Unit 2

Learning the Concepts

through Synthesis
Learning Objectives:
 Select relevant literature using APA,
MLA, or Chicago Manual of Style.
 Manufacture information from
relevant literature to review of
literature articulately.
 Follow ethical standards in writing
related literature.
 Illustrate and explain conceptual
framework.

Unit 2 now deals more on learning from others and reviewing the literature.
Making a conceptual framework is also significant to know including what a
critical reading is needed to be considered. Literature review and conceptual
framework have their own step-by-step method to have a clear discussion
about the study.
Lesson 3. Learning
from Others
Selecting Relevant Literature
According to the Thompson Rivers University (2014), choosing the
best sources to include in a literature review can seem like an
overwhelming task. Here are a few suggestions to get you started
and keep you focused.
First, begin with a clear research question. The more you have
thought through your area of interest, the easier it will be to identify
possible materials. Use your research question to brainstorm a list of
key words and concepts.
Next, visit a general reference database, like Wikipedia or
Encyclopedia.com to get an overview of the topic and access
bibliographies, or subject-specific databases. The TRU library also has
subject-specific journal article databases:
http://libguides.tru.ca/index.php
The material you select should be as relevant, representative, and
current as possible. Academic (peer reviewed) sources are generally
preferred.
Try to stay focused on the purposes of the literature review. (See
previous blog)
The processes of selecting from the sources you collect is partially
subjective, but keep these tips in mind:
1. Scan sources critically – don’t cling to a source because it’s
interesting or unique – make sure it is, above all, relevant.
2. Classify your sources – you don’t need to have multiple sources
that say the same thing – use classification to select the best
representative works.
Finally, one advantage you have over previous generations of
university students is that you can contact scholars internationally.
Send an email to a professor/researcher in the subject area that
interests you and ask for source suggestions. As long as the request is
polite and professional, professors like to be asked about their work!
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 14

Directions: Try to cite the main topic of Science and Technology.

Based on your findings, try to select relevant literatures according to
what you have found out. Follow the correct pattern. This is worth 15
points.
Citing Related Literature Using Standard Style

Select a standard style for your work whether if it is APA, MLA, or

Chicago Manual of Style. According to Michele Cooper (…), APA
and MLA are the most commonly used styles and she has compared
the two writings below through the following formats:

o Paper Formatting

Both MLA and APA adhere to double-spaced pages, a legible 12-

point font, and 1-inch margins on all sides. An APA-formatted paper
consists of four parts: title page, abstract, main body and references.
The abstract is 150 to 250 words and gives a summary of key points in
the paper, including the research topic, research questions,
methods, analysis and conclusion. The abstract is a single, double-
spaced paragraph. The MLA-formatted paper does not have a
separate title page or an abstract and has two major parts: the
body of the paper and a works cited page.

o Title Page

APA-formatted papers use page headers at the top of every page,

including the title page. Page numbers are flush right and the title of
the paper is flush left. The title page includes the title, author's name,
and institutional affiliation. An MLA formatted paper includes the title
on the first page, separating the title from the essay only by a double
space. MLA uses a header on the left side of the first page that
includes author name, instructor name, course and date. The
remaining pages have a right side header that includes the last
name of the author and page number.

o In-Text Citations

MLA and APA papers have slightly different methods for in-text
citations as MLA follows the author-page format and APA follows the
author-date format. An APA-formatted paper includes the author's
last name and year of publication in parenthesis after the cited text.
An MLA-formatted paper includes the author's last name and page
number in parenthesis after the text.

o Reference Page

APA-formatted papers include a separate page at the end of the

paper entitled "References," and MLA-formatted papers include a
page entitled "Works Cited." Both list the sources used in the paper
alphabetized by the last name of the author and are double
spaced. In an APA-formatted paper, if there are two works by the
same author, the entries are listed in chronological order from the
earliest work. In an MLA-formatted paper, the entries are listed
alphabetically by title, and three hyphens are used in place of the
author's name after the first entry. In an MLA-formatted works cited
page, the second line and subsequent lines for each source are
indented five spaces. An APA source is indented one-half inch from
the margin after the first line.

However, the Wikipedia (…) explained the idea of CMS or the

Chicago Manual of Style. The Chicago Manual of Style is used in
some social science publications and most historical journals. It
remains the basis for the Style Guide of the American
Anthropological Association and the Style Sheet for the Organization
of American Historians. Many small publishers throughout the world
adopt it as their style.

The Chicago Manual of Style includes chapters relevant to publishers

of books and journals. It is used widely by academic and some trade
publishers, as well as editors and authors who are required by those
publishers to follow it. Kate L. Turabian's A Manual for Writers of
Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations is based on the Manual.
Chicago style offers writers a choice of several different formats. It
allows the mixing of formats, provided that the result is clear and
consistent. For instance, the fifteenth edition of The Chicago Manual
of Style permits the use of both in-text citation systems and/or
footnotes or endnotes, including use of "content notes"; it gives
information about in-text citation by page number (such as MLA
style) or by year of publication (like APA style); it even provides for
variations in styles of footnotes and endnotes, depending on
whether the paper includes a full bibliography at the end.

After choosing your standard style, you may now grab various
informations about your study. Still, your literature review will depend
on what style it is.
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 15

Directions: Try to write your own sample reference based on APA,

MLA, and Chicago Manual of Style. Each is worth 5 points.

1. APA Format

2. MLA Format

3. Chicago Manual of Style

Analyzing and Synthesizing the Literature

According to J.L. Galvan (2006), after you have collected the

articles you intend to use in your literature review, you’re ready to
analyze each one (break it down and identify the important
information in it) and then synthesize the collection of articles
(integrate them and identify the conclusions that can be drawn from
the articles as a group).

Analyze

 Skim the articles to get an overview of each one.

 Based on your overview, group the articles by categories. It is
common to group by topic and subtopic and then
chronologically within each subtopic.
 Take detailed notes on each article. Use a consistent format.

Example:

1. Authors’ names:

2. Article title:

3. Publication year:

4. Main point of article:

5. Method:

6. Participants: How many were there, what were their

demographics, and how were they sampled?

7. IV or quasi-IV: Were participants randomly assigned to groups or

divided into groups based on a pre-existing variable? If there was an
IV, how was it manipulated?

8. DVs: How were they operationalized and measured?

9. Results:

10. Conclusions:

11. Specific details that is especially relevant to your study:

 Look for explicit definitions of key terms in the literature. Note

whether different authors use different definitions.
 Look for key statistics that you might use in your introduction.

Example:

“Analyses of police reports indicate that approximately 40% of

assault victims were legally intoxicated when attacked (Caldwell,
2012), underscoring the need for research examining the effects of
alcohol on eyewitness memory.”

 Identify short notable quotations that might be used (sparingly)

in your review because they make a point very succinctly.
 Look for methodological strengths and weaknesses.
 Distinguish between an author’s assertions and evidence in
support of the assertions.
 Identify gaps in the literature.
 Identify relationships among studies.
 Note how closely each article relates to your topic.
 Evaluate your reference list for currency and coverage.

Synthesize

 Create an outline that puts your topics (and subtopics) in a

logical order.
 For each subtopic you identified during your analysis,
determine what the articles in that group have in common.
 For each subtopic you identified during your analysis,
determine how the articles in that group differ.
 If there are contradictory findings, you may be able to identify
methodological differences that could account for the
contradiction (e.g., differences in measurement or participant
demographics).
 Determine what general conclusions you can report about a
subtopic, given the entire group of studies related to it.
 As you begin to write your introduction, follow your outline and
remember to use transitions between topics.
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 16

Directions: Go to the library and look for any books which deal with
the field of Biology. After picking one topic, try to synthesize and
analyze what you have got. This is worth 20 points.
Writing a Coherent Review of Literature

According to Marco Pautasso (2013), there are ten simple rules for
writing a Literature Review. Literature reviews are in great demand in
most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing
output of scientific publications. For example, compared to 1991, in
2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web
of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively. Given
such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine
in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. Thus, it is
both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of
the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes
from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new
synthetic insights and are often widely read. For such summaries to
be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in

contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending
conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to
review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several
other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the
other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant
literature review [8]. The topic must at least be: interesting to you
(ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers
related to your line of work that call for a critical summary), an
important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested
in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and a
well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands
of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of
key research questions to be answered, but also from serendipitous
moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to
choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In
many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology)
will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational
biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to
neighboring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the
literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice
here:

 Keep track of the search items you use (so that your search
can be replicated),
 Keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access
immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative
strategies),
 Use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers,
Qiqqa, Sente),
 Define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of
irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the
review to help define its scope), and
 Do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to
review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a
literature review (Figure 1), if not exactly on the issue you are
planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a
few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not
to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,
 Figure 1

A conceptual diagram of the need for different types of literature

reviews depending on the amount of published research papers
and literature reviews.

 Discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and

conclusions of past reviews
 Trying to find a new angle that has not been covered
adequately in the previous reviews, and
 Incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated
since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the
usual rules apply:

 Be thorough,
 Use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP,
Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline,
Scopus, Web of Science), and
 Look at who has cited past relevant papers and book
chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the
review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote
what, and what your impressions and associations were while
reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start
writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to
organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the
time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have
a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and
rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument, but you will
have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be
careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are
provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then
to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is
important to be careful in noting the references already at this
stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from
the very beginning of your endeavor will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a
rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is
probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full
review. Some journals are now favoring the publication of rather
short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the
number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a
minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers,
although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some
relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the
advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a
particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of
the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to
spare for major monographs.
There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The
same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative
reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology,
findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative
reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the
reviewed material. A similar distinction exists between narrative and
systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative,
systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the
published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol
to reduce bias. When systematic reviews analyze quantitative results
in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice
between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-
case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found
and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time
available to write the review and the number of coauthors.

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice

to keep it focused. Including material just for the sake of it can easily
lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The
need to keep a review focused can be problematic for
interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between
fields. If you are writing a review on, for example, how
epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of
ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent
fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be
necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would
only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between
epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this

requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review
relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by
discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other
disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does

not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies
methodological problems, and points out research gaps. After
having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough
idea of:

 The major achievements in the reviewed field,

 The main areas of debate, and
 The outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A

solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some
people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some
others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and
some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going
to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then
you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to
critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in
the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling

features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written,
focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews,
the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods,
results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a
general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a
recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages
make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there
is a trend towards including information about how the literature was
searched (database, keywords, time limits).

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so
that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is
generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g.,
with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize
a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review. This is
the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the
diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of
diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very
helpful to structure the text too.

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same

way as research papers, and rightly so. As a rule, incorporating
feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft.
Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot
inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been
noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many
times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time
before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and
muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing
advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought

from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on
the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the
merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is
better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback
perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the
consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific
understanding of an issue.
Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies

relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of
interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work?
Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have
published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own
findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other
direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own
achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution
(if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public

relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a
reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and
methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the
readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing
one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this
may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a
coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the

overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of
the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have
been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a
major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series
of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked
studies (“sleeping beauties”). This implies that literature reviewers
would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press,
given that it can take months before these appear in scientific
databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the
literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review
can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared
literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the
contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly
challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge
their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including

independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters
after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the
need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science. I wish
everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 17

Directions: Write A if the statement is TRUE while B if the statement is

FALSE. Write your answer on the spaces provided for you.

___________________1. In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have

published studies relevant to the review they are writing.

___________________2. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the

literature up to a certain point in time.

___________________3. Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and

should be sought from a small group, so as to obtain a diversity of views
on the draft.

___________________4. It is challenging to achieve an unsuccessful review

on all these fronts.
___________________5. It is generally helpful to draw a conclusion, e.g., with
mind-mapping techniques.

___________________6. Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review,

it is good advice to keep it focused.

___________________7. After having taken notes while reading the

literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available
for the review.

___________________8. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with

your own words in the final draft.
___________________9. After having chosen your topic and audience, start
by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers.

___________________10. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also

select a target audience.
Lesson 4. Reviewing the
Related Literature
Ethical Standards in Writing Related Literature
Next, we will now try to follow the correct ethical standards.
According to the Society for Research in Child Development
(Revised by SRCD Governing Council, 2007), we must always bear in
mind that we follow a set of principles for this. The principles for
ethical standards are as follows:

Principle 1. NON-HARMFUL PROCEDURES: The investigator should use

no research procedure that may harm the child either physically or
psychologically.

Principle 2. INFORMED CONSENT: Before seeking consent or assent

from the child, the investigator should inform the child of all features
of the research that may affect his or her willingness to participate
and should answer the child's questions in terms appropriate to the
child's comprehension.

Principle 3. PARENTAL CONSENT: The informed consent of parents,

legal guardians or those who act in loco parentis (e.g., teachers,
superintendents of institutions) similarly should be obtained,
preferably in writing.

Principle 4. ADDITIONAL CONSENT: The informed consent of any

persons, such as schoolteachers for example, whose interaction with
the child is the subject of the study should also be obtained.
Principle 5. INCENTIVES: Incentives to participate in a research
project must be fair and must not unduly exceed the range of
incentives that the child normally experiences.

Principle 6. DECEPTION: Although full disclosure of information during

the procedure of obtaining consent is the ethical ideal, a particular
study may necessitate withholding certain information or deception.

Principle 7. ANONYMITY: To gain access to institutional records, the

investigator should obtain permission from responsible authorities in
charge of records.

Principle 8. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES: From the beginning of each

research investigation, there should be clear agreement between
the investigator and the parents, guardians or those who act in loco
parentis, and the child, when appropriate, that defines the
responsibilities of each.

Principle 9: JEOPARDY: When, in the course of research, information

comes to the investigator's attention that may jeopardize the child's
well-being, the investigator has a responsibility to discuss the
information with the parents or guardians and with those expert in
the field in order that they may arrange the necessary assistance for
the child.

Principle 10. UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES: When research

procedures result in undesirable consequences for the participant
that were previously unforeseen, the investigator should immediately
employ appropriate measures to correct these consequences, and
should redesign the procedures if they are to be included in
subsequent studies.

Principle 11. CONFIDENTIALITY: The investigator should keep in

confidence all information obtained about research participants.
Principle 12. INFORMING PARTICIPANTS: Immediately after the data
are collected, the investigator should clarify for the research
participant about any misconceptions that may have arisen.

Principle 13. REPORTING RESULTS: Because the investigator's words

may carry unintended weight with parents and children, caution
should be exercised in reporting results, making evaluative
statements, or giving advice.

Principle 14. IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS: Investigators should be

mindful of the social, political and human implications of their
research and should be especially careful in the presentation of
findings from the research.

Principle 15. SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: Misconduct is defined as the

fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, misrepresentation, or
other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly
accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting,
analyzing, or reporting research.

Principle 16. PERSONAL MISCONDUCT: Personal misconduct that

results in a criminal conviction of a felony may be sufficient grounds
for a member's expulsion from the Society.
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 18

Directions: Given below are descriptions of ethical standards. Write

the suitable principle that fits each description.

___________________1. The investigator should immediately employ

appropriate measures to correct these consequences, and should
redesign the procedures if they are to be included in subsequent studies.

___________________2. It results in a criminal conviction of a felony may

be sufficient grounds for a member's expulsion from the Society.

___________________3. The investigator has a responsibility to discuss the

information with the parents or guardians and with those experts in
the field in order that they may arrange the necessary assistance for
the child.

__________________4. The investigator should use no research

procedure that may harm the child either physically or
psychologically.

___________________5. The investigator should obtain permission from

responsible authorities in charge of records.

__________________6. Because the investigator's words may carry

unintended weight with parents and children, caution should be
exercised in reporting results, making evaluative statements, or
giving advice.

___________________7. The informed consent of parents, legal

guardians or those who act in loco parentis similarly should be
obtained, preferably in writing.
___________________8. Investigators should be mindful of the social,
political and human implications of their research and should be
especially careful in the presentation of findings from the research.

___________________9. The investigator should inform the child of all

features of the research that may affect his or her willingness to
participate and should answer the child's questions in terms
appropriate to the child's comprehension.

___________________10. There should be clear agreement between the

investigator and the parents, guardians or those who act in loco
parentis, and the child, when appropriate, that defines the
responsibilities of each.
Formulation of Conceptual Framework

P.A. Regoniel (January 2015) explained a step-by-step guide on how

to make a conceptual framework. Before you prepare your
conceptual framework, you need to do the following things:

1) Choose your topic. Decide on what will be your research topic.

The topic should be within your field of specialization.

2) Do a literature review. Review relevant and updated research

on the theme that you decide to work on after scrutiny of the issue
at hand. Preferably use peer-reviewed and well-known scientific
journals as these are reliable sources of information.

3) Isolate the important variables. Identify the specific variables

described in the literature and figure out how these are related.
Some abstracts contain the variables and the salient findings thus
may serve the purpose. If these are not available, find the research
paper’s summary. If the variables are not explicit in the summary, get
back to the methodology or the results and discussion section and
quickly identify the variables of the study and the significant findings.
Read the TSPU Technique on how to skim efficiently articles and get
to the important points without much fuss.

4) Generate the conceptual framework. Build your conceptual

framework using your mix of the variables from the scientific articles
you have read. Your problem statement serves as a reference in
constructing the conceptual framework. In effect, your study will
attempt to answer a question that other researchers have not
explained yet. Your research should address a knowledge gap.

Example of a Conceptual Framework:

Thesis statement: Chronic exposure to blue light from LED screens (of
computer monitors and television) depletes melatonin levels thus
reduce the number of sleeping hours among middle-aged adults.

The study claims that blue light from the light emitting diodes (LED)
inhibit the production of melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep
and wake cycles. Those affected experience insomnia; they sleep
less than required (usually less than six hours), and this happens when
they spend too much time working on their laptops or viewing the
television at night.

FIGURE 2. The research paradigm illustrating the researcher’s

conceptual framework.

Notice that the variables of the study are explicit in the paradigm
presented in Figure 2. In the illustration, the two variables are 1)
number of hours devoted in front of the computer, and 2) number of
hours slept at night. The former is the independent variable while the
latter is the dependent variable. Both of these variables are easy to
measure. It is just counting the number of hours spent in front of the
computer and the number of hours slept by the subjects of the study.

Assuming that other things are constant during the performance of

the study, it will be possible to relate these two variables and confirm
that indeed, blue light emanated from computer screens can affect
one’s sleeping patterns. A correlation analysis will show whether the
relationship is significant or not.
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 19

Directions: Construct your own Conceptual Framework that will deal

on the study of Mass Communication/ Multimedia Arts. This is worth
15 points.

Thesis statement: ________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Defining Terms Used in a Study

Jaime Cabrera (November 2013) explained how to define terms that

should be used in your study. But first, we will try to know its location
and how will we know the correct pattern.

Location: At the start of the paper, before the major contents.

The definition of terms can be after the paragraph that describes the
purpose of the study.

•Statement of the Problem

•Purpose of the Study

•Definitions

•Significance of the Investigation

•Literature Review

•Questions or Hypothesis

Upon using the example, use one paragraph for each term that you
define. The dictionary definition of the term “illegal immigration” is
“the migration of people across national borders in a way that
violates the immigration laws of the destined country” (Merriam-
Webster’s 1993). In this paper, the term “illegal immigration” is used
to mean “nonresidents who enter a country without an acceptable
passport or visa.”

Cabrera has prepared 14 steps to define in your research proposal

or research paper.

 STEP 1: ADJECTIVE + NOUN COMBINATIONS

Select the terms of your Thesis Statement: Adjective + Noun
combinations such as:

–illegal immigration

–school uniforms

–campus romance

 STEP 2: VERBS

Select the terms of your Thesis Statement: Verbs such as:

–influence

–affect

–determine

 STEP 3: VERBS + ADJECTIVE COMBINATIONS

Select the terms of your Thesis Statement: Verb + adjective

combinations such as:

–is more effective

–are bigger

–can be detrimental

 STEP 4: ADVERB + VERB COMBINATIONS

Select the terms of your Thesis Statement: Adverb + Verb

combinations such as:

–negatively influence

–positively affect

 STEP 5: YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS

Use the following format: In this essay, the term term1 is used to
mean “your own meaning inside the quote marks.” In this essay, the
term term2 is used to mean “your own meaning inside the quote
marks.”

EXAMPLE: In this essay, the term illegal immigration is used to mean

“people who go to another country without the correct passport or
visa.” In this essay, the term influence is used to mean “to affect
something in some way.”

 STEP 6: THE LIST FORMAT

You can write in list format. The term being defined is in italics.

Term A – Definition

Term B - Definition

You can write in paragraph format. Use one paragraph for each
term, including dictionary definition and your own definition. Use a
sentence format, such as follows. According to Webster (2001), the
term troll is a noun that means “insert definition here.” In this paper,
the term troll is a verb that means “to collect” as in “to troll the
internet for quotes.”

 STEP 7: USE YOUR RESEARCH

You may site webpages like for instance:

Open the MS Word file Research Notes at: http://thereferencebox.

jimdo.com/free-textbooks/research-notes/

Read and follow the instructions.

APA Reference: Online Dictionary

A reference list of an online dictionary or thesaurus should include:

• headword of the entry cited (in quotes)

• title of the source (in italics)

• date the dictionary or thesaurus was published, posted, or revised

(Use the copyright date noted at the bottom of this and every page
of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.)

• full URL of the site (up to and including the file name)

• date you accessed the dictionary (in parentheses)

EXAMPLE: The entry for hacker in the Merriam-Webster Online

Dictionary, if you accessed it on May 8, 2011 can be referenced in
two ways:
"hacker." Merriam-Webster.com. 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com (8
May 2011).

APA Style: hacker. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved May 8, 2011, from

http://www. merriamwebster.com/dictionary/hacker

• Reference: APA: Dictionary Click to cite a dictionary

• Structure:
Author Last, F. M. (Year, Month Date). Entry Name [Def. Number]. In F. M.
Last (Ed.) & F. M. Last (Trans.), Website Title. Retrieved Month Date,
Year, from URL.

• Examples:
Citation [Def. 2]. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Online, Retrieved September
24, 2011, from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/
citation. Hemorrhage [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In
Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 2, 2013, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citation.

• Make sure to: Add a definition number (ex 5b).

– See the visual citation guide on how to cite a dictionary in APA
format.

How do I cite a work that has no listed author in an APA-style paper?

According to the OWL website’s resource on APA style

citations, "When your essay includes parenthetical citations of
sources with no author named, use a shortened version of the
source’s title instead of an author’s name. Use quotation marks and
italics as appropriate.

For example, parenthetical citations of the source above would be:

(Merriam-Webster’s 1993).

• The reference list would be Merriam-Webster’s collegiate

dictionary (10th ed.).(1993). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

 STEP 8: USE A DICTIONARY

Use a dictionary or thesaurus with available APA information: author,

title, date, publisher, page number. Copy-paste the words that you
want to use into your research notes.

Why use many dictionaries?

• The teacher might be impressed by the number of entries in the List

of References.

• Each dictionary might reveal a slightly different meaning; one

might be the best for your use.

• Some dictionaries might not have all the required APA information.

 STEP 9: COPY THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION

Complete one Research Note for each term. For exercise, use a
different dictionary for every term or, if this is not possible, use
different dictionaries.

 STEP 10: USE THE TWO DEFINITIONS: YOUR OWN AND THE
DICTIONARY DEFINITION

On half of your monitor, display completed Research Notes tables.

On the other half, open the file Class Work and type your own
definitions paragraph.

 STEP 11: QUOTE FROM THE DICTIONARY INTO YOUR PAPER

After each term, type a pair of quote marks. From the Research
Notes, copy-paste the definition of each term inside the quote
marks.

 STEP 12: WRITE AN IN-TEXT CITATION AFTER EACH QUOTED

DEFINITION

There are three ways to write an in-text citation: In the beginning, in

the middle, or in the end of a sentence.

 STEP 13: VARY THE IN-TEXT

Type your in-text citation for each quoted text. In each sentence,
you may alternate the location of the in-text citations.

 STEP 14: SHOW ME

Show me the first three terms to check if you are doing it right.

End Notes: LENGTH, TWO-WORD TERMS, ORIGINAL

o LENGTH – The length of the paragraph depends on the number

of terms defined.
o TWO-WORD TERMS – When a key term is composed of two or
more words, there may be one dictionary definition for the
entire key term, or one for each word in the term.
o ORIGINAL DEFINITIONS – To minimize external influence, write
your definitions before researching the dictionary definitions.
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 20

Directions: With the use only of your wild imagination and stocked
knowledge, try to define the following words which accords to the
study of Poetry.

o Depiction

o Diction

o Imagery

o Lines

o Linguistic Devices

o Meter

o Rhythm

o Sound

o Stanza

o Symbolism
Listing Research Hypotheses

According to M.E.F. Highfield (…), we need to know why we should

know a research hypothesis. We need to know it to judge the quality
of our study.

Now, what is a hypothesis?

According to Highfield, hypothesis is an expected outcome which

can be used only in quantitative studies and not in qualitative. It
includes its three parts which are the Independent Variable,
Dependent Variable, and the Population. It is always derived from a
certain theory.

Types of Hypothesis

 Research vs. Null/statistical

 Simple vs. Complex
 Directional vs. Non-directional

Practice #1

Generate a Hypothesis. Orem values individuals' abilities to care for

themselves, without intervention from health care professionals,
except when actual or potential self-care deficits arise. Further Orem
expects people to be self-reliant and responsible for them and to
seek help when they cannot maintain therapeutic self-care or
dependent care. Orem does not expect nursing care to be based
solely on the nurse's view of the patient's situation. Although Orem
emphasized that nursing care is appropriate especially when the
person experiences a self-care deficit, she did note that primary
prevention is also appropriate, to help the person maintain self-care
agency. (Fawcett, 1984, p. 190-191)
Practice #2

 Identify a focus or broad area for research

(e.g., pediatric meds, infection prevention)

 Identify a research problem

 Formulate research questions or hypotheses at 3 levels of
investigation:

1. Descriptive (level 1), What exists?

2. Exploratory (level 2), What is the relationship?

3. Explanatory (level 3; hypothesis) Why?

(if variable A occurs, then we can expect variable B to follow)

Stetler 5-Step Model of EBP

Phase I: Identify the problem/question (Preparation)

Phase II: Find & Critique the most useful research to address
problem/question (Validation)

Phase III:

 Identify whether fits the setting &

 Make a Recommendation for Practice (Comparative
evaluation & decision)

Phase IV: How does it apply to your setting? (Translation)

Phase V: Evaluate the outcomes (Evaluation)

Rules for Questions & Hypotheses (Brink & Wood, p. 22)

1. All variables must be written so that they vary.

2. Descriptive: Have only one variable in the topic and be sure it
varies.

3. Exploratory: Have a minimum of 2 variables

4. Explanatory: there must be two variables that specify a cause and

an effect.

5. If you have a cause or effect in your question, rewrite the question

as Exploratory or Explanatory.

6. If the words "cause," "effect," or any of their synonyms appear in

your question, either eliminate those words or specify what they are
and how they vary. (Explanatory)

7. If you have written an Explanatory "why" question, make sure that

it is both ethical and possible to manipulate the causal variable. (If
not, rewrite the question as Descriptive or Exploratory.)
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 21

Directions: Make your own hypothesis based on an Experimental

Research about any topics on Chemistry and make use of the 3
levels: the Descriptive, Exploratory, and Explanatory.
Presenting Written Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

According to the Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia (July

2015), the basic idea of the review is to tell your readers:

 What you are writing about; why it is important and how you
found the literature reviewed.
 In the body, group the articles by common theme and discuss
how the papers examine and resolve the issues you are
researching.
 Look at how your research relates to the overall subject area
you are researching, i.e. how the specifics of your personal
literature review relate to the overall subject area. This is where
you can talk about the specific problem you are addressing
and analyze the issues.
 In the conclusion, tell your reader what the literature showed;
point out gaps in the research and tell your reader how your
review will help future studies.

These purposes will lead to how you will present your Review of
Related Literature. However, Ludy Mae Nalzaro (2012) explained the
purpose of conceptual framework and how will it be presented. This
consists of concepts that are placed within a logical and sequential
design. It represents less formal structure and used for studies in
which existing theory is inapplicable or insufficient. It is based on
specific concepts and propositions, derived from empirical
observation and intuition. It may also deduce theories from a
conceptual framework. The purposes of Conceptual Framework are
to clarify concepts and propose relationships among the concepts
in a study, to provide a context for interpreting the study findings, to
explain observations, and to encourage theory development that is
useful to practice.
Name:______________________ Date:_____________________

Section:_____________________ Score:____________________

ACTIVITY 22

Directions: Try to make a literature review and conceptual

framework based from the area of Astronomy. Make it a mini-
combination of the chapter of literature review and conceptual
framework.

Thesis statement: _____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________
Case Analysis
I. Try to compare the idea of Related Literature to writing.
1. What is the relevance of Review of Related Literature to writing/
studying?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

II. Try to provide possible sources of ideas that we may use for
research.

1. Source #1: ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

2. Source #2: ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

3. Source #3: ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

4. Source #4: ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Abstraction

I. Answer the following questions comprehensively.

1. What is the relevance of a Conceptual Framework?

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
2. How would you present a certain hypothesis from a given
study?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

3. Is defining terms connotatively still important?

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

4. What is the sense of the principles of ethical standards?

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Application

Directions: Try to synthesize and analyze a literature and make your

own Literature Review and Conceptual Framework.

1. Authors’ names:

2. Article title:

3. Publication year:

4. Main point of article:

5. Method:

6. Participants: (How many were there, what their demographics

were, and how they were sampled?)

7. IV or quasi-IV: (Were participants randomly assigned to groups or

divided into groups based on a pre-existing variable? If there was an
IV, how was it manipulated?)

8. DVs: How were they operationalized and measured?

9. Results:

10. Conclusions:

Thesis Statement: _____________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework