格格党

手机浏览器扫描二维码访问

Section 2 Purpose of Literature Review（第1页）

Se2:PurposeofLiteratureReview

banner"

>

Althoughliteraturereviewsmayvaryagtodise，theiroalissimilar.Aliteraturerevieilatiosignifitsourasubjedrelatesthefindihesesourarationalmaiurereviewauthor’sownthesis.Aliteraturereviewestablisheswhichsourcesaremostrelevanttoitsauthor’spointandwhichsourcesaremostcredibletothediseathand.Iurereview，theresultsofpreviousresearcharesummarized，anizedaed.

Theaimofaliteraturereviewistoshowyourreader（yourtutor）thatyouhaveread，andhaveagoodgraspof，themainpublishedwaparticulartopicorquestionihisworkmaybeinanyformat，inlimaybeaseparateassig，ororoductorysesofareport，dissertatiohelatterparticular，thereviewwillbeguidedbyyourresearchobjectiveorbytheissueorthesisyandwillprovidetheframeworkforyourfurtherwork.

Itisveryimportayourreviewshouldnotbesimplyadesofwhatothershavepublishedintheformofasetofsummaries，butshouldtaketheformofacriticaldis，showinginsightandanawarenessuments，theoriesandapproaches.Itshouldbeasynthesisandanalysisoftherelevantpublishedwork，lialltimestoyourowionale.

Activity2-1:Developingcritiking

Didthestudentinthefolloleshowcritikihefollraphawoquestions.

&（2001）suggestedthatteachersfiftedlearnersshoulduseadifferentiatedcurriculumthatprovidesgreaterdepth，variedtopiacceleratedpace.Theyalsoclaimthatteustbeusedtramgoalsaheindividualhegifted.Thisclaimisathatinformationandunisteologybeusedeffectivelytoassistthegiftedlearners...However，thepositiveresultsfiftedareheiionofteology.Thesestudentswillhavelikelylearnedwell，evenwithouttheiionofteologyintothecurriculum.Teologyisohodinformation.

1.Ueshowcritialysisoftheauthor’swork.

2.Howwouldyouuheauthor’suseested”

and“thisparagraph?（Seelaoknowmore）

Activity2-2:Analyziures

Belowarefourversionsofaheliterature.Asyoureadthem，youmayheyvaryinanumberofways.Disgroupsaablewhichfollowsthetext.（Alsopayattentioationpatterheseversions.）

VersionA:

ThereadingsprovidegevideowhetherESLstudentsfruagebadsvaryinperformandbehavior.Kobayashi（1984）reportsdiffereioricalpatterns.Huang（1985）cludesthatgoodlanguagelearnersinPeople’sRepubliafiesadoptedbygoodlanguagelearnerselsewhere.Olleretal.（1970），ascitedbyTesdell，foundthatspellingerrorsvariedagtotheL1writiesdell（1984）foundnosuchvariation.

VersionB:

Fromastificperspective，retstudiesaimedatiiherlauralbadihelearningofEisfactory.Theavailablework（1-3）issmall-sdreportedonlyinsummaryform.Weaknessesialdesignandiisticaltestsmeanthatnosbedrareseherresearecessary.

VersionC:

&leastfourpapersrelevaionofbadvariatioheearliestfoundthattheL1writingsystemhadaonspellingerrors（Olleretal.1970），butlaterworktradictsthisfinding（Tesdell1984）.JapanesemaybeiheirbadiheyainginEnglish（Kobayashi1984）.Oherhand，goodlanguagelearnersmaybesimilaralloverthew1985）.

VersionD:

Tesdell（1984）foundthatspellingdidnotvaryagtolanguagegroup，althoughheearlierstudy（Olleretal.1970）showingvariatitoRomannon-Rsystems.SpecificrhetoricalpatternsinwritiifiedforJapanesespeakersbyKobayashi（1984）.Irast，Huang（1985）seemedtoshowthatatleastgoodlanguagelearnersinPeople’sRepubliaadoptedsimilarstrategiestothoseidentifiedelsewhere（e.g.，Rubin1975）.Itisdifficulttodrawthesefiperhapstospeculatethatbaayaffealearningstyle.

Analysischart