Med Teach. 2012;34(2):e102–115.

Dickinson BL, Gibson K, VanDerKolk K, Greene J, Rosu CA, Navedo DD et al. It is this very knowledge that makes us doctors: An applied thematic analysis of how medical students perceive the relevance of biomedical science knowledge to clinical medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):Article 356.

Sarraf-Yazdi S, Teo YN, How AEH, Teo YH, Goh S, Kow CS, et al. A scoping review of professional identity formation in undergraduate medical education. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(11):3511–21.

Alford CL, Currie DM. Introducing first-year medical students to clinical practice by having them shadow third-year clerks. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16(3):260–3.

Boudreau JD, Macdonald ME, Steinert Y. Affirming professional identities through an apprenticeship: insights from a four-year longitudinal case study. Acad Med. 2014;89(7):1038–45.

Peer KS. Professional identity formation: considerations for athletic training education. Athl Train Educ J. 2016;11(3):125–6.

Klamen DL, Williams R, Hingle S. Getting real: aligning the learning needs of clerkship students with the current clinical environment. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):53–8.

Régo P, Peterson R, Callaway L, Ward M, O’Brien C, Donald K. Using a structured clinical coaching program to improve clinical skills training and assessment, as well as teachers’ and students’ satisfaction. Med Teach. 2009;31(12):e586–595.

Gheasuddin AN, Misra R, Patel J. Use of an apprenticeship model to facilitate prescribing learning on clinical placements. Med Teach. 2022;44(8):940.

Bettin KA. The role of mentoring in the professional identity formation of medical students. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020;52(1).

Baerheim A, Thesen J. Medical students’ evaluation of preceptorship in general practice in Vestlandet. Tidsskr nor Laegeforen. 2003;123(16):2271–3.

Golden BP, Henschen BL, Gard LA, Ryan ER, Evans DB, Bierman J, et al. Learning to be a doctor: medical students’ perception of their roles in longitudinal outpatient clerkships. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(11):2018–24.

Harris GD, Professionalism. Part ii - teaching and assessing the learner’s professionalism. Fam Med. 2004;36(6):390–2.

Sheu L, Goglin S, Collins S, Cornett P, Clemons S, O’Sullivan PS. How do clinical electives during the clerkship year influence career exploration? A qualitative study. Teach Learn Med. 2021:1–11.

Hay A, Smithson S, Mann K, Dornan T. Medical students’ reactions to an experience-based learning model of clinical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2013;2(2):58–71.

Abbey L, Willett R, Selby-Penczak R, McKnight R. Social learning: medical student perceptions of geriatric house calls. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2010;31(2):149–62.

Côté L, Laughrea PA. Preceptors’ understanding and use of role modeling to develop the canmeds competencies in residents. Acad Med. 2014;89(6):934–9.

Goldstein EA, MacLaren CF, Smith S, Mengert TJ, Maestas RR, Foy HM, et al. Promoting fundamental clinical skills: a competency-based college approach at the University of Washington. Acad Med. 2005;80(5):423–33.

Jones K, Reis S. Learning through vulnerability: a mentor-mentee experience. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(6):552–5.

Kalén S, Stenfors-Hayes T, Hylin U, Larm MF, Hindbeck H, Ponzer S. Mentoring medical students during clinical courses: a way to enhance professional development. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):e315–321.

Tariq M, Iqbal S, Haider SI, Abbas A. Using the cognitive apprenticeship model to identify learning strategies that learners view as effective in ward rounds. Postgrad Med J. 2021;97(1143):5–9.

Braniff C, Spence RA, Stevenson M, Boohan M, Watson P. Assistantship improves medical students’ perception of their preparedness for starting work. Med Teach. 2016;38(1):51–8.

Iwata K, Gill D. Learning through work: clinical shadowing of junior doctors by first year medical students. Med Teach. 2013;35(8):633–8.

Bleakley A. Pre-registration house officers and ward-based learning: a ‘new apprenticeship’ model. Med Educ. 2002;36(1):9–15.

Brody DS, Ryan K, Kuzma MA, Suppl. S105–109.

Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company; 2006.

Ng YX, Koh ZYK, Yap HW, Tay KT, Tan XH, Ong YT, et al. Assessing mentoring: a scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232511.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):72–8.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;59(1).

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. Rameses publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):Article20.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Ong YT, Quek CWN, Pisupati A, Loh EKY, Venktaramana V, Chiam M, et al. Mentoring future mentors in undergraduate medical education. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(9):e0273358–0273358.

Venktaramana V, Ong YT, Yeo JW, Pisupati A, Krishna LKR. Understanding mentoring relationships between mentees, peer and senior mentors. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):76.

Chan JSK, Lau D, King E, Roever L, Liu T, Shum Y, et al. Virtual medical research mentoring. Clin Teach. 2023;20(4):e13598.

Joe MB, Cusano A, Leckie J, Czuczman N, Exner K, Yong H, et al. Mentorship programs in residency: a scoping review. J Grad Med Educ. 2023;15(2):190–200.

Lupi A, Shu L, Lopez A. Local mentoring as a strategy to recruit a more diverse physician workforce. Acad Med. 2022;97(6):779–80.

Krishna LKR, Pisupati A, Ong YT, Teo KJH, Teo MYK, Venktaramana V, et al. Assessing the effects of a mentoring program on professional identity formation. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):Article799.

Krishna LKR, Pisupati A, Teo KJH, Teo MYK, Quek CWN, Chua KZY, et al. Professional identity formation amongst peer-mentors in a research-based mentoring programme. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):Article787.

Munoz JA, Sarmiento MA, Alejandra Esparza Y, Shipp A, Luisa Veloz A, Edith Esparza Y, et al. Mentoring medical students: voices from Zoom rooms during the pandemic. Int J Divers Educ. 2022;23(1):25–34.

Drossard S, Härtl A. Development and implementation of digital peer mentoring in small groups for first-year medical students. GMS J Med Educ. 2024;41(1):Doc11.

Scholz A, Gehres V, Schrimpf A, Bleckwenn M, Deutsch T, Geier AK. Long-term mentoring relationships in undergraduate longitudinal general practice tracks - a qualitative study on the perspective of students and general practitioners. Med Educ Online. 2023;28(1):2149252.

Shen MR, Tzioumis E, Andersen E, Wouk K, McCall R, Li W, et al. Impact of mentoring on academic career success for women in medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2022;97(3):444–58.

Hartlage CS, Sosa DM. Everyone deserves a seat at the table: mentoring to uplift minoritized trainees. Acad Med. 2023.

Lee SI, Bluemke DA. Mentoring in academic radiology. Radiology. 2022;303(1):E20–2.

Sharma A, Leeper H, Bang S, Molaie D, Porter AB. The impact of mentoring on early career faculty: Assessment of a virtual mentoring program. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16).

Murphy M, Record H, Callander JK, Dohan D, Grandis JR. Mentoring relationships and gender inequities in academic medicine: findings from a multi-institutional qualitative study. Acad Med. 2022;97(1):136–42.

Farrukh K, Hoor T. Online mentoring session during COVID-19: experiences of mentees and mentors - a phenomenology. Prof Med J. 2022;29(12):1886–91.

Bui DT, Barnett T, Hoang H, Chinthammit W. Development of a framework to support situational tele-mentorship of rural and remote practice. Med Teach. 2023;45(6):642–9.

Ramani S, Chugh N, Chisolm MS, Hays R, McKimm J, Kusurkar R, et al. Mentoring relationships: a mentee’s journey. Acad Med. 2023;98(3):423.

Williams JS, Walker RJ, Burgess KM, Shay LA, Schmidt S, Tsevat J, et al. Mentoring strategies to support diversity in research-focused junior faculty: a scoping review. J Clin Transl Sci. 2023;7(1):e21.

Koven S. What is a mentor? N Engl J Med. 2024;390(8):683–5.

Jafari M, Moodi Ghalibaf A. Peer-research learning and mentoring for undergraduate medical students: benefits and challenges. Res Dev Med Educ. 2022;11:19.

Kalet A, Libby AM, Jagsi R, Brady K, Chavis-Keeling D, Pillinger MH, et al. Mentoring underrepresented minority physician-scientists to success. Acad Med. 2022;97(4):497–502.

Koh EYH, Koh KK, Renganathan Y, Krishna L. Role modelling in professional identity formation: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):194.

Stadtlander L, Ozcan A, Johnson L, Nicholson B, Hyder N. Faculty and student online mentoring preferences. J Educ Res Pract. 2022;12(1).

Heffernan L, O’Dowd E. Em and me: near-peer mentoring in an emergency department. Ir Med J. 2023;116(10):874–83.

Behkam S, Tavallaei A, Maghbouli N, Mafinejad MK, Ali JH. Students’ perception of educational environment based on Dundee ready education environment measure and the role of peer mentoring: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):Article176.

Pfund C, Sancheznieto F, Byars-Winston A, Zárate S, Black S, Birren B et al. Evaluation of a culturally responsive mentorship education program for the advisers of howard hughes medical institute gilliam program graduate students. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022;21(3):Article 50.

Hill SEM, Ward WL, Seay A, Buzenski J. The nature and evolution of the mentoring relationship in academic health centers. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2022;29(3):557–69.

Jan S, Mahboob U. Online mentoring: challenges and strategies. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(8):2272–7.

Krishna L, Toh YP, Mason S, Kanesvaran R. Mentoring stages: a study of undergraduate mentoring in palliative medicine in Singapore. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(4):e0214643.

Hee J, Toh YL, Yap HW, Toh YP, Kanesvaran R, Mason S, et al. The development and design of a framework to match mentees and mentors through a systematic review and thematic analysis of mentoring programs between 2000 and 2015. Mentor Tutoring: Partnersh Learn. 2020;28(3):340–64.

Schrempf S, Herrigel L, Pohlmann J, Griewatz J, Lammerding-Köppel M. Everybody is able to reflect, or aren’t they? Evaluating the development of medical professionalism via a longitudinal portfolio mentoring program from a student perspective. GMS J Med Educ. 2022;39(1):Doc12.

Junn JC, Whitman GJ, Wasnik AP, Wang MX, Guelfguat M, Goodman ED, et al. Virtual mentoring: a guide to navigating a new age in mentorship. Acad Radiol. 2023;30(4):749–54.

Lakhani DA, Swaney KJ, Hogg JP. Resident managed peer-mentoring program: a novel way to engage medical students and radiology residents in collaborative research. Acad Radiol. 2022;29(9):1425–31.

Dancer JM. Mentoring in healthcare: theory in search of practice? Clin Manag. 2003;12(1):21–31.

Welsh ET, Bhave D, yong Kim K. Are you my mentor? Informal mentoring mutual identification. Career Dev Int. 2012;17(2):137–48.

Reiss TF, Moss J, Watkins TR, Malhotra A. BEAR cage: mentoring through engagement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(7):714–6.

Sonawane T, Meshram R, Jagia G, Gajbhiye R, Adhikari S. Effects of mentoring in first year medical undergraduate students using DASS-21. J Clin Diagn Res. 2021;15(11):7–10.

Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B. The impact of mentoring during postgraduate training on doctors’ career success. Med Educ. 2011;45(5):488–96.

Yehia BR, Cronholm PF, Wilson N, Palmer SC, Sisson SD, Guilliames CE et al. Mentorship and pursuit of academic medicine careers: A mixed methods study of residents from diverse backgrounds. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):Article 26.

Eby LT, Butts MM, Durley J, Ragins BR. Are bad experiences stronger than good ones in mentoring relationships? Evidence from the protégé and mentor perspective. J Vocat Behav. 2010;77(1):81–92.

Mohd Shafiaai MSF, Kadirvelu A, Pamidi N. Peer mentoring experience on becoming a good doctor: student perspectives. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):Article494.

Morrison LJ, Lorens E, Bandiera G, Liles WC, Lee L, Hyland R, et al. Impact of a formal mentoring program on academic promotion of department of medicine faculty: a comparative study. Med Teach. 2014;36(7):608–14.

Ng CH, Ong ZH, Koh JWH, Ang RZE, Tan LHS, Tay KT, et al. Enhancing interprofessional communications training in internal medicine. Lessons drawn from a systematic scoping review from 2000 to 2018. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2020;40(1):27–35.

Pinilla S, Pander T, von der Borch P, Fischer MR, Dimitriadis K. 5 years of experience with a large-scale mentoring program for medical students. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2015;32(1):Doc5.

Sng JH, Pei Y, Toh YP, Peh TY, Neo SH, Krishna LKR. Mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students: a thematic review. Med Teach. 2017;39(8):866–75.

Farid H, Bain P, Huang G. A scoping review of peer mentoring in medicine. Clin Teach. 2022;19(5):e13512.

Li MK, Adus SL, Weyman K. There’s always something to talk about! The unexpected benefits of going virtual in a Canadian diversity mentorship program. Can Med Educ J. 2022;13(1):90–2.

Frizell CA, Caruthers KL, Sturges D. Intentional mentoring of healthcare provider students from underrepresented groups in medicine. Med Sci Educ. 2023;33(3):807–8.

Aziz A, Shadab W, Siddique L, Mahboob U. Exploring the experiences of struggling undergraduate medical students with formal mentoring program at a private medical college in Rawalpindi. Pak J Med Sci. 2023;39(3):815–9.

Penaloza NG, Ardines KEZ, Does S, Washington SL III, Tandel MD, Braddock CH III, et al. Someone like me: an examination of the importance of race-concordant mentorship in urology. Urology. 2023;171:41–8.

Silver JK. Six practical strategies to mentor and sponsor women in academic medicine. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e47799.

Verhoef L, Vivekanantham A, Berti A, Bolek E, Smeele H, Oztas M, et al. The emerging eular network (emeunet) peer-review mentoring program: ten years of initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:202–3.

Chia EWY, Tay KT, Xiao S, Teo YH, Ong YT, Chiam M, et al. The pivotal role of host organizations in enhancing mentoring in internal medicine: a scoping review. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520956647.

Cameron KA, Rodrigues TJ, Keswani RN. Developing a mentoring network to navigate fellowship and beyond: moving from mentor to mentors. Gastroenterology. 2024;166(5):723–e727721.

Silver JK, Gavini N. The push-pull mentoring model: ensuring the success of mentors and mentees. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e48037.

Kuzman M. Academic mentoring for psychiatric trainees during the pandemic. Eur Psychiatry. 2022;65:S60.

Tetzlaff J, Lomberk G, Smith HM, Agrawal H, Siegel DH, Apps JN. Adapting mentoring in times of crisis: what we learned from COVID-19. Acad Psychiatry. 2022;46(6):774–9.

Barron B. Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: a learning ecology perspective. Hum Dev. 2006;49(4):193–224.

Karcher MJ, Kuperminc GP, Portwood SG, Sipe CL, Taylor AS. Mentoring programs: a framework to inform program development, research, and evaluation. J Community Psychol. 2006;34(6):709–25.

Wells JN, Cagle CS. Preparation and participation of undergraduate students to inform culturally sensitive research. Nurse Educ Today. 2009;29(5):505–9.

Bozeman B, Feeney MK. Toward a useful theory of mentoring: a conceptual analysis and critique. Admin Soc. 2007;39(6):719–39.

Indyk D, Deen D, Fornari A, Santos MT, Lu W-H, Rucker L. The influence of longitudinal mentoring on medical student selection of primary care residencies. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11(1):Article27.

Meeuwissen SN, Stalmeijer RE, Govaerts M. Multiple-role mentoring: mentors’ conceptualisations, enactments and role conflicts. Med Educ. 2019;53(6):605–15.

Rangachari D, Brown LE, Kern DE, Melia MT. Clinical coaching: evolving the apprenticeship model for modern housestaff. Med Teach. 2017;39(7):780–2.

Pront L, Gillham D, Schuwirth LW. Competencies to enable learning-focused clinical supervision: a thematic analysis of the literature. Med Educ. 2016;50(4):485–95.

Yang MM, Golden BP, Cameron KA, Gard L, Bierman JA, Evans DB, et al. Learning through teaching: peer teaching and mentoring experiences among third-year medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2022;34(4):360–7.

Lynn L, Stadtlander L, Inman D, Burkholder G, Morgan A. Transforming doctoral mentoring expectations and culture: an action model approach. New Dir Teach Learn. 2023;2023(176):75–82.

Moore JL, Myers A, McConnell H. Mentoring high-impact undergraduate research experiences. Pedagogy. 2022;22(1):17–21.

Mishra MK. Evidence-based learning modules and culturally responsive mentoring to engage underserved undergraduate students. J Immunol. 2022;208(1Supplement):106116.

Moawad H. Best practices for mentoring new physicians. Oncology. 2022 2022/02//:127.

Hoffmeyer C, Milliren A, Eckstein D. The Hoffmeyer mentoring activity checklist: invitations to professional growth. J Invitational Theory Pract. 2022;11:54–62.

Palmeri M, Bono K, Huang A, Gunther JR, Mattes MD. Characterization of research mentorship during medical school for future radiation oncology trainees. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2024;9(5):101460.

De Rosa S, Battaglini D, Bennett V, Rodriguez-Ruiz E, Zaher AMS, Galarza L, et al. Key steps and suggestions for a promising approach to a critical care mentoring program. J Anesth Analg Crit Care. 2023;3(1):30.

Jacob RA, Williams PN, Chisty A. Twelve tips for developing and maintaining a successful peer mentoring program for junior faculty in academic medicine. Med Teach. 2022;45(3):252–6.

Templeton NR, Jeong S, Villarreal E. Editorial overview: mentoring to support professional knowledge. Mentor Tutoring: Partnersh Learn. 2022;30(3):275–9.

Rallis KS, Wozniak A, Hui S, Stammer A, Cinar C, Sun M, et al. Mentoring medical students towards oncology: results from a pilot multi-institutional mentorship programme. J Cancer Educ. 2022;37(4):1053–65.

Kusner JJ, Chen JJ, Saldaña F, Potter J. Aligning student-faculty mentorship expectations and needs to promote professional identity formation in undergraduate medical education. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2022;9:23821205221096307.

Khatun M, Akter P, Yunus S, Alam K, Pedersen C, Byrskog U, et al. Challenges to implement evidence-based midwifery care in Bangladesh. An interview study with medical doctors mentoring health care providers. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2022;31:100692.

Torre DM, Daley BJ, Sebastian JL, Elnicki DM. Overview of current learning theories for medical educators. Am J Med. 2006;119(10):903–7.

Gormley B. An application of attachment theory: mentoring relationship dynamics and ethical concerns. Mentor Tutoring: Partnersh Learn. 2008;16(1):45–62.

Taylor DC, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE guide 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–72.

Lewis C, Olshansky E. Relational-cultural theory as a framework for mentoring in academia: toward diversity and growth-fostering collaborative scholarly relationships. Mentor Tutoring: Partnersh Learn. 2016;24(5):383–98.

Heeneman S, de Grave W. Tensions in mentoring medical students toward self-directed and reflective learning in a longitudinal portfolio-based mentoring system–an activity theory analysis. Med Teach. 2017;39(4):368–76.

Irby BJ, Boswell JN, Searby LJ, Kochan F, Garza R, Abdelrahman N. The Wiley international handbook of mentoring: Wiley; 2020.

Wadi MM, Yusoff MSB, Taha MH, Shorbagi S, Nik Lah NAZ, Abdul Rahim AF. The framework of systematic Assessment for Resilience (SAR): development and validation. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1): Article 213.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Annelissa Chew Chin for her expert guidance and advice in designing our search strategy. The authors would like to dedicate this paper to the late Dr. S Radha Krishna and A/Prof Cynthia Goh whose advice and ideas were integral to the success of this review and Thondy, Maia Olivia and Raja Kamarul whose lives continue to inspire us.The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments which greatly enhanced this manuscript.

No funding was received for this review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Level 11 NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore

Mac Yu Kai Teo, Casper Keegan Ronggui Lin, Ranitha Govindasamy, Jia Ling Goh, Yi Zhou, Kuang Teck Tay, Ryan Rui Song Ong, Vanessa Tan, Youru Toh, Anushka Pisupati, Vijayprasanth Raveendran, Keith Zi Yuan Chua, Elaine Li Ying Quah, Jeevasuba Sivakumar, Samyuktha Dhanalakshmi Senthilkumar, Keerthana Suresh, Wesley Teck Wee Loo, Ruth Si Man Wong, Yiying Pei, Julia Huina Sng, Simone Qian Min Quek & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 30 Hospital Boulevard, Singapore, 168583, Singapore

Mac Yu Kai Teo, Casper Keegan Ronggui Lin, Jia Ling Goh, Yi Zhou, Kuang Teck Tay, Ryan Rui Song Ong, Vanessa Tan, Youru Toh, Anushka Pisupati, Vijayprasanth Raveendran, Keith Zi Yuan Chua, Elaine Li Ying Quah, Jeevasuba Sivakumar, Samyuktha Dhanalakshmi Senthilkumar, Keerthana Suresh, Wesley Teck Wee Loo, Ruth Si Man Wong, Yiying Pei, Julia Huina Sng, Simone Qian Min Quek, Eng Koon Ong, Gillian Li Gek Phua & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Division of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 30 Hospital Boulevard, Singapore, 168583, Singapore

Mac Yu Kai Teo, Casper Keegan Ronggui Lin, Nur Amira Binte Abdul Hamid, Ranitha Govindasamy, Nagavalli Somasundaram, Jia Ling Goh, Yi Zhou, Kuang Teck Tay, Ryan Rui Song Ong, Vanessa Tan, Youru Toh, Anushka Pisupati, Vijayprasanth Raveendran, Keith Zi Yuan Chua, Elaine Li Ying Quah, Jeevasuba Sivakumar, Samyuktha Dhanalakshmi Senthilkumar, Keerthana Suresh, Wesley Teck Wee Loo, Ruth Si Man Wong, Yiying Pei, Julia Huina Sng, Simone Qian Min Quek, Jasmine Lerk Juan Owyong, Ting Ting Yeoh, Eng Koon Ong, Simon Yew Kuang Ong & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Department of Medical Sciences, Khalifa University College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Halah Ibrahim

Department of Pharmacy, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 30 Hospital Boulevard, Singapore, 168583, Singapore

Casper Keegan Ronggui Lin & Ting Ting Yeoh

Centre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Blk MD11, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, #02-03, 117597, Singapore

Casper Keegan Ronggui Lin, Ranitha Govindasamy & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore

Nagavalli Somasundaram, Eng Koon Ong, Anupama Roy Chowdhury, Simon Yew Kuang Ong & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 30 Hospital Boulevard, Singapore, 168583, Singapore

Nagavalli Somasundaram, Crystal Lim & Simon Yew Kuang Ong

Medical Social Services, Singapore General Hospital, Block 3, Singapore, 169854, Singapore

Crystal Lim

Assisi Hospice, 832 Thomson Road, Singapore, 574627, Singapore

Eng Koon Ong

Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore

Gillian Li Gek Phua

Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, Academic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, Cancer Research Centre, University of Liverpool, 200 London Road, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK

Stephen Mason & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building The Quadrangle, Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK

Ruaraidh Hill & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Department of Geriatric Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Academia, Level 3, College Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

Anupama Roy Chowdhury

PalC, The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, PalC c/o Dover Park Hospice, 10 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 308436, Singapore

Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors MYKT, HI, CKLR, NABAH, RG, NS, CL, JLG, YZ, KTT, RRSO, VT, TY, AP, VR, KZYC, ELYQ, JS, SDS, KS, WTWL, RSMW, YP, JHS, SQMQ, JLJO, TTY, EKO, GLGP, SM, RH, ARC, SYKO, and LKRK were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, preparing the original draft of the manuscript as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Teo, M.Y.K., Ibrahim, H., Lin, C.K.R. et al. Mentoring as a complex adaptive system – a systematic scoping review of prevailing mentoring theories in medical education. BMC Med Educ 24 , 726 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05707-5

Download citation

Received : 22 February 2024

Accepted : 25 June 2024

Published : 05 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05707-5

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

• Medical education
• Host organization
• Communities of practice
• Mentorship theories

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• DOI: 10.35631/ijepc.954013
• Corpus ID: 271053072

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN CAMBODIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW

• Vireak Keo , Sam Rany , +1 author Rouet Wen
• Published in International Journal of… 13 June 2024
• Education, Computer Science

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers