SASC 9: Critical Literature Review

Relevance, reliability, and visible citations distinguish usable research from an attractive but unsuitable source.

A practical aside explains why tidy alignment and paragraph structure can shape a marker's first response even when the underlying content is unchanged.

Reading a draft aloud reveals awkward phrasing that silent reading often repairs unconsciously.

A short caution separates accepted best practice from the ethically right action when procedure and judgment no longer align.

Comparing several books and journal articles helps establish a consensus view while preserving dissenting sources for critical analysis.

The rocking-chair analogy shows why excellent research and prose cannot rescue an essay that answers a question the student invented.

Draft a rough plan, consult a key text and subject librarian, then gather further sources around a better plan.

The marking example explains why both under-research and fact-heavy writing fail when the assignment rewards analysis more heavily than evidence alone.

SEAL structures an academic paragraph as statement, evidence, analysis, and link while testing whether each point serves both the argument and the question.

A critical literature review demonstrates broad understanding, simultaneous consideration of multiple sources, and visible critical thinking.

The starter method divides the topic into key areas and compares a journal article, textbook, and web article within each section.

Journal articles, textbooks, and web articles carry different balances of peer review, editorial stability, novelty, and risk.