REVIEW OF LITERATUREcovering these things but not necessarily in this order

· review and critique of previous research in the same general area (shortcomings of methods or argumentation previously used, new areas to look at suggested by previous results). Their findings, esp. with respect to variables you are interested in. This should at every point be explicitly connected to your specific project.

! The background review reads like an MA survey essay on some area of investigation, cataloguing other people's studies, with no comparison of them with each other, or critique, and no use explicitly made of them to connect to your own work by showing what they suggested for it.

! خلفية استعراض بقراءة مثل ما مسح عيسى بعض المناطق من التحقيق, وفهرسة الدراسات الشعبية الاخرى, لا مجال للمقارنة مع بعضها البعض, او نقد, ولا جدوى منها صراحة للاتصال بك العمل يبين المقترحة.

! Too broad… need to focus rapidly on just what bits of articles and books are relevant to your study

! You report previous work as ‘important’ when actually it has no relevance to your own research (though it may be highly regarded in the field generally).

! You retail other people’s criticisms of each other’s research but do not resolve opposing views, argue your own view, or draw implications for your research.

! Review feels like the literature got on top of you, rather than that you are on top of the literature, and is too long (more than a third of the writeup)

! You mention the results of your own later research in your review

· theoretical background(s) or 'models' from which the ideas come (both pure and applied linguistic, and maybe in psychology, sociology...), or which you hope to shed light on

! Ostrich: you stick with one model you have learnt about and don't cover the rival theories or look in other disciplines that have something to say.

· Discussion of definitions of key terms… esp, vague ones (e.g. in ELT ‘communicative’, ‘function’, ‘strategy’, ‘task’ etc….) where you disentangle different opinions of scholars

! You catalogue a lot of people’s definitions of X but fail to show where they agree/differ or which one you are adopting for your work and why.

· a review of methods used previously to gather relevant data, justifying yours (e.g. merits of interviews versus questionnaires etc.). Better here than in Method chapter/section if it is substantial.