Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Brent, E. E. (1984). The computer-assisted literature review. Social Science Micro Review, 2(3), 137-151.

Abstract: This paper describes several techniques for using computers to assist with literature reviews. It identifies various literature review tasks, then discusses how existing programs can be used to address them. Programs discussed include word processors, qualitative analysis programs, content analysis programs, file management systems, database management systems, spreadsheets, and statistical programs. The paper concludes that judicious use of existing programs offers a powerful means to transform the literature review from a burdensome task resulting in a quickly outdated product to a more manageable task producing a product that is flexible, cumulative, and better able to cope with the rapid growth of knowledge.

Journal Article 2: Bell, F. J. (2016). Review: Reviewing the literature: a student’s perspective. Journal of Child Health Care, 2(3), 122-127.

Abstract:

• The task of reviewing research is now a part of the pediatric nurse’s role.
• A literature review refers to two processes: the search for relevant literature and the critical review of this literature.
• A literature review must be systematic in order for it to be effective.
• It should result in the development of new knowledge that can be translated back into the practice setting and/or highlight areas needing further investigation.

Journal Article 3: Freer, P. K., & Barker, A. (2008). An instructional approach for improving the writing of literature reviews. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(2), 69-82.

Abstract: The authors engaged in a team-teaching approach to foster improvements in the writing and evaluation of scholarly literature reviews by their graduate students in music education. A focal point of the semester-long project was the analysis and public critique of each author's dissertation literature review by the other author, using a variant of a rubric for evaluating literature reviews by Boote and Beile. Students further refined the rubric by evaluating literature reviews in current music education journals and then used the rubric to guide their own writing. Student reflections and responses were gathered through questionnaires and interviews, with indications that the process had a twofold effect: (a) improved skills in conceptualizing, writing, and analyzing literature reviews and (b) increased collegiality as students perceived their instructors as peer scholars.