Wolcott

Literature Review in-Process Workshop

ENC 1102

Please consider the following items as you discuss your in-process drafts, and use these to generate helpful discussions about what you can do to improve your current drafts. As usual, you dont need to answer each of these questionsfocus on the ones most important to the draft you have. Is there an introduction? Does it define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature? Find three points of synthesis in your peers paper. Explain how they are synthesizing information instead of recounting single arguments. Does the author yet address areas of controversy or discrepancy, if those are relevant to your study? If so, point to where they do this. If not, have a brief conversation about if there are any areas of controversy that your peer noticed while writing their annotated bibliography. Are there sub-headings in the current draft of the literature review? How were they chosen? Do they make sense to you as a reader? Explain to the writer why or why not. What do you think is missing from the articles being analyzedhas the author identified research gaps, yet, in this draft? Have they articulated what those gaps are? Have they yet decided which of those gaps they would like to contribute to?

Wolcott

Literature Review in-Process Workshop

ENC 1102

Please consider the following items as you discuss your in-process drafts, and use these to generate helpful discussions about what you can do to improve your current drafts. As usual, you dont need to answer each of these questionsfocus on the ones most important to the draft you have. Is there an introduction? Does it define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature? Find three points of synthesis in your peers paper. Explain how they are synthesizing information instead of recounting single arguments. Does the author yet address areas of controversy or discrepancy, if those are relevant to your study? If so, point to where they do this. If not, have a brief conversation about if there are any areas of controversy that your peer noticed while writing their annotated bibliography. Are there sub-headings in the current draft of the literature review? How were they chosen? Do they make sense to you as a reader? Explain to the writer why or why not. What do you think is missing from the articles being analyzedhas the author identified research gaps, yet, in this draft? Have they articulated what those gaps are? Have they yet decided which of those gaps they would like to contribute to?