Finally, this is Part 2.  Write your literature review following the outline below. It needs to be written as a formal paper (paragraphs) and use correct English. It must be e-mailed to Rodger Marion as an attachment in MS Word format on or before the date in the schedule. Other word processor formats may work OK, but you are responsible for getting the file to your instructor in a format he can read.

Two sample literature reviews are available (SAMPLE 1, SAMPLE 2). Your literature review need be no longer than the sample reviews. All the sample reviews are MS Word files and were written by previous students who gave their permission for us to use their work. You cannot use the same articles used in the samples in your review.

1. Topic Sentence - State the Topic Sentence that your literature review is based on.
2. Introduction - Give an overview of the area you are reviewing. State the Research Question dealt with by the five articles. The research question may be the Topic Sentence you began with, or it may be more specific. Carefully define in operational terms your idealized:
   • Independent variable (IV)
   • Dependent variable (DV)
   • Hypothesis
   Describe how the variables and the hypothesis derive from the research question.  Be sure your hypothesis describes the effect of the IV on the DV and does not introduce any new variables.
3. Discussion of Articles - Discuss each of the five articles. Summarize what the table says about each article. Focus on what each article has in common and what is unique. Point out any weaknesses in internal and external validity.  We are most interested in 1) differences in how the IVs were operationally defined, 2) differences in how the DVs were measured, 3) sources of internal validity compromise, 4) differences in samples, populations, and external validity, and 5) implications of the degree to which the studies support or deny the hypothesis. This is an integration of the articles and how they relate to each other; do not just describe each article in turn.
4. Final conclusions - (At this point read all of Chapter 9. Interpreting Results in the Cochrane Handbook).
   Discuss the two questions below in your review. Please note the samples may not have explored all of these questions with equal excellence, so use your judgement to create your review using the samples as guides but not standards.
1. Are the five articles in agreement about the hypothesis? Comment on both their unity and diversity. In what ways did the articles reach different conclusions?  If there are differences in the operationalization of IVs and DVs, then the hypotheses could be supported across studies but have different meanings.  Comment on this possibility.
2. What are the important sources of error, e.g., things that reduce internal and external validity? Be sure to discuss internal and external validity in as much useful detail as you can.
5. References - For each article, list: author(s), title, journal, year, volume, number, pages. The references can be at the beginning (as in the sample) or at the end. Do NOT include the abstracts or the full text of articles in the materials you email to the instructors..
6. You can have section titles if you wish. One of the samples has section titles, but you can organize your review according to your own plan. Follow the outline to structure the content, then format the paper as you want. Just be sure all the parts are present. You cannot go wrong following the sample exactly, but being creative has benefits as well.
7. Include your big table. Be sure it exactly follows all of the requirements outlined in step 3 as it will be graded also.

1. You get 20 points for participating with your partner in the formative stage of the process. Because the purpose of this dialog is to help one another, you cannot do this late. No credit will be earned if you participate in the discussion after the due date in the Schedule.
2. Your review is worth 150 points if it follows the outline and is complete in every way.
3. You will earn 30 points for attaching your big table and if it is complete and correct in all respects.

Even though your big table is included, you must discuss the all of relevant parts in the body of your review. This assignment is ultimately an exercise in clear writing and synthesis so it is the final product, your review, that is most important.  The big table is an important product (You earn points for doing it and turning it in) but do not refer to it in your review. You will lose points if your review does not provide the complete critical analysis of what is common and unique among and between the five articles, even if the information is present in your big table.