Postgraduate students’ difficulties in writing their theses literature review

Abstract

This study set out to identify postgraduates’ problems in writing their theses literature review section. We adopted the exploratory sequential mixed method design. In the quantitative part, we applied descriptive analysis to evaluate 40 completed master theses based on the Akindele’s (2008) guideline. In the qualitative part, 10 postgraduate students took part voluntarily in semi-structured interviews. To analysis the interview data, the raters applied Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis. The results indicate that most students, even proficient ones were not able to synthesize, critique, or explain the literature in their writing. They mainly focused on summarizing other researchers’ findings and interpretations. Other problems dealt with lack of sufficient knowledge and time to complete their literature review, and the deliberate dereliction of some supervisors and professors who do not fulfil their obligations to provide the students with sufficient information about writing it. Solving these problems can not only change students’ negative feelings and experiences in writing their literature review section but also enhance students’ motivation to write any pieces of writing effectively.

Full text

EDUCATION POLICY | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Postgraduate students’ difficulties in writing their
theses literature review
Zahra Shahsavar
1
* and Haniyeh Kourepaz
2
Abstract: This study set out to identify postgraduates’ problems in writing their theses
literature review section. We adopted the exploratory sequential mixed method design. In
the quantitative part, we applied descriptive analysis to evaluate 40 completed master
theses based on the Akindele’s (2008) guideline. In the qualitative part, 10 postgraduate
students took part voluntarily in semi-structured interviews. To analysis the interview data,
the raters applied Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis. The results indicate that
most students, even proficient ones were not able to synthesize, critique, or explain the
literature in their writing. They mainly focused on summarizing other researchers’ findings
and interpretations. Other problems dealt with lack of sufficient knowledge and time to
complete their literature review, and the deliberate dereliction of some supervisors and
professors who do not fulfil their obligations to provide the students with sufficient
information about writing it. Solving these problems can not only change students’ nega-
tive feelings and experiences in writing their literature review section but also enhance
students’ motivation to write any pieces of writing effectively.
Subjects: Educational Research; Higher Education; Education Policy & Politics
Keywords: literature review; postgraduates; thesis writing
1. Introduction
Although writing effectively can lead to fruitful academic upshots (Mousavi & Kashefian-
Naeeini, 2011), writing thesis is not an easy task for many students. Most of them face
with challenges of writing up their theses particularly their literature review section (Boote
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Zahra Shahsavar is an assistant professor at
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. She
obtained her PhD in English Language from
University Putra Malaysia (UPM). Her research
interests include scientific and academic writing,
writing assessment, critical thinking in educa-
tion, and the use of technology for teaching and
learning.
Haniyeh Kourepaz got an M.A. in teaching
English from Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran. Her major
area of research interest includes teaching and
writing studies.
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
The purpose of this study was to identify post-
graduates’ problems in writing their theses litera-
ture review section. We applied a mixed method
design to evaluate 40 completed master theses
based on Akindele’s (2008) guideline. In the qua-
litative part, 10 postgraduate students took part
voluntarily in semi-structured interviews. The
results indicate that most students mainly
focused on summarizing other researchers’ find-
ings and interpretations. Other problems dealt
with lack of sufficient knowledge and time to
complete their literature review, and the deliber-
ate dereliction of some supervisors and professors
who do not fulfil their obligations to provide the
students with sufficient information about writing
it. The results of this study may assist both
researchers and educators to enhance their stu-
dents’ writing skill effectively.
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Received: 01 February 2019
Accepted: 07 June 2020
*Corresponding author: Zahra
Shahsavar, English Language
Department, Faculty of Paramedical
Sciences, School of Paramedical
Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical
Sciences., Shiraz 71439-14693, Iran
E-mail: shahsavarzahra@gmail.com
Reviewing editor:
Sefa Bulut, Educalion Facutly, Ibn
Haldun Universitesi, Turkey
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Page 1 of 11

& Beile, 2005; Fergie et al., 2011). According to Randolph (2009), view flaws in the literature
review may lead to view flaws in the rest of the dissertation. Hence, in every study, literature
review should be written effectively to promote readers’ understanding and awareness of the
particular and appropriate approach (Lopez, 2014).
Akindele (2008) argued that the first impression of the quality of each thesis usually forms when
thesis examiners finish the literature review as the vital part of the thesis. According to Mallett
(2004), a literature review section should evaluate and show the relationship between the past and
present work, why the researcher carries out the research, and how the researcher selects
particular methodologies or theories to work.
Lopez (2014) mentioned that writing a literature review section differs from annotated
bibliography that includes brief explanations or notes for each reference. In fact, what
makes a literature review effective is a connection between current issues and previous
findings in the same topic. This idea is supported by other studies that writing a literature
review should be clear and comprehensive. It should be prepared and organized critically in
order to compare and contrast different theories and notions. In a word, to write a thesis
literature review critically, researchers should consider various factors such as recognizing the
similarities and differences of the various findings, distinguishing gaps existed in the study,
and comparing/contrasting the obtained results in different studies (Denney & Tewksbury,
2013).
In another study, researchers believed that an effective literature review section should be
comparable with the results of the study (Bert & Banister, 2016; Musa & Khamis, 2015). Ridley
(2008) argued that the main purpose of the literature review section is to show how limita-
tions in other works create a research gap for another research. Consequently, a literature
review should involve not only the statement of personal judgment but also an appeal to
share values and ideas. It should not be simply the description of what other researchers
have published in the form of a set of summaries; in contrast, it should take the form of the
critical discussion that requires critical analysis.
According to Kuang and Maya (2015), the literature review section is one of the most
important parts of the postgraduates’ theses. Without a qualified literature review, the
students will not be able to understand their thesis topic, the keywords, and the related
studies in that area. In addition, a comprehensive literature review is required to support and
explain the discussion that may affect the result of the study.
Given the importance of writing the literature review section, many studies have evidenced
the problem that most postgraduates are not able to write their literature review section
effectively (e.g., Akindele, 2008; Fitt et al., 2009; Kuang & Maya, 2015). To fill this gap, this
study tries to identify the difficulties postgraduate students face in writing their theses
literature review section.
2. Literature review
To write an effective thesis, students require a solid grasp of the literature review. A number of
definitions emerge from the literature review. According to Cooper (1988), a literature review
should contain at least two elements. The first one is a large comprehensive database that reports
on primary or original studies. The second one tries “to describe, summarize, evaluate, clarify, and/
or integrate the content of the primary reports” (p. 107).
Later on, Cooper’s definition of the literature review was completed by other studies. For
example, American Psychological Association [APA] (2010) defined a literature review as
a freestanding article that considers the connection between current and previous findings
in the same topic. According to Fink (2005), an effective literature review is a combination of
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 2 of 11

previous research studies presented in such a way that adds value to our understanding of
that work.
Other researchers such as Gall et al. (2007) highlighted that a literature review should show
how various studies related to each other. It should also provide a meaningful structure to
a research topic or a research problem. Therefore, a literature review plays a crucial role in
delimiting research problems, seeking new lines of inquiry, avoiding fruitless approaches,
gaining methodological insights, identifying recommendations for further research, as well
as seeking support for grounded theory.
Due to the importance of the literature review, various classifications in writing this area have
been found. Earlier studies such as Cooper (1989) classified the literature review section in five
categories: “focus, goal, perspective, coverage, organization, and audience” (p. 2). Kachru (1999)
considered individualized voice as the chief component of the critical literature review while other
researchers such as Stapleton (2002) disagreed on the point that voice itself could be considered
as the main important element in writing the literature review. They referred to voice, identity, and
critical thinking as the main elements of literature review writing. Boote and Beile (2005) created
the literature review-scoring rubric containing five categories, namely, coverage, synthesis, meth-
odology, significance, and rhetoric. Although their scoring rubric is the vital part in assessing the
literature review quality, it has some shortcomings in that it only examines dissertations using
quantitative methods. Besides, the reliability of the scoring rubric has not been fully established.
Later, Akindele (2008) provided the guideline including six components, namely: the summaries of
each work, the relationship between each work and other research, the gap in previous studies,
resolving conflicts among research, awareness of different views, and linking with the purpose of
the study.
Based on the above classifications, some empirical studies have been conducted to assess the quality of
the students’ literature review. For example, T. Moodie (1994) assessed the literature review of international
postgraduate students’ theses in the faculty of Engineering at Monash University in Australia. The results
indicated that most students did not use critical voice in writing their literature review. Later, Boote and
Beile (2005) applied their own rubrics to assess the quality of the literature review of 30 students’ doctoral
dissertations. They found a lack of synthesizing as the most common failure in writing students’ literature
review section. Fitt (2011) applied Boote and Beile (2005) rubrics to assess the quality of 30 randomly
selected dissertation literature reviews of students who studied at instructional technology. The results
showed that only a few students got high scores in the critical assessment of the literature reviews while
the majority of them had low scores.
In the same line, Akindele (2008) assessed the literature review section of graduate dissertation
at the University of Botswana by using her own guideline. She examined 30 completed master’s
theses from the University of Botswana. The results indicated that the majority of students had
serious problems in writing a literature review critically; most of them were unable to summarize
the weaknesses of the literature in other studies. Likewise, they were not able to use critical
thinking and assert their identity or voice in their writing.
Although many studies have emphasized the characteristics of a good literature review,
they lack particular debate on postgraduates’ problems in writing their theses literature
review section. To fill the gap, this study tries to identify the difficulties postgraduate
students face in writing their theses literature review section. To meet this aim, we tried to
address the following research question:
What are the postgraduates’ main problems in writing their literature review?
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 3 of 11

3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
In this study, we adopted the exploratory sequential mixed method design. It means that the qualitative
part of data collection and analysis is followed the quantitative part (Creswell, 2003). In the quantitative
part, we selected students’ theses and evaluated their literature review section based on Akindele’s (2008)
guideline. In the qualitative part, we conducted semi-structured interviews to identify if postgraduates have
problems in writing their literature review.
3.2. Participants
To assess students’ literature reviews, we examined the literature review section of 40 completed
theses drawn from a poll of 100 master’s theses completed between 2010 and 2016 academic
years. The selection of the samples was carried out randomly.
In addition, 10 EFL postgraduate students, whose theses were evaluated, took part voluntarily in
semi-structured interviews. The age of the sample group was between 27 and 37 years old
(mean = 31, SD = 7.12). The students were not preselected; however, the consent was sought
after explaining the purpose of the study. All participants perused their master’s degree but in
different faculties such as language and education. To safeguard the interviewees’ anonymity, we
concealed their particulars. All of the students were from one university; however, to protect the
students’ anonymity, we concealed the name of the university and students’ gender, and referred
to each student as “he”. This seemed logical to encourage all students to talk freely in the
interview without being afraid of probable harmful consequences of telling the truth.
Furthermore, to avoid any probable misunderstanding in English, we conducted all interviews in
students’ first language (Izadinia, 2014). Each interview took approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The
interview questions mainly focused on the possible problems in writing a literature review.
Based on the university rules, after accepting the proposal, each student had only 6 months to
submit his thesis; otherwise, he had to pay extra tuition. In addition, to get a complete mark, he
had only 6 months to publish at least one article in a reputable journal. As for scoring, 18 and 2
marks (out of 20) were allocated to his oral defense and publication, respectively.
3.3. Instruments
We applied Akindele’s (2008) guideline to analyze students’ literature review. The model has been
applied in previous studies (e.g., Akindele, 2008; Bacha, 2019) due to providing a comprehensive
guideline to analyze the literature review (Bacha, 2019).
Akindele’s (2008) guideline contains six components linked with four issues namely, evaluation, critical
thinking, authorial voice, and identity. The first component is the summaries of each work. The second
component shows the relationship between each work and other research. The third component repre-
sents the gap in previous studies. The fourth component focuses on resolving conflicts among research,
which identifies if the writer is aware of different views to resolve conflicts among the contradictory views
with previous studies. The fifth component shows awareness of different views, which shows the writer’s
insight, and awareness of different opinions. The last one represents the link with the purpose of the study.
It shows if the literature review can support the purpose of the study (see Figure 1).
4. Data analysis
In this study, we applied the exploratory sequential mixed method design. In the quantitative
part, we selected 40 completed master theses and evaluated them based on the Akindele’s
(2008) guideline. In the qualitative part, 10 postgraduate students took part voluntarily in
semi-structured interviews.
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 4 of 11

To analyze EFL students’ literature review section, two raters who got PhD and supervised MA students
more than 5 years were trained on using Akindele’s (2008) guideline. To safeguard the raters’ anonymity,
their gender, major, and universities were not mentioned. First, the raters randomly selected one of the
students’ theses and evaluated the literature review section based on the guideline. After reaching an
agreement on scoring, each rater evaluated the literature review of 20 students. In this study, each
criterion in the guideline was given a score from 0 to 10 points. Due to having six criteria in the guideline,
an overall score for analyzing the literature review section was between 0 and 60 points.
To analysis the interview data, the raters applied Braun and Clarke (2006) thematic analysis
including six steps namely, transcribing verbal data, generating initial codes, searching for
themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report. According
to Izadinia (2014), thematic analysis is one of the most useful forms of analysis that puts
emphasis on identifying, pinpointing, examining, and reporting themes within data.
5. Results
This study tried to identify if postgraduates have problems in writing their theses literature
review section. In the quantitative part, the descriptive analysis of the students’ literature
review shows that students focused more on summarizing of each work, linking with the
purpose of study, awareness of different views, relationship of each work with other research,
resolving conflicts among research, and filling gaps in the previous study, respectively (see
Table 1 and Figure 2).
In the qualitative part, we identified three main themes in analyzing the interviews that showed
students’ problems in writing the literature review section as follows:
Figure 1. Akindele’s (2008)
guideline for analyzing the lit-
erature review (pp. 4, 10–11).
Table 1. Students’ literature review scores based on Akindele’s guideline
Literature review component
Student # Summary Relationship Gaps Different
views
Resolve
conflicts
Linking
Total 40 331 (83%) 242 (61%) 196(49%) 259 (65%) 217(54%) 306(77%)
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 5 of 11

5.1. Lack of knowledge of writing effective literature review
Most interviewees (80%) were not aware of the importance of the literature review. They believed that
the literature review section should only summarize other works. One student said: “the focus of the
literature review is to obtain the ability to comprehend a particular topic through learning, what
strategies were used previously to probe the topic, and what research has already been completed on
that topic”. Another one stated, “in writing the literature review section, I should mainly attempt to
evaluate and show the relationship between the previous studies. In fact, an effective literature review
should be the combination of previous research studies presented in such a way that adds value to our
understanding of that work”.
Although awareness of different views has a significant role in writing the literature review, most of
them (60%) mentioned that the author should take a neutral perspective in his/her writing. One student
said: “we should avoid using the contradictory views since this type of views may have some negative
effects on the view of thesis committee members, those who are in charge of evaluating our theses”.
Similarly, another student added, “only positive views related to the research should be discussed in the
literature and opposing views should be ignored”. In his opinion, the researcher can just parrot other
writers’ views in the literature review. Only 20% of students highlighted the importance of using different
views. One of them mentioned, “we should use different views to make the subject of our study clear”.
Few students said, “we should consider both positive and negative views of other researchers to provide
logical reasons for supporting our discussion part”.
Another problem was that most students (70%) pointed to writing the related literature reviews
without focusing on having different ideas about the inclusion of the high-quality articles in their
review. A few of them (20%) mentioned that using the high quality and update articles seem
essential in writing. In contrast, one of them said, “[to write my literature view], I just downloaded
the relevant articles regardless of their qualities since identifying and using the best sources take
a lot of time”. Another one concluded that “I used any related journals because of not having
access to most high quality journals by university”.
Some students (40%) did not have a clear conception of the literature review organization. They
stated that the organization of the literature review should be dependent on the type of data,
a quantitative, a qualitative, or a mixture of both. One of them mentioned, “I think, we should
divide the literature review into two parts in which the theoretical part precedes the empirical
one”. Another one believed: “a quantitative research should precede a qualitative one”. Only two
Figure 2. The comparison of lit-
erature review components.
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 6 of 11

students disagreed with this view. They noted, “in organizing the literature review, cohesion and
coherence are more important than the research type”.
5.2. Time for completing theses and publications
Some interviewees (40%) referred to lack of sufficient time to complete their theses. This could
undermine the quality of their writing particularly the literature review section. Another one said,
“the quality of my literature review was not important to me. I just thought of completing my
thesis on time and starting my own businesses as soon as possible”. Another one stated, “I did not
spend a lot of time on completing the literature review. Generally, the quality of our theses is not
that important in our master’s theses marks. In our university, students’ grades usually range from
17–20 [out of 20]. I have never seen theses failure or resubmission”. In contrast, one student said,
“I tried to do my best in writing the literature review as my future carrier has been dependent on
getting my degree”.
Most students (70%) did not use high quality and update articles to write the literature review. Some
of them claimed that their supervisors rarely check the quality of articles cited in the literature review.
One of them mentioned, “since publishing in high-impact journals within six months seems impos-
sible, a lot of students especially those who do not like to pursue their PhD or find an academic job do
not think of the quality of their theses particularly the literature review section”.
5.3. Supervisors and professors’ role in writing literature review
Some of the students (40%) argued that their professors who taught them the research method
rarely focused on writing an effective literature review. This may result in writing faulty literature
review. Other students (30%) believed that they had received minor comments in writing their
literature review from their supervisors. For example, they [supervisors] asked them to check their
punctuation mark, verb tense, connection between paragraphs, text citations, or missing refer-
ences. One of them said, “my supervisor rarely responded my phone and email; he returned my
first three chapters to me after three months, without checking the literature review. Then, he just
asked me to find somebody to edit the literature review”. Another student noted, “most super-
visors do not give us constructive feedback on the literature review unless they have a vested
interest in our research outcome”. Another one said: “most supervisors do not revise our literature
review effectively unless their names appear as the first author or the corresponding author in
publishing the paper”. Except three interviewees, the rest believed that their supervisors and
committee members scarcely examined their literature review. One of them said, “my supervisor
asked me to copy the literature review from other related studies and then send it for editing
services to paraphrase it for me”. Others argued that their supervisors mainly focused on the
method and discussion in examining their theses and oral defenses. Two of the students high-
lighted that in their oral defense, the committee members asked them to skip the literature review
part to shorten the presentation time. Only two students (20%) were very thankful to their super-
visors because of giving them an accurate feedback on their literature review.
6. Discussion
This study tried to identify if postgraduates have problems in writing their theses literature review
section. Our quantitative results indicated that writing a literature review is not an easy task for the
postgraduate students; many students do not know how to develop their literature review. The
finding enhances our understanding that “writing a literature review involves a synthesis of
a complex range of analytical and rhetorical skills as well as academic writing skills, and an
understanding of what is meant by critical analysis and argument” (Turner & Bitchener, 2008,
p. 1) This idea is supported by other studies (e.g., Kafipour et al., 2018).
A critical analysis of the students’ literature review section based on Akendele’s model shows that
most students were good at summarizing each work and linking it with the purpose of their own study
though they had major weaknesses in reporting the gaps in the previous study and resolving conflicts
among research. This finding is consistent with Randolph’s (2009) idea that most researchers are not
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 7 of 11

able to “consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations in synthesizing quantitative litera-
ture” (p. 11). Part of that reason may lie in students’ cultural backgrounds as most students embrace
only positive views in eastern countries. Most eastern societies have a teacher-dominated, group-
based, and centrally organized pedagogical culture for many years (Kashefian-Naeeini & Riazi, 2011;
Zhang, 2007).
Another finding showed that students’ literature review section was mainly based on author-
ial voice and evaluation rather than critical thinking. In a word, a majority of students just
summarized other researchers’ findings and interpretations rather than examining all aspects
of their research critically. Most of them, even with proficient ability in writing were not able to
synthesize, critique, or explain the literature. The result is consistent with other studies in that
due to having a poor performance in using critical thinking, students just report the research
method, design, and analysis in their theses without providing justification or logical reasons in
writing their theses (e.g., Akindele, 2008; Boote & Beile, 2005). This finding highlights the
importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills (Shahsavar et al., 2013; Simpson &
Courtney, 2002). If the students promote their critical thinking skills, they will be able to justify
and link different concepts and ideas. The probable reason is that the students’ competency
and familiarity with language learning strategies especially cognitive and metacognitive ones
may lead to the deep processing and mental activity (Hamzah et al., 2009).
In our qualitative analysis, some students frequently mentioned that they did not have sufficient
time to complete their literature review. As noted earlier, after accepting their proposals, students had
only 6 months to submit their theses; otherwise, they had to pay extra tuition. This finding is incon-
sistent with Gall et al.’s (1996) ideas who believed that having enough time is very important to
complete an acceptable dissertation literature review; each student needs three to 6 months of effort
to finish just the literature review effectively. Ignoring the quality of literature review, a majority of
students preferred to publish an article in easygoing journals since the deadline for publication was too
tight. They would face with many barriers to meet the expectations of reviewers if they wanted to
publish in reputable journals (Flowerdew & Wang, 2016).
Moreover, most students were indifferent to the inclusion of the reputable articles in their
review. They just downloaded the relevant articles regardless of their qualities since their university
library databases could not provide the full text of many high-quality articles while lack of
attention to the quality of articles used might affect students’ literature review section. As
Akindele (2008) mentioned the literature review is not effective unless the researcher reports
the similarities and differences between studies published in both low- and high-quality articles.
Another problem was that most students did not have clear ideas about the literature review
organization. This finding is consistent with this idea that in writing, organizing ideas on paper
seem difficult for students (Norazmi et al., 2017). Hence, identifying various types of organizations
such as preferred historical, conceptual, and methodological is required (Randolph, 2009).
In this study, some postgraduates mentioned that their research method professors did not
teach them how to write creative and integrated literature reviews and most supervisors did not
have a strong contribution in writing their literature review. The probable reason may result from
the low quality of teaching writing in EFL settings (Lap & Truc, 2014). However, it is in contrast with
Akindele’s (2008) belief in that the first impression of the quality of each thesis is usually formed
when thesis examiners finish the literature review as the main part of each thesis and dissertation.
7. Conclusion
The current study tried to identify a comprehensive understanding about postgraduates’ difficul-
ties in writing their literature review section. Our findings showed that most EFL students were not
able to write effectively. The main problems deal with students’ lack of sufficient knowledge on
implanting a critical view to write their literature review, lack of sufficient time to complete their
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 8 of 11

theses and publish their related articles, and the deliberate dereliction of some supervisors and
professors who do not fulfil their obligations to provide the students with sufficient information
about writing a literature review.
8. Limitation and implication
One of the limitations of this study is a sample size; the power of our findings might increase if we
analyzed more theses and conducted more interviews. In addition, since students have different
learning abilities, skills, and characteristics (Kaur, 2017), the result might vary from faculty to faculty,
university to university if we changed our sample size. In this study, we applied Akindele’s (2008)
framework to analyze students’ literature review section. Applying other frameworks such as Boote
and Beile (2005) could change the result. Moreover, most students complained about supervisors’
contribution in writing their theses. This claim would not seem logical unless we include some
supervisors’ voices to analyze students’ problems carefully in writing the literature review.
Although this study highlighted the importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills,
there is a great source of frustration for students in using critical thinking skills in their literature
review. The major problem of many students is not lack of understanding what the literature
review is; rather, they do not know what critical thinking is (Schmaltz et al., 2017). There is an
urgent need for solving the problem by both students and supervisors. Unfortunately, like other
universities, most of our supervisors have received little or no particular training in critical thinking.
In this case, the supervisors cannot expect their students to be critical thinkers unless they become
critical thinker first (Tiruneh et al., 2014). To this end, the integration of critical thinking skill into
existing curricula at the universities seems essential.
This study identified some of the postgraduates’ problems in writing their literature review
section. The results may have some helpful suggestions for supervisors who like to find solutions
to these problems. They can not only identify the strengths and weaknesses of students’ literature
review but also teach students how to write their literature reviews more effectively. The results
can also help students to analyze their own writing critically. If students master the critical
analyses of their literature reviews, they can bring it in any piece of their writing.
Finally, identifying the problem without an effective solution is useless. To avoid writing
a faulty literature review, not only supervisors but also other educators such as advisors,
committee members, curriculum course designers, policymakers, and faculty members have
particular responsibilities to find out students’ problems and solve their problems. Solving
these problems can not only change students’ negative feelings and experiences in writing
their literature review section but also enhance students’ motivation to write any pieces of
writing effectively.
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Zahra Shahsavar
1
E-mail: shahsavarzahra@gmail.com
Haniyeh Kourepaz
2
E-mail: h.kourepaz92@gmail.com
1
English Language Department, Faculty of Paramedical
Sciences, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz
University of Medical Sciences, Meshkinfam St., Shiraz
71439-14693, Iran.
2
English Language Department, Islamic Azad University
of Marvdasht, Marvdasht, Iran.
Citation information
Cite this article as: Postgraduate students’ difficulties in
writing their theses literature review, Zahra Shahsavar &
Haniyeh Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620.
References
Fergie, G., Beeke, S., McKenna, C., & Crème, P. (2011).
It’s a lonely walk: Supporting postgraduate
researchers through writing. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 23(2), 135–149. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=
EJ946149
Akindele, O. (2008). A critical analysis of the literature
review section of graduate dissertations at
the University of Botswana. http://www.espworld.
info/Articles_20/DOC/GRADUATE_WRITING_site.pdf
American Psychological Association (APA). (2010).
Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.).
Bacha, N. N. (2019). Writing the argumentative literary
review in EFL/ESL contexts: A critical analysis
perspective. International Journal for Innovation
Education and Research, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.31686/ijier.Vol7.Iss1.1309
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 9 of 11

Bert, V. W., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature
review paper? Transport Reviews, 36(2), 278–288.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before research-
ers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature
review in research preparation. Educational
Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X034006003
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/
1478088706qp063oa
Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge synthesis:
A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in
Society, 1(1), 104–126. doi: 10.1007/BF03177550
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quanti-
tative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write
a literature review. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 24(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10511253.2012.730617
Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews:
From the internet to paper. SAGE.
Fitt, M. H. (2011). An investigation of the doctoral disser-
tation literature review: From the materials, we use to
prepare students, to the materials that students
prepare [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Utah State
University.
Fitt, M. H., Walker, A. E., & Leary, H. M. (2009, April).
Assessing the quality of doctoral dissertation litera-
ture reviews in instructional technology [Paper pre-
sentation]. Annual meeting of the American
educational research association, San Diego, CA.
Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H. (2016). Author’s editor revi-
sions to manuscripts published in international jour-
nals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32(2),
39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.004
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education
research, an introduction. New York: Longman
Publishers.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational
research: An introduction. Pearson Education.
Hamzah, M. S. G., Kafipour, R., & Abdullah, S. K. (2009).
Vocabulary learning strategies of Iranian undergraduate
EFL students and its relation to their vocabulary size.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 39–50. https://
www.academia.edu/13315871/Vocabulary_learning_
strategies_of_Iranian_undergraduate_EFL_students_
and
Izadinia, M. (2014). Authorship: The hidden voices of
postgraduate TEFL students in Iran. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 12(4), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10805-014-9215-1
Kachru, B. (1999). The alchemy of English. Pergamon.
Kafipour, R., Mahmoudi, E., & Khojasteh, L. (2018). The
effect of task-based language teaching on analytic
writing in EFL classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1),
1496627. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.
1496627
Kashefian-Naeeini, S., & Riazi, A. M. (2011). Beliefs and
autonomy: A case of Iranian Students. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 20(3), 425–430. https://
www.researchgate.net/ publication/286795360_
Beliefs_and_autonomy_A_case_of_6795360_Beliefs_
and_autonomy_A_case_of_ Iranian_students
Kaur, M. (2017). To recognise, realise and differentiate the
learning needs of students. Pertanika Journal of
Social Science & Human, 25(2), 503–510. doi.org/
10.1155/2014/757425
Kuang, C. H., & Maya, K. D. (2015). Basic and advanced
skills they. Don’t have: The case of postgraduates
and literature review writing. Malaysian Journal of
Learning and Instruction, 12, 131–150. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/304875706_Basic_and_
Advanced_Skills_They_Don't_Have_The_Case_of_
Postgraduate_and_Literature_Review_Writing
Lap, T. Q., & Truc, N. T. (2014). Enhancing Vietnamese
learners’ ability in writing argumentative essays.
Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(2), 63–91. http://journal.asia
tefl.org/main/main.php?inx_journals=40&inx_con
tents=49&main=1
Lopez, M. C. (2014). Survey of research methods: Literature
review. Michigan State University. Online article.
Mallett, S. (2004). Understanding home: A critical review
of the literature. The Sociological Review, 52(1),
62–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.
00442.x
Moodie, J. (2001, November). The development of critical
voice in the writing of international postgraduate
students changing identities [Paper presentation].
National language and academic skills conference,
Wollongong, Australia.
Moodie, T. (1994). Critical voice in the writing of interna-
tional postgraduate students. Monash University.
http://learning.uow.edu.au/LAS2001/unrefereed/moo
die.pdf.
Mousavi, H. S., & Kashefian-Naeeini, S. (2011). An inves-
tigation into the role of EFL learners’ attitudes,
motivation and proficiency in learning among Iranian
students of National University in Malaysia. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4), 593–603. https://doi.
org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i08/47224
Musa, N. F., & Khamis, N. (2015). Research article writing:
A review of a complete rhetorical organisation.
Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Human, 23(S),
111–122. http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/
Pertanika%20PAPERS/JSSH%20Vol.%2023%20(S)%
20Sep.%202015%20(View%20Full%20Journal).pdf
Norazmi, D., Dwee, C. Y., Suzilla, J., & Nurzarina, A. S.
(2017). Exploring student engagement in writing
using the flipped classroom approach. Pertanika
Journal of Social Science & Human, 25(2), 663–674.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
317232343_Exploring_Student_Engagement_in_
Writing_using_the_Flipped_Classroom_Approach
Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation
literature review. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 14(13), 2. http://pareonline.net/getvn.
asp?v=14&n=13
Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step
guide for students. SAGE.
Schmaltz, R. M., Jansen, E., & Wenckowski, N. (2017).
Redefining critical thinking: Teaching students to
think like scientists. Frontiers in Psychology, 8
(459), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.
00459
Shahsavar, Z., Tan, B. H., Yap, N. T., & Bahaman, A. S.
(2013). Promoting tertiary level students’ critical
thinking through the use of socratic questioning on
the blog. Pertanika Journal of Social Science &
Human, 21(S), 57–70. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/289950616_Promoting_tertiary_level_stu
dents'_critical_thinking_through_the_use_of_
socratic_questioning_on_the_blog
Simpson, E., & Courtney, M. (2002). Critical thinking in
nursing education: Literature review. International
Journal of Nursing Practice, 8(2), 89–98. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1440-172x.2002.00340.x
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 10 of 11

Stapleton, P. (2002). Critical thinking in Japanese L2
writing, rethinking tired constructs. ELT Journal, 56
(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.250
Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness
of critical thinking instruction in higher education:
A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher
Education Studies, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5539/
hes.v4n1p1
Turner, E., & Bitchener, J. (2008). An approach to teaching
the writing of literature review. www.zeitschrift-
schreiben.eu
Zhang, J. (2007). A cultural look at information and
communication technologies in Eastern education.
Education Technology Research Development, 55
(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-
9040-y
© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Cogent Education (ISSN: ) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
Shahsavar & Kourepaz, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1784620
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620
Page 11 of 11