Step 7 Reporting the Systematic Mapping Study
Reporting the Systematic Mapping Study
The final stage requires clarification, making your description, interpretation, resolution, and simplification of the found literature intelligible and free from ambiguity.
Refresher on APA and Plagiarism
APA 7th edition Style
Use the American Psychological Association’s guide to style. The latest edition can be checked out of the library, or here are excellent resources online:
- APA 7th ed. Style and Grammar Guide https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines (This is an extremely helpful site with clear, basic information.)
- Quick Reference Guide https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/reference-guide.pdf
- Templates https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids
Plagiarism
As a refresher on plagiarism, go through the Cornell University Recognizing and Avoiding Plagiarism quiz at https://plagiarism.arts.cornell.edu/tutorial/exercises.cfm (It is most helpful on determine what needs to be cited) and the WriteCheck quiz at http://en.writecheck.com/plagiarism-quiz.
The Paper
The report of a systematic mapping review of literature has a specific structure to it, so you can outline your paper according to the sections below:
Introduction
- Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.
- Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
- Establish the writer’s reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).
- Use of the first person voice is allowed, because the review is more personal than a research paper on the topic. Example: I observed the negative political advertising directed at less affluent voters during my volunteer work for a senatorial election campaign.
Methods and Data Collection
- Explain your research review question and how it was developed (PICO process above, for example). How did this question drive inclusion of results?
- What keywords and search strings guided your search?
- What search tools were used and how?
- How were found resources evaluated?
- How was the research analyzed/synthesized? (Notice these questions are very related to the PRISMA Flow Diagram, which you’ll want to share in this section.
Results
- We’ve worked hard at analyzing the papers and creating a concept map of themes across all articles selected. Here’s a good example of what that might look like in written format:
For this literature search about online professional development opportunities for teaching with technology, I found four major categories of sources that have studied the topic from different perspectives. The first category of materials was textbooks and general readings that mention online professional development for teachers. Almost without fail these publications superficially mention the role of technology but not specifically learning to teach with technology. These are numerous and have been omitted from this bibliography. Within this category I have placed books with single chapters devoted to literature searching as part of the research process. The somewhat dated books by Jones (1993) and Smith (1996) offer two perspectives with insights not found in other sources. Smith (1996, chapter 1) was the only source I found to challenge the value of learning to teaching with technology in an online format, arguing (pp. 1-2) for a more “hands-on” approach. Jones (1993, p. 112), makes clear definitions and explanations of the overlapping and confusing variations between online learning (“Typically conducted at least 90% over the Internet,”) and other distance delivery systems (“may include H.323 video conferencing, satellite delivery”). Most authors ignore the differences or view them as being the same. - Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits according to its comparative importance in the literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance. Provide more than a brief citation of the study and its research.
Poor Example: A five-year study was conducted by Wallace to compare immigration and educational levels (2001).
Good Example: Wallace (2001) concluded that educational levels of new immigrants to the United States varied by continent and age. The importance of the study is in its length and intensity. The study covered several years and major urban areas. - Provide the reader with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding comparisons and analyses.
Discussion/Conclusions
- When you started this systematic mapping study, you had a purpose and specific questions to find answers to. This section allows you to revisit that purpose/question and summarize the answers using your Results.
- Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under review, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.
- Evaluate the current “state of the art” for the body of knowledge reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.
- Conclude by providing some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study such as a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or a profession.
Write the Final Paper Activity
Use the resources in the Reporting the Mapping section to write your final paper.
