Lesson Title: Research Methods—Literature Review and Citation Norms
Thesis and Rationale
Thesis: Effective literature reviews and the rigorous application of citation norms are foundational to credible research because they enable scholars to synthesize existing knowledge systematically, avoid common reasoning and reporting errors, and communicate findings with transparency and integrity.
Rationale: Research handbooks emphasize that literature reviews are not mere summaries but analytic syntheses that map debates, identify gaps, and justify research designs (Booth, Colomb, Williams, Bizup, & Fitzgerald, 2016; Booth, Sutton, & Papaioannou, 2016). Transparent procedures for searching, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing evidence underpin review quality (Booth et al., 2016; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & PRISMA Group, 2009). Equally, adherence to established citation standards (e.g., APA 7th) promotes scholarly integrity, precise attribution, and traceability of claims, and reduces plagiarism risks (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020; Roig, 2015).
Course Context
- Audience: Upper-division undergraduate or early graduate students in a research methods course.
- Duration: 60 minutes.
- Prerequisites: Basic familiarity with academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar, Scopus), and prior exposure to research questions in the discipline.
Learning Outcomes (measurable; aligned to Bloom’s taxonomy)
By the end of the session, students will be able to:
- Differentiate among common review types (narrative, scoping, systematic) and articulate the purpose of a literature review within a research project (understand; analyze).
- Formulate a focused, researchable question and translate it into a reproducible search strategy using Boolean operators, keywords, and controlled vocabulary (apply).
- Evaluate the credibility and relevance of sources using explicit appraisal criteria (e.g., CASP prompts; methodological fit) (analyze; evaluate).
- Produce accurate APA 7th in-text citations and reference entries for at least two common source types (journal article and book), and paraphrase appropriately to avoid patchwriting and plagiarism (apply; evaluate).
Standards and Citation Style
- Citation style taught and assessed: APA 7th (APA, 2020).
- Academic integrity guidance draws on ORI best practices (Roig, 2015).
Materials and Technology
- Slides with worked examples.
- Access to one academic database (institutional discovery tool or Google Scholar).
- Two anonymized sample abstracts for appraisal.
- One-page APA 7th quick guide (instructor-produced).
- Handout: Boolean operators and search syntax cheatsheet.
- Short worksheet for in-class exercises and exit ticket.
Lesson Sequence (60 minutes)
0–5 min: Orientation and Diagnostic Prompt
- State thesis and outcomes; situate the session in the broader research process.
- Quick diagnostic poll: “What is the primary purpose of a literature review?” (options: summarize, synthesize, justify research gap, all of the above). Use responses to correct misconceptions (Booth et al., 2016).
5–15 min: Mini-lecture—Scope and Types of Literature Review
- Purpose and value: situating the problem, defining constructs, identifying gaps, informing design and methods (Booth et al., 2016).
- Types and trade-offs:
- Narrative/traditional review: breadth and argumentation; risks of bias if methods are opaque.
- Scoping review: mapping breadth, clarifying concepts; not typically appraising quality.
- Systematic review: predefined protocol, transparent selection, critical appraisal, reproducible synthesis (Booth et al., 2016; Moher et al., 2009).
- Framing the question: demonstrate a discipline-neutral approach (topic–relationship–constraint) and briefly note structured frameworks (e.g., SPIDER for qualitative; PICO for clinical) as appropriate to field (Booth et al., 2016).
15–25 min: Demonstration and Guided Practice—Searching Strategically
- Translate a research question into search concepts: identify synonyms and related terms; distinguish keywords vs. controlled vocabulary where applicable.
- Demonstrate:
- Boolean logic: AND (narrow), OR (expand), NOT (exclude).
- Phrase searching (“”), truncation (*) and wildcards (discipline/database-specific).
- Field limits (title/abstract), date ranges, document types.
- Students (paired): Draft one search string for a provided question; instructor circulates and provides feedback on precision and recall trade-offs.
25–35 min: Evaluating Sources—Relevance, Credibility, and Methodological Fit
- Introduce transparent appraisal using structured prompts (e.g., clarity of research question, appropriateness of design, sample/setting, data quality, limitations/risks of bias) drawing on established checklists (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [CASP], 2018).
- Note additional considerations: publication bias; grey literature; citation chasing; forward/backward searching (Booth et al., 2016).
- Pair activity: Apply appraisal prompts to two short abstracts; decide inclusion/exclusion with rationale.
35–45 min: Synthesizing, Not Summarizing—From Notes to Arguments
- Contrast summary vs. synthesis; introduce thematic grouping and concept matrices to map patterns, tensions, and gaps (Booth et al., 2016).
- Brief example: show a miniature concept matrix (constructs × studies × methods/findings) and how it informs a synthesized paragraph.
- Academic integrity in synthesis:
- Paraphrasing with fidelity; avoid patchwriting by digesting and rephrasing concepts rather than rearranging text (Howard, 1993; Roig, 2015).
- Signal verbs and accurate attribution.
45–55 min: Citation Norms—APA 7th Essentials and Practice
- In-text citations:
- Parenthetical and narrative formats; et al. rules; direct quote with page/paragraph numbers (APA, 2020).
- Reference list entries (two exemplars):
- Journal article example:
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
- Book example:
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
- Common errors to avoid: missing page numbers for quotes, inconsistent capitalization, incorrect author order, secondary citation misuse.
- Brief mention of reference managers (e.g., Zotero, EndNote) as tools, not substitutes for verification (APA, 2020).
- Micro-exercise: Correct two flawed in-text citations and one reference entry on the worksheet.
55–60 min: Formative Assessment and Closure (Exit Ticket)
- Students submit:
- One refined research question.
- One well-structured search string.
- One correct APA in-text citation and a matching reference entry for a provided source.
- State next steps and provide the quick APA guide and appraisal checklist links.
Assessment Strategy
- During-class formative checks: cold-call concept checks; observation of pair work; rapid feedback on search strings.
- Exit ticket (graded for completion with quality checks):
- Research question specificity and feasibility (0–2).
- Search strategy demonstrating correct Boolean logic and synonyms (0–2).
- APA in-text and reference accuracy (0–2).
- Optional short homework (see below) provides summative evidence of transfer.
Differentiation and Accessibility
- Multiple representations: live demo, handouts, and exemplars; explicit modeling of both qualitative- and quantitative-leaning topics.
- Scaffolded tasks: provided keyword banks for students needing support; extension prompts (e.g., test one controlled vocabulary term) for advanced learners.
- Encourage use of institutional accessibility tools and provide materials in accessible formats.
Academic Integrity Emphasis
- Clarify expectations for paraphrasing, quotation, and common knowledge; demonstrate a correct paraphrase paired with citation.
- Provide ORI guidance summary on avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism (Roig, 2015).
Follow-up Assignment (outside class; 60–90 minutes)
- Task: For the student’s own research topic, submit:
- One focused research question.
- A documented search strategy (databases, search strings, limits) with 5–8 preliminary sources.
- A brief annotated concept matrix (3–4 studies × 3 dimensions).
- Two synthesized paragraphs integrating at least three sources each, using APA 7th citations and references.
- Evaluation criteria: transparency of search, appropriateness and diversity of sources, analytic synthesis quality, and citation accuracy (APA, 2020; Booth et al., 2016).
Key Instructor Notes
- Keep demonstration discipline-neutral but insert discipline-specific examples as appropriate.
- Emphasize transparency and reproducibility of search strategies and selection criteria even for narrative reviews to improve rigor (Booth et al., 2016; Moher et al., 2009).
- Provide links to institutional databases and subject guides for self-directed practice.
References (APA 7th)
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). (2018). CASP checklists. https://casp.org.uk/critical-appraisal-checklists/
Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3), 233–246.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Roig, M. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Office of Research Integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-policy-plagiarism
Supplementary resource for source evaluation:
California State University, Chico, Meriam Library. (n.d.). Evaluating information: Applying the CRAAP test. https://library.csuchico.edu/help/source-evaluation
Note: If your discipline mandates a different citation style (e.g., Chicago, IEEE), adjust the 45–55 minute citation segment accordingly and substitute the corresponding style manual and examples.
