A 10- to 12-page critical integrative review paper (double-spaced) is required on some aspect of educational psychology and/or educational technology. Your paper should critically review the research in your chosen area of interest and should identify an important gap and/or promising new directions in knowledge. Your proposal should organized as follows:
Introduction
- Part #1 (1-2 pages): (a) Initial Synthesis of Theory and Literature, (b) Questions Guiding your review, (c) Organization of the paper.
Part #1 should provide an overview of your literature review, situating your work within the context of a broader interest area and what is already known about a subject. In Part #1 you want to tie your literature review to relevant theory and prior research, moving your reader through a systematic argument that ends in clear and appropriate questions guiding your review. You will also want to define key terms in Part #1 to orient your reader.
- Part #2 (1 page or less): (a) Need for the literature review, (b) Purpose of the literature review,
Part #2 explains why this literature review is needed and why it is important; you should provide a rationale for conducting this review. How does your proposed review contribute to relevant theory and/or prior research?
Method
- Sources – journals and/or databases you are including to find articles for your review and why they are appropriate
- Criteria for inclusion and exclusion – criteria you are using to determine whether or not to include an identified work in your review
Results
- Critical review and synthesis – Critically review the identified studies in your sample, grouping them by theme. Synthesize themes in the findings and methods. (Synthesis of themes in theoretical perspectives is optional).
- Limitations – Remember, no study is perfect, and so a compelling argument for a given study also discusses the methodological and/or conceptual limitations of the design and sample. In this case, discuss the limitations in the design and sample of your literature review.
Discussion and Conclusion
- Summary of what was reviewed and why
- Scholarly significance of themes in the findings and methods – What gap in the research literature and promising new directions does your literature review suggest?
- Reflection of how this review advances your own research. What provisional research questions derive from this literature review. In other words, what research questions might you pursue in your practicum research and how might you address them (methods) now that you have completed this critical integrative review paper?
Additional Information
Here is a Sample of a Student’s CIRP Interest Statement
VERY helpful additional reading on how to write a research proposal can be found –> here
Example of Research Spreadsheet – come up some way to keep track of the articles you read and cite. It doesn’t have to be this way but you should have some way
Sample Critical Integrative Review Paper
Sample Response to Reviewers Letter
Sample Literature Reviews (**Keep in mind these are published journal articles and much longer than yours will be for this class).
- Kuiper, E., et al. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285-328.
- Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the ”digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271.
In-Class Presentation
You will present your Critical Integrative Review Paper in class, following a similar format to our Research Reports. Your presentation will be assessed using the following criteria:
-
- Elements. The presenter adequately addressed the CIRP’s essential elements: Need, Purpose, Questions Guiding Your Review, Methods, Results, Conclusions, Limitations, Implications/Significance for Future Research & Reflection on relation to your own work
- Significance. The presenter explained the significance of the work and how it contributes to their broader research interests.
- Delivery. The presentation was organized and delivered in a clear, engaging, and professional manner.
- Comprehensibility. The presentation could be understood by an educated but non-expert audience.
- Visual Aids. The visual aids were appropriate, effectively used, and appealing.