Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

  • Search for relevant literature
  • Evaluate sources
  • Identify themes, debates, and gaps
  • Outline the structure
  • Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

  • Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
  • Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
  • Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
  • Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
  • Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Literature review guide

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

literature review for university students

Try for free

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

  • Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
  • Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
  • Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
  • Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

  • Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
  • Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
  • Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

  • Your university’s library catalogue
  • Google Scholar
  • Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
  • Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
  • EconLit (economics)
  • Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

  • What question or problem is the author addressing?
  • What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
  • What are the key theories, models, and methods?
  • Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
  • What are the results and conclusions of the study?
  • How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

  • Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
  • Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
  • Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
  • Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
  • Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

  • Most research has focused on young women.
  • There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
  • But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

  • Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
  • Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
  • Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

  • Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
  • Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
  • Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
  • Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

  • Sampling methods
  • Simple random sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Cluster sampling
  • Likert scales
  • Reproducibility

 Statistics

  • Null hypothesis
  • Statistical power
  • Probability distribution
  • Effect size
  • Poisson distribution

Research bias

  • Optimism bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Implicit bias
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Anchoring bias
  • Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

  • To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
  • To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
  • To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
  • To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
  • To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

OWL logo

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

  • An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
  • A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
  • Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
  • Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
  • Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
  • Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
  • Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

  • Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
  • Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

  • Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
  • Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
  • Qualitative versus quantitative research
  • Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
  • Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
  • Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

  • It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
  • Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
  • Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
  • Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Duke University Libraries

Literature Reviews

  • Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

  • Types of reviews
  • 1. Define your research question
  • 2. Plan your search
  • 3. Search the literature
  • 4. Organize your results
  • 5. Synthesize your findings
  • 6. Write the review
  • Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
  • Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

literature review for university students

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

literature review for university students

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

literature review for university students

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

literature review for university students

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

literature review for university students

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

literature review for university students

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

literature review for university students

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

literature review for university students

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

literature review for university students

The literature review: Six steps to success

literature review for university students

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

literature review for university students

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

  • Next: Types of reviews >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:45 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/lit-reviews

Duke University Libraries

Services for...

  • Faculty & Instructors
  • Graduate Students
  • Undergraduate Students
  • International Students
  • Patrons with Disabilities

Twitter

  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Support the Libraries

Creative Commons License

  • skip to Main Navigation
  • skip to Main Content
  • skip to Footer
  • Accessibility feedback

Video: Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? Find out here

Writing a literature review is an inevitable part of being a graduate student. So, before spending hours of your time working on a project involving a literature review, it helps to understand what a "literature review" is, and why it is important. 

You may need to do a literature review as a part of a course assignment, a capstone project, or a master's thesis or dissertation. No matter the context, a literature review is an essential part of the research process. 

Some important functions of a literature review are that it helps you to understand a research topic and develop your own perspective on a problem. Not only that, it lets you show your instructor or thesis committee what you know about the topic. 

Your instructor or advisor may assume you know what a literature review is and that you understand what they are expecting from you. You might hear phrases like: "What does the literature show us?" "Connect your ideas to the literature." "Survey the literature on the topic." 

Well, before you can review the literature, you need to make sure you know what is meant by "the literature." A good definition of the literature is that it is a collection of all the scholarly writings on a topic. These writings can be in the form of scholarly, peer reviewed articles, books, and other sources like conference proceedings. These may be called annual meetings or conventions. The literature also includes dissertations written by other graduate students. Collectively, these make up the literature. 

Visually, the literature might look like this. Often there are major works that have been written on a topic, and then other, later, works that build on them. These later works tend to be extending or responding to the original papers in some way. Basically, the literature is a continuously evolving network of scholarly works that interact with each other. 

As you do your own research, you'll begin to understand the relationships in this evolving web and how your own ideas connect to it. 

I'm John Classen, Associate Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University. Research is about telling a story, kind of like a chain story where each writer starts with a partial story created by others and takes it where the imagination leads. The existing literature is the story so far. You have to know where you are before you can go forward. But research is not just one linear story; many different lines of study contribute to the story you are trying to write. 

Your job in the literature review is to see where all the loose ends are in the various fields that are most closely related to what you want to do and to figure out what needs to be done next. The background to any good story has to be explained carefully or the reader doesn't know why one thing is important and something else is not; the reader has to understand what's going on. 

In the same way, researchers need the background in the literature of their discipline to know what's going on in their field of study. So, how do you turn a network of articles into a cohesive review of the literature? How do you find and tell the "story" behind your research topic? 

Reviewing the literature is like participating in a conversation. As you read and evaluate articles you begin to understand how they are connected and how they form the story that the authors are telling. Then you start to formulate your own response or contribution. 

This process - discovering relationships in the literature and developing and connecting your own ideas to it - is what helps you turn a network of articles into a coherent review of the literature. 

So what does a literature review look like? There are different types of literature reviews that you may encounter, or be required to write, while in graduate school. Literature reviews can range from being selective to comprehensive. They can also be part of a larger work or stand alone. 

A course assignment is an example of a selective review. It focuses on a small segment of the literature on a topic and makes up the entire work. The literature review in a thesis or dissertation is an example of a comprehensive review that is part of a larger work. 

Most research articles begin with a selective literature review to establish the context for the research reported in the paper. Often this is part of the introduction. Other literature reviews are meant to be fairly comprehensive and also to stand alone. This means that the entire article is devoted to reviewing the literature. 

A literature review that introduces an article can look like this. Here is an article about cognitive behavioral therapy. Here is the literature review, in this article it is part of the introduction. You can tell that the introduction includes a literature review because it discusses important research that has already been published on this topic. 

Here is an example of a stand alone literature review article, in this case, about employment. The article's title states that this is a review of the literature on the topic. However, not all review articles will have the term 'literature review' in their title. In-depth review articles like this are an excellent starting place for research on a topic. 

So, at this point, you may be asking yourself just what's involved in writing a literature review? And how do I get started? 

Writing a literature review is a process with several key steps. Let's look at each part of this process in more detail. 

Your first step involves choosing, exploring, and focusing a topic. At this stage you might discover that you need to tweak your topic or the scope of your research as you learn more about the topic in the literature. Then, of course, you'll need to do some research using article databases, the library catalog, Google Scholar, and other sources to find scholarly information. 

All along you'll be using your brain. You'll want to evaluate what you find and select articles, books, and other publications that will be the most useful. Then, you will need to read through these articles and try to understand, analyze, and critique what you read. 

While researching and organizing your paper, you'll collect a lot of information from many different sources. You can use citation management software like RefWorks, EndNote, or Zotero to help you stay organized. Then, of course, you'll need to write and revise your paper and create your final bibliography. 

One more thing: Writing a literature review is a process, but it is not always a linear process. One step does lead to another, but sometimes your research or reading will point you back to earlier steps as you learn more about your topic and the literature. 

At this point you might be wondering how do I actually review the literature I find? Let's look at what it means to review the literature. 

In the most general sense it means that you collect and read all the relevant papers and other literature on your topic. You want to provide an overview but also highlight key concepts and important papers. As you read you may start by describing and summarizing each article. Then you can start to make connections by comparing and contrasting those papers. 

You will also need to evaluate, analyze, and organize the information from your reading. When you work with the literature you will read and critically examine articles and books to see what's important or out of scope and analyze arguments for strengths and weaknesses. 

When working with the literature it is important to look for relationships between publications. Some of the important relationships between publications that you discover might include major themes and important concepts, as well as critical gaps and disagreements. 

But don't fall into the trap of making your review a laundry list of summaries of the works you read. A literature review is not an annotated bibliography. 

Your goal should be to go one step further and integrate and synthesize what you find in the literature into something new. Ideally, you will create your own conceptual map or outline of the literature on your topic. 

For example, let's say as you read you discover three major concepts that are important in the literature and relevant to your research. You should then identify how the literature - that is, the content in individual articles, books, and other publications - relates to the concepts you discovered. Some publications may be relevant to several concepts; others may apply to only one concept. What's important is that you develop and present your own organization and understanding of the literature. 

Then, when you write your literature review you will end up with a document that is organized by the concepts and relationships you found and developed based on your reading and thinking. Your review will not only cover what's been published on your topic, but will include your own thoughts and ideas. You will be telling the specific story that sets the background and shows the significance of your research. 

Researching and writing a good literature review is a challenging and sometimes intimidating process. Don't be afraid to seek assistance, whether from your adviser or instructor, campus writing center, or your librarian. Many librarians have subject specialties and can be especially helpful in identifying valuable resources and showing you how to obtain relevant information.

Video added on January 15, 2020

  • Eleanor Smith: Content development, scripting
  • Kim Duckett: Screencasting, editing
  • Sarah Bankston: Narration
  • Dr. John Classen: Scripting, narration
  • Andreas Orphanides : Web development
  • Susan Baker: Graphics, animation, and web design

license for creative commons

This video is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license.

Top of page

  • USC Libraries
  • Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

  • 5. The Literature Review
  • Purpose of Guide
  • Design Flaws to Avoid
  • Independent and Dependent Variables
  • Glossary of Research Terms
  • Reading Research Effectively
  • Narrowing a Topic Idea
  • Broadening a Topic Idea
  • Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
  • Academic Writing Style
  • Choosing a Title
  • Making an Outline
  • Paragraph Development
  • Research Process Video Series
  • Executive Summary
  • The C.A.R.S. Model
  • Background Information
  • The Research Problem/Question
  • Theoretical Framework
  • Citation Tracking
  • Content Alert Services
  • Evaluating Sources
  • Primary Sources
  • Secondary Sources
  • Tiertiary Sources
  • Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
  • Qualitative Methods
  • Quantitative Methods
  • Insiderness
  • Using Non-Textual Elements
  • Limitations of the Study
  • Common Grammar Mistakes
  • Writing Concisely
  • Avoiding Plagiarism
  • Footnotes or Endnotes?
  • Further Readings
  • Generative AI and Writing
  • USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
  • Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

  • Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
  • Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
  • Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
  • Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

  • Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
  • Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
  • Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
  • Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
  • Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
  • Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
  • Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
  • Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

  • An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
  • Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
  • An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
  • Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

  • Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
  • Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
  • Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
  • Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
  • Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

  • Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
  • Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
  • History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
  • Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
  • Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
  • Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

  • Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
  • You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
  • Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
  • Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
  • Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
  • Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
  • Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

  • How are they organizing their ideas?
  • What methods have they used to study the problem?
  • What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
  • What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
  • How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

  • Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
  • Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
  • Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

  • << Previous: Theoretical Framework
  • Next: Citation Tracking >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 8, 2024 1:57 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to write a literature review

  • Information and services
  • Student support
  • Study skills and learning advice
  • Study skills and learning advice overview
  • Assignment writing

A literature review critically analyses existing literature to develop an argument.

Writing a literature review can be challenging because:

  • you need to coordinate many sources and ideas into a logical argument
  • you may be dealing with language and ideas you haven't fully mastered yet
  • there are no fixed rules for what to include or how to organise your writing.

This is just a general guide to help you write a literature review. The specific requirements for your course may be different. Make sure you read through any assignment requirements carefully and ask your lecturer or tutor if you're unsure how to meet them.

Purpose of a literature review

A literature review should demonstrate your overall understanding of the literature and develop an argument, often by answering specific questions. It shouldn't just list and summarise what you've read.

Unlike other assignment types, you're often expected to determine the purpose of a literature review yourself.

Commonly, a literature review is written to help develop and justify a novel research question. But they have many other uses. For example, you may use a literature review to develop an argument that:

  • justifies the significance or interest of a research question
  • demonstrates your professional competence in a field of research
  • critically reviews theory or methodological approaches
  • weighs evidence to reach a conclusion or recommendation.

Selecting relevant materials

Your literature review should only include relevant materials, and it should be clear how each work is relevant to your main argument.

When selecting materials you should:

  • read widely – don't just cite papers produced by a particular research group, or from only one country or continent.
  • use up-to-date material – if you're completing a PhD or MPhil, you'll need to update your confirmation literature review for your final thesis.
  • include relevant landmark studies – show that you know the influential and highly cited works in your field, but make sure they're relevant to your argument.
  • limit background information – only include background details that are needed to orient the reader and help them appreciate your argument.
  • include as much evidence as needed – be selective about what you include, even if you're building on, updating or challenging previous work. To challenge a common assumption, include a representative list of papers to demonstrate that it's common; you don't have to list every paper that makes the assumption.

Analysing the literature

Your literature review should provide a detailed justification for your main argument. You need to critically review the literature and synthesise your analysis into a logical argument.

This general process may help:

  • familiarise yourself with the literature to learn what's been done and what's already known
  • organise the materials around themes, issues or questions rather than individual papers
  • critically review the information to identify things like assumptions, limitations, deficiencies, lack of clarity, methodological weaknesses, gaps, controversies and problems in existing knowledge or practice that need to be addressed.

Organising your argument

Your literature review should be a logical, well-structured argument organised into an introduction, body and conclusion.

To help organise your argument:

  • plan before you start writing – creating a mind map or outline can help to clarify your thinking before you start drafting.
  • refine as you write – give yourself time to write many drafts, and refine the writing and structure of your argument as you go. Look for repetition and common themes.
  • Assignment types
  • Steps for writing assignments
  • Literature review example analysis

Learning Advisers

Our advisers can help undergraduate and postgraduate students in all programs clarify ideas from workshops, help you develop skills and give feedback on assignments.

How a Learning Adviser can help

Further support

UQ Library guide to literature reviews Guide for research students (PDF, 1.7 MB) Example literature review analysis

The University of Edinburgh home

  • Schools & departments

Institute for Academic Development

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff , including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation.  After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

  • summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
  • identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
  • highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

Writing Center Home Page

OASIS: Writing Center

Common assignments: literature reviews, basics of literature reviews.

A literature review is a written approach to examining published information on a particular topic or field. Authors use this review of literature to create a foundation and justification for their research or to demonstrate knowledge on the current state of a field. This review can take the form of a course assignment or a section of a longer capstone project. Read on for more information about writing a strong literature review!

Students often misinterpret the term "literature review" to mean merely a collection of source summaries, similar to annotations or article abstracts. Although summarizing is an element of a literature review, the purpose is to create a comprehensive representation of your understanding of a topic or area of research, such as what has already been done or what has been found. Then, also using these sources, you can demonstrate the need for future research, specifically, your future research.

There is usually no required format or template for a literature review. However, there are some actions to keep in mind when constructing a literature review:

  • Include an introduction and conclusion . Even if the literature review will be part of a longer document, introductory and concluding paragraphs can act as bookends to your material. Provide background information for your reader, such as including references to the pioneers in the field in the beginning and offering closure in the end by discussing the implications of future research to the field.
  • Avoid direct quotations . Just like in an annotated bibliography, you will want to paraphrase all of the material you present in a literature review. This assignment is a chance for you to demonstrate your knowledge on a topic, and putting ideas into your own words will ensure that you are interpreting the found material for your reader. Paraphrasing will also ensure your review of literature is in your authorial voice.
  • Organize by topic or theme rather than by author. When compiling multiple sources, a tendency can be to summarize each source and then compare and contrast the sources at the end. Instead, organize your source information by your identified themes and patterns. This organization helps demonstrate your synthesis of the material and inhibits you from creating a series of book reports.
  •  Use headings . APA encourages the use of headings within longer pieces of text to display a shift in topic and create a visual break for the reader. Headings in a literature review can also help you as the writer organize your material by theme and note any layers, or subtopics, within the field.
  • Show relationships and consider the flow of ideas. A literature review can be lengthy and dense, so you will want to make your text appealing to your reader. Transitions and comparison terms will allow you to demonstrate where authors agree or disagree on a topic and highlight your interpretation of the literature.

Related Multimedia, Social Media, and Other Resources

Webinar

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation , 14 (13), 1–13. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=pare

Didn't find what you need? Search our website or email us .

Read our website accessibility and accommodation statement .

  • Previous Page: Example
  • Next Page: Synthesizing Your Sources
  • Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

  • Academic Residencies
  • Academic Skills
  • Career Planning and Development
  • Customer Care Team
  • Field Experience
  • Military Services
  • Student Success Advising
  • Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

  • Center for Social Change
  • Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
  • Office of Degree Acceleration
  • Office of Research and Doctoral Services
  • Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

  • Doctoral Writing Assessment
  • Form & Style Review
  • Quick Answers
  • ScholarWorks
  • SKIL Courses and Workshops
  • Walden Bookstore
  • Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
  • Student Safety/Title IX
  • Legal & Consumer Information
  • Website Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Accessibility
  • Accreditation
  • State Authorization
  • Net Price Calculator
  • Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Library Home

Literature Reviews, Critiquing, & Synthesizing Literature

What is a literature review & searching the literature, synthesizing the literature, literature review -- tutorials, literature review -- books, literature searches -- completing.

  • Types of Review Articles
  • Literature Review Steps Videos
  • Critiquing Literature / Critical Review
  • Synthesizing Literature
  • Summarizing Articles

Resources to learn about literature reviews.

  • 10-Step Guide to Making Your Literature Review Write Itself By Elizabeth Hicks, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  • How to undertake a literature search: A step-by-step guide Watson, M. (2020). How to undertake a literature search: A step-by-step guide. British Journal of Nursing, 29(7), 431-435. doi:10.12968/bjon.2020.29.7.431
  • Learn how to write a review of literature The Writing Center @ the U. of Wisconsin, Madison presents an overview.
  • The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. Baker, Joy Don, PhD, RN-BC, CNOR, CNE, NEA-BC, FAAN. (2016). The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN Journal, 103(3), 265-269. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2016.01.016
  • Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review PLOS Computational Biology, July 2013
  • Users' guide to the surgical literature: How to perform a high-quality literature search. Waltho, D., Kaur, M. N., Haynes, R. B., Farrokhyar, F., & Thoma, A. (2015). Users' guide to the surgical literature: How to perform a high-quality literature search. Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal Canadien De Chirurgie, 58(5), 349. doi:10.1503/cjs.017314
  • What are the differences between a literature search, a literature review, a systematic review and a meta-analysis? And why is a systematic review considered to be so good O’Gorman, C. S., Macken, A. P., Cullen, W., Saunders, J., Dunne, C., & Higgins, M. F. (2013). What are the differences between a literature search, a literature review, a systematic review and a meta-analysis? And why is a systematic review considered to be so good. Ir Med J, 106(2 Suppl), 8-10. (DOWNLOADS PDF)
  • What is a Literature Review? The process is presented by the U. of North Carolina Libraries at Chapel Hill.
  • Write a Literature Review Steps for writing a literature review. (U. of California, Santa Cruz)
  • Writing a literature review (George Mason University)
  • Writing an effective literature review : Part I: Mapping the gap. Lingard L. Writing an effective literature review : Part I: Mapping the gap. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(1):47-49. doi:10.1007/s40037-017-0401-x
  • Writing an effective literature review : Part II: Citation technique. Lingard L. Writing an effective literature review : Part II: Citation technique. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(2):133-135. doi:10.1007/s40037-018-0407-z
  • Extracting and synthesizing information from a literature review Foster, R. L. (2013). Extracting and synthesizing information from a literature review. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 18(2), 85-88. doi:10.1111/jspn.12021
  • The Four-Part Literature Review Process: Breaking It Down for Students Price, R. H. (2017). The Four-Part Literature Review Process: Breaking It Down for Students. College Teaching, 65(2), 88–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1276042
  • Literature Review : Synthesizing multiple sources Louisiana State University, Writing Center
  • Synthesising the literature as a part of a literature review Wakefield, A. (2015). Synthesising the literature as part of a literature review. Nursing Standard (2014+), 29(29), 44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.29.44.e8957
  • Synthesizing Sources / Purdue Writing Center /OWL Purdue University
  • The systematic review of literature: Synthesizing evidence for practice. Rew, L. (2011). The systematic review of literature: Synthesizing evidence for practice. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(1), 64-69. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6155.2010.00270.x
  • Literature Review -- A Self-Guided Tutorial This great tutorial from Indiana University -- Purdue University Indianapolis, shares the steps of a Literature Review.
  • Scribbr's How to write a literature review Review the 6 short videos on how to write a literature review. 5 steps are listed for writing a review.

literature review for university students

Learning how to search the literature.

  • A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Oct;106(4):531-541. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.283. Epub 2018 Oct 1. PMID: 30271302; PMCID: PMC6148622.
  • Conducting a successful literature search Elsevier. (2018). Basic steps.
  • Next: Types of Review Articles >>
  • Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 8:35 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.ahu.edu/LitReviewSum

Resources listed on these guides are compiled by librarians at the R.A. Williams Library. We accept content recommendations, and after review, may include suggested resources on a guide. Our time is limited, so we generally do not reply to unsolicited recommendations from individuals not affiliated with AdventHealth University or notify them regarding whether or not we have linked to suggested content.

  • UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

  • Sample Literature Reviews
  • Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
  • Finding "The Literature"
  • Organizing/Writing
  • Chicago: Notes Bibliography

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

  • Literature Review Sample 1
  • Literature Review Sample 2
  • Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

  • << Previous: MLA Style
  • Next: Get Help! >>
  • Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 9:21 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

How to Conduct a Literature Review: A Guide for Graduate Students

  • Let's Get Started!
  • Traditional or Narrative Reviews
  • Systematic Reviews
  • Typology of Reviews
  • Literature Review Resources
  • Developing a Search Strategy
  • What Literature to Search
  • Where to Search: Indexes and Databases
  • Finding articles: Libkey Nomad
  • Finding Dissertations and Theses
  • Extending Your Searching with Citation Chains
  • Forward Citation Chains - Cited Reference Searching
  • Keeping up with the Literature
  • Managing Your References
  • Need More Information?

Bookmark This Guide!

https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/gradlitrev

Where to Get Help

The ISU Library has a great staff of librarians (complete with superpowers!) who can answer questions about any aspect of your research that involves searching for information. Each of our liaison librarians is responsible for one or more subject areas and has subject expertise you can tap as you're doing your research.

They can help with advice about research methodologies , database suggestions, data management plans - anything related to how to find use, and evaluate resources. Getting to know your liaison librarian will make your life as a graduate student easier.

Click the icon below to find your librarian!

    Find Your Librarian

“Google can bring you back 100,000 answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.” - Neil Gaiman

The literature review is an important part of your thesis or dissertation. It is a survey of existing literature that provides context for your research contribution, and demonstrates your subject knowledge. It is also the way to tell the story of how your research extends knowledge in your field.

The first step to writing a successful literature review is knowing how to find and evaluate literature in your field. This guide is designed to introduce you to tools and give you skills you can use to effectively find the resources needed for your literature review.

Before getting started, familiarize yourself with some essential resources provided by the Graduate College:

  • Dissertation and Thesis Information
  • Center for Communication Excellence
  • Graduate College Handbook

Below are some questions that you can discuss with your advisor as you begin your research:

Questions to ask as you think about your literature review:

What is my research question.

Choosing a valid research question is something you will need to discuss with your academic advisor and/or POS committee. Ideas for your topic may come from your coursework, lab rotations, or work as a research assistant. Having a specific research topic allows you to focus your research on a project that is manageable. Beginning work on your literature review can help narrow your topic.

What kind of literature review is appropriate for my research question?

Depending on your area of research, the type of literature review you do for your thesis will vary. Consult with your advisor about the requirements for your discipline. You can view theses and dissertations from your field in the library's Digital Repository can give you ideas about how your literature review should be structured.

What kind of literature should I use?

The kind of literature you use for your thesis will depend on your discipline. The Library has developed a list of Guides by Subject with discipline-specific resources. For a given subject area, look for the guide titles "[Discipline] Research Guide." You may also consult our liaison librarians for information about the literature available your research area.

How will I make sure that I find all the appropriate information that informs my research?

Consulting multiple sources of information is the best way to insure that you have done a comprehensive search of the literature in your area. The What Literature to Search tab has information about the types of resources you may need to search. You may also consult our liaison librarians for assistance with identifying resources..

How will I evaluate the literature to include trustworthy information and eliminate unnecessary or untrustworthy information?

While you are searching for relevant information about your topic you will need to think about the accuracy of the information, whether the information is from a reputable source, whether it is objective and current. Our guides about Evaluating Scholarly Books and Articles and Evaluating Websites will give you criteria to use when evaluating resources.

How should I organize my literature? What citation management program is best for me?

Citation management software can help you organize your references in folders and/or with tags. You can also annotate and highlight the PDFs within the software and usually the notes are searchable. To choose a good citation management software, you need to consider which one can be streamlined with your literature search and writing process. Here is a guide page comparing EndNote, Mendeley & Zotero. The Library also has guides for three of the major citation management tools:

  • EndNote & EndNote Web Guide
  • Mendeley Guide
  • Getting Started with Zotero

What steps should I take to ensure academic integrity?

The best way to ensure academic integrity is to familiarize yourself with different types of intentional and unintentional plagiarism and learn about the University's standards for academic integrity. Start with this guide . The Library also has a guide about your rights and responsibilities regarding copyrighted images and figures that you include in your thesis.

Where can I find writing and editing help?

Writing and editing help is available at the Graduate College's Center for Communication Excellence . The CCE offers individual consultations, peer writing groups, workshops and seminars to help you improve your writing.

Where can I find I find formatting standards? Technical support?

The Graduate College has a Dissertation/ Thesis website with extensive examples and videos about formatting theses and dissertations. The site also has templates and formatting instructions for Word and LaTex .

What citation style should I use?

The Graduate College thesis guidelines require that you "use a consistent, current academic style for your discipline." The Library has a Citation Style Guides resource you can use for guidance on specific citation styles. If you are not sure, please consult your advisor or liaison librarians for help.

Adapted from The Literature Review: For Dissertations, by the University of Michigan Library. Available: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/dissertationlitreview

Center for Communication Excellence/ Library Workshop Slides

Slides from the CCE/ Library Workshop "A Citation Here...A Citation There...Pretty Soon You'll Have a Lit Review" held on April 4, 2023 are below:

  • CCE Workshop Apr 4 2023
  • Next: Types of Literature Reviews >>
  • Last Updated: Jan 26, 2024 4:50 PM
  • URL: https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/gradlitrev
  • Jump to menu
  • Student Home
  • Accept your offer
  • How to enrol
  • Student ID card
  • Set up your IT
  • Orientation Week
  • Fees & payment
  • Academic calendar
  • Special consideration
  • Transcripts
  • The Nucleus: Student Hub
  • Referencing
  • Essay writing
  • Learning abroad & exchange
  • Professional development & UNSW Advantage
  • Employability
  • Financial assistance
  • International students
  • Equitable learning
  • Postgraduate research
  • Health Service
  • Events & activities
  • Emergencies
  • Volunteering
  • Clubs and societies
  • Accommodation
  • Health services
  • Sport and gym
  • Arc student organisation
  • Security on campus
  • Maps of campus
  • Careers portal
  • Change password

Literature Review

What is a literature review.

Students are often unsure of how to write a literature review. This is usually because, unlike other stages of a thesis such as Methods and Results, they have never written a literature review before.

FAQs about literature reviews

In the table below, you will find some of the questions that students ask, and some suggested answers.

Examples of literature reviews: organisation

Here you will find some examples from past Honours theses. The first set of examples shows part of the Table of Contents, so that you can see the kind of information included in a literature review. What can you notice about how the students have organised their reviews? 

From the School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1

1.1 HEPATITIS C VIRUS................................. 1

1.1.1 Genome ................................................ 1  1.1.2 Pathogenesis.......................................... 2  1.1.3 Transmission.......................................... 3  1.1.4 Epidemiology.......................................... 5 1.1.5 Treatment.............................................. 5

1.2 QUASISPECIES............................................ 7

1.2.1 Quasispecies and Treatment Outcome....... 7

1.3 METHODS TO ANLAYSE QUASISPECIES........... 8

1.3.1 Cloning and Sequencing........................... 9 1.3.2 Heteroduplex Mobility Analysis (HMA)........ 9 1.3.3 Capillary Electrophoresis......................... 11 

1.4 HYPOTHESIS AND AIMS ............................... 11 

(Oon 2005, p.ii)

What organisational approach has the student taken in example A?

From the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 2-1

2.1 CLASSIC DIFFUSION CONCEPT....................... 2-1

2.1.1diffusion mechanisms................................ 2-1  2.1.2 Fick’s law .................................................. 2-4

2.2 BORON DIFFUSION ........................................ 2-9

2.2.1 diffusivity ................................................ 2-9 2.2.2 segregation coefficient ............................. 2-10 2.2.3 silicon self-interstitial and diffusion rate....... 2-12  2.2.4 formation of boron rich layer (brl).............. 2-12 2.2.5 boron diffusion systems............................. 2-14

2.3 BORON NITRIDE SOLID SOURCE DIFFUSION..... 2-15

2.3.1 benefits and challenges.............................. 2-15  2.3.2 diffusion process........................................ 2-16

2.4 SOLAR CELL CHARACTERISATION..................... 2-18

What organisational approach has the student taken in example B?

Examples of literature reviews: language

Here you will find some more examples of literature reviews, showing how the students refer to and comment on previous research. Look at the following examples and see how the students summarise a number of studies and contrast differing findings. Also notice the use of evaluative language to show the student's evaluation of the previous research.

  • Summarising language
  • Contrast language 
  • Evaluative language

"Several studies [5, 6, 7] have reported the benefits of using boron solid sources over other types of boron diffusion source. … On the contrary, Warabisako et al [9] demonstrated that obtaining high efficiencies with boron solid source was no easy task. They reported severe degradation of bulk minority carrier lifetime after boron solid source diffusion" (Chen, 2003, pp.2-14-2-15).

"On evaluation of the studies performed thus far, genotype 1b RdRp proteins have been studied extensively while RdRp proteins from other genotypes have been somewhat ignored.  Kim et al. was the only group to have published a 3a RdRp paper, although their focus was on the template requirement for the NS5B gene as opposed to polymerase activity" (Tan, 2004, pp.15-16)

See next: Exercise for getting started on your literature review

Engineering & science.

  • Report writing
  • Technical writing
  • Writing lab reports
  • Introductions
  • Literature Review Exercise
  • Writing up results
  • Discussions
  • Conclusions
  • Writing tools
  • Case study report in (engineering)
  • ^ More support

Study Hacks Workshops | All the hacks you need! 7 Feb – 10 Apr 2024

  • Library Catalogue

Literature reviews for graduate students

On this page, what is a literature review, literature review type definitions, literature review protocols and guidelines, to google scholar, or not to google scholar, subject headings vs. keywords, keeping track of your research, project management software, citation management software, saved searches.

Related guides:

  • Systematic, scoping, and rapid reviews: An overview
  • Academic writing: what is a literature review , a guide that addresses the writing and composition aspect of a literature review
  • Media literature reviews: how to conduct a literature review using news sources
  • Literature reviews in the applied sciences
  • Start your research here , literature review searching, mainly of interest to newer researchers

For more assistance, please contact the Liaison Librarian in your subject area .

Most generally, a literature review is a search within a defined range of information source types, such as, for instance, journals and books, to discover what has been already written about a specific subject or topic.  A literature review is a key component of almost all research papers.  However, the term is often applied loosely to describe a wide range of methodological approaches. A literature review in a first or second year course may involve browsing the library databases to get a sense of the research landscape in your topic and including 3-4 journal articles in your paper. At the other end of the continuum, the review may involve completing a comprehensive search, complete with documented search strategies and a listing of article inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the most rigorous format - a Systematic Review - a team of researchers may compile and review over 100,000 journal articles in a project spanning one to two years! These are out of scope for most graduate students, but it is important to be aware of the range of types of reviews possible.

One of the first steps in conducting a lit review is thus to clarify what kind of review you are doing, and its associated expectations.

Factors determining review approach are varied, including departmental/discipline conventions, granting agency stipulations, evolving standards for evidence-based research (and the corollary need for documented, replicable search strategies), and available time and resources.

The standards are also continually evolving in light of changing technology and evidence-based research about literature review methodology effectiveness. The availability of new tools such as large-scale library search engines and sophisticated citation management software continues to influence the research process.

Some specific types of lit reviews types include systematic reviews , scoping reviews , realist reviews , narrative reviews , mapping reviews, and qualitative systematic reviews , just to name a few. The protocols and distinctions for review types are particularly delineated in health research fields, but we are seeing conventions quickly establishing themselves in other academic fields.

The below definitions are quoted from the very helpful book, Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review . London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

For more definitions, try:

  • Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  • Sage Research Methods Online. A database devoted to research methodology. Includes handbooks, encyclopedia entries, and a research concepts map.
  • Research Methods
  • Report Writing
  • Research--Methodology
  • Research--Methodology--Handbooks, manuals, etc.

Note:   There is unfortunately no subject heading specifically for "literature reviews" which brings together all related material.

Mapping Review : "A rapid search of the literature aiming to give a broad overview of the characteristics of a topic area. Mapping of existing research, identification of gaps, and a summary assessment of the quantity and quality of the available evidence helps to decide future areas for research or for systematic reviews." (Booth, Papaioannou & Sutton, 2012, p. 264)

Mixed Method Review : "A literature review that seeks to bring together data from quantitative and qualitative studies integrating them in a way that facilitates subsequent analysis" (Booth et al., p. 265).

Meta-analysis : "The process of combining statistically quantitative studies that have measured the same effect using similar methods and a common outcome measure" (Booth et al., p. 264).

Narrative Review: "A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review" (Booth et al., p. 265).

Note: this term is often used pejoratively, describing a review that is inadvertently guided by a confirmation bias.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis : "An umbrella term increasingly used to describe a group of review types that attempt to synthesize and analyze findings from primary qualitative research studies" (Booth et al., p. 267).

Rapid Review : "Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p.96).

Note: Rapid reviews are often done when there are insufficient time and/or resources to conduct a systematic review. As stated by Butler et. al, "They aim to be rigorous and explicit in method and thus systematic but make concessions to the breadth or depth of the process by limiting particular aspects of the systematic review process" (as cited in Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100). 

Scoping Review: "A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., p. 269).

Systematic Review : "A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review" (Booth et al., p. 271).

Note : a systematic review (SR) is the most extensive and well-documented type of lit review, as well as potentially the most time-consuming. The idea with SRs  is that the search process becomes a replicable scientific study in itself. This level of review will possibly not be necessary (or desirable) for your research project.

Many lit review types are based on organization-driven specific protocols for conducting the reviews. These protocols provide specific frameworks, checklists, and other guidance to the generic literature review sub-types. Here are a few popular examples:

Cochrane Review - known as the "gold standard" of systematic reviews, designed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Primarily used in health research literature reviews.

  • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . "The official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews".

Campbell Review - the sister organization of the Cochrane Institute which focuses on systematic reviews in the social sciences.

  • So you want to write a Campbell Systematic review?
  • Campbell Information Retrieval Guide. The details of effective information searching

Literature Reviews in Psychology

A recent article in the  Annual Review of Psychology  provides a very helpful guide to conducting literature reviews specifically in the field of Psychology.

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. (2019). Annual Review of Psychology, 70 (1), 747-770. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Rapid Reviews have become increasingly common due to their flexibility, as well as the lack of time and resources available to do a comprehensive systematic review. McMaster University's National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) has created a  Rapid Review Guidebook , which "details each step in the rapid review process, with notes on how to tailor the process given resource limitations."  

Scoping Review

There is no strict protocol for a scoping review (unlike Campbell and Cochrane reviews). The following are some recommended guidelines for scoping reviews:

  • Scoping Reviews  from the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
  • Current best practices for the conduct of scoping reviews, from the EQUATOR Network

In addition to protocols which provide holistic guidance for conducting specific kinds of reviews, there are also a vast number of frameworks, checklists, and other tools available to help focus your review and ensure comprehensiveness. Some provide broader-level guidance; others are targeted to specific parts of your reviews such as data extraction or reporting out results.

  • PICO or PICOC A framework for posing a researchable question (population, intervention, comparisons, outcomes, context/environment)
  • PRISMA Minimum items to report upon in a systematic review, as well as its extensions , such as  PRISMA-ScR (for scoping reviews)
  • SALSA framework: frames the literature review into four parts: search (S), appraisal(AL), synthesis(S), analysis(A)
  • STARLITE Minimum requirements for reporting out on literature reviews.
  • Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Checklists Includes a checklist for evaluating Systematic Reviews.

These are just a sampling of specific guides generated from the ever-growing literature review industry.

Much of the online discussion about the use of Google Scholar in literature reviews seems to focus more on values and ideals, rather than a technical assessment of the search engine's role. Here are some things to keep in mind.

  • It's good practice to use both Google Scholar and subject-specific databases (example: PsycINFO) for conducting a lit review of any type. For most graduate-level literature reviews, it is usually recommended to use both.
  • You should search Google Scholar through the library's website when off-campus. This way you can avoid being prompted for payment to access articles that the SFU Library already subscribes to.
  • Search tips for Google and Google Scholar

Google Advantages:

  • Allows you to cast a wide net in your search.
  • The most popular articles are revealed
  • A high volume of articles are retrieved
  • Google's algorithm helps compensate for poorly designed searches
  • Full-text indexing of articles is now being done in Google Scholar
  • A search feature allow you to search within articles citing your key article
  • Excellent for known-item searching or locating a quote/citation
  • Helpful when searching for very unique terminology (e.g., places and people)
  • Times cited tool can help identify relevant articles
  • Extensive searching of non-article, but academic, information items: universities' institutional repositories, US case law, grey literature , academic websites, etc.

Disadvantages:

  • The database is not mapped to a specific discipline
  • Much less search sophistication and manipulation supported
  • Psuedo-Boolean operators
  • Missing deep data (e.g., statistics)
  • Mysterious algorithms and unknown source coverage at odds with the systematic and transparent requirement of a literature review.
  • Searches are optimized (for example, by your location), thwarting the replicability criteria of most literature review types
  • Low level of subject and author collocation - that is, bringing together all works by one author or one sub-topic
  • Challenging to run searches that involve common words. A search for "art AND time", for example, might bring up results on the art of time management when you are looking for the representation of time in art. In contrast, searching by topic is readily facilitated by use of subject headings in discipline-specific databases. Google Scholar has no subject headings.
  • New articles might not be pushed up if the popularity of an article is prioritized
  • Indexes articles from predatory publishers , which may be hard to identify if working outside of your field

Unlike Google Scholar, subject specific databases such as  PsycINFO , Medline , or Criminal Justice Abstracts are mapped to a disciplinary perspective. Article citations contain high-quality and detailed metadata. Metadata can be used to build specific searches and apply search limits relevant to your subject area. These databases also often offer access to specialized material in your area such as grey literature , psychological tests, statistics, books and dissertations.

For most graduate-level literature reviews, it is usually recommended to use both. Build careful searches in the subject/academic databases, and check Google Scholar as well.

For most graduate-level lit reviews, you will want to make use of the subject headings (aka descriptors) found in the various databases.

Subject headings are words or phrases assigned to articles, books, and other info items that describe the subject of their content. They are designed to succinctly capture a document's concepts, allowing the researcher to retrieve all articles/info items about that concept using one term. By identifying the subject headings associated with your research areas, and subsequently searching the database for other articles and materials assigned with that same subject heading, you are taking a significant measure to ensure the comprehensiveness of your literature review.

About subject headings:

  • They are applied systematically : articles and books will usually have about 3-8 subject headings assigned to their bibliographic record.
  • The subject headings come from a finite pool of terms -  one that is updated frequently.
  • They are often organized in a hierarchical taxonomy , with subject headings belonging to broader headings, and/or having narrower headings beneath them. Sometimes there are related terms (lateral) as well.
  • They provide a standardized way to describe a concept. For instance, a subject heading of "physician" may be used to capture many of the natural language words that describe a physician such as doctor, family doctor, GP, and MD.

One way to identify subject headings (SHs) of interest to you is to start with a keyword search in a database, and see which SHs are associated with the articles of interest.

A. In the below example, we start with a keyword search for "type a" personality in PsycINFO .  A more contemporary term to describe this phenomena is then found in the subject heading field:

keyword search in Psycinfo

B. Another way to identify subject headings related to your topic is to go directly to a database's thesaurus or index. For example, if we are researching depression, the PsycINFO entry for major depression suggests some narrower terms we could focus our search by.

using the thesaurus or index

For more in-depth help with using subject headings in a literature review, please contact the Liaison Librarian in your subject area .

  • NEW! Covidence . Covidence is a web-based literature review tool that will help you through the process of screening your references, data extraction, and keeping track of your work. Ideal for streamlining systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses, and other related methods of evidence synthesis.
  • NVivo is a robust software package that helps with management and analysis of qualitative information.The Library's Research Commons offers extensive support for NVivo.
  • Research Support Software offered by the Research Commons

Citation management software such as Zotero, Mendeley, or Endnote is essential for completing a substantial lit review. Citation software is a centralized, online location for managing your sources. Specifically, it allows you to:

  • Access and manage your sources online, all in one place
  • Import references from library databases and websites
  • Automatically generate bibliographies and in-text citations within Microsoft Word
  • Share your collection of sources with others, and work collaboratively with references
  • De-duplicate your search results* (*Note: Mendeley is not recommended for deduplication in systematic reviews.)
  • Annotate your citations. Some software allows you to mark up PDFs.
  • Note trends in your research such as which journals or authors you cite from the most.

More information on Citation Management Software

Did you know that many databases allow you to save  your search strategies? The advantages of saving and tracking your search strategies online in a literature review include:

  • Developing your search strategy in a methodological manner, section by section. For instance, you can run searches for all synonyms and subjects headings associated with one concept, then combine them with different concepts in various combinations.
  • Re-running your well-executed search in the future
  • Creating search alerts based on a well-designed search, allowing you to stay notified of new research in your area
  • Tracking and remember all of the searches you have done. Avoid inadvertently re-doing your searches by being well-documented and systematic as you go along - it's worth the extra effort!

Databases housed on the EBSCO plaform (examples: Business Source Complete, PsycINFO, Medline, Academic Search Premier) allow you to create an free account where you might save your searches:

  • Using the EBSCOhost Search History - Tutorial [2:08]
  • Creating a Search Alert in EBSCOhost - Tutorial [1:26]

Banner

  • University of La Verne
  • Subject Guides

Literature Review Basics

  • Tutorials & Samples
  • Literature Review Introduction
  • Writing Literature Reviews
  • Primary & Secondary Sources

Literature Review Tutorials

  • Literature Reviews: An Overview for Students What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? Find out here in this guide from NCSU libraries.
  • Write a Lit Review from Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this guide to learn how to write a literature review, beginning with a synthesis matrix.
  • Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide This guide will help you understand what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done. Also includes information on Annotated Bibliographies.
  • Writing a Literature Review from the University of Toledo Covers what a lit review is, lit review types, writing a lit review and further readings.
  • The Literature Review Process A guide from the University of North Texas on selecting a topic, searching the literature, plan before reviewing, reviewing the literature and writing the review.
  • The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Permission granted to use this guide.

Sample Literature Reviews

  • Business Literature Review Example One Sharing economy: A comprehensive literature review
  • Business Literature Review Example Two Internet marketing: a content analysis of the research
  • Education Literature Review Sample One Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review
  • Education Literature Review Sample Two Issues and Challenges for Teaching Successful Online Courses in Higher Education: A Literature Review
  • Gerontology Literature Review Sample One Attitudes towards caring for older people: literature review and methodology
  • Gerontology Literature Review Sample Two Literature review: understanding nursing competence in dementia care
  • Psychology Literature Review Sample One Psychological Correlates of University Students’ Academic Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  • Psychology Literature Review Sample Two Misuse of Prescription Stimulants Among College Students: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Morphological and Cognitive Effects on Brain Functioning
  • Public Administration Literature Review Sample One Considering the Environment in Transportation Planning: Review of Emerging Paradigms and Practice in the United States
  • Public Administration Literature Review Sample Two Assessing the impact of research on policy: a literature review
  • Sociology Literature Review Sample One Employment Among Current and Former Welfare Recipients: A Literature Review
  • Sociology Literature Review Sample Two Deployment and family functioning: A literature review of US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • Technology Literature Review Sample One Social media and innovation: A systematic literature review and future research directions
  • Technology Literature Review Sample Two Blockchain as a disruptive technology for business: A systematic review
  • << Previous: Primary & Secondary Sources
  • Last Updated: Jun 28, 2023 9:19 AM
  • URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/litreviews

Portland State University logo

ARCH 433/533 Contemporary Issues Seminar: What is a Literature Review?

  • Beginning Your Research
  • Reference Works
  • What is a Literature Review?
  • Cite Sources

What's a Literature Review?

A Literature Review...

  • Provides comprehensive discussion of the scholarly research that has already been done on a topic.
  • Includes some summary of important articles on a topic.
  • Includes comparison: between how different authors discuss the same topic and how the topic has been handled over time.
  • Synthesizes previous ideas on a topic, but also looks for gaps in the literature: what needs to be investigated further?

What Should a Literature Review Do?

A Literature Review should...

  • Relate directly and clearly to your thesis or research question.
  • Synthesize and contextualize results, not just report them.
  • Identify areas of controversy in the literature.
  • Formulate questions that need further research.

Adapted from “The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It”, by Dena Taylor and Margaret Procter, University of Toronto: www.writing.utoronto.ca (file linked below)

  • The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It This two-page PDF handout created by Dena Taylor and Margaret Procter at the University of Toronto has excellent guidance on conducting a literature review.

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

This excellent overview of the literature review explains what a literature review and outlines processes and best practices for doing one. It includes input from an NCSU professor on what a literature review is and what it should do. (Shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US license, attributed to North Carolina State University Libraries ).

Literature Review Guides

  • Literature Reviews for Public Affairs and Policy by Catherine Davenport Last Updated Nov 13, 2023 67 views this year
  • Research for Thesis & Dissertation Literature Reviews by Kimberly Pendell Last Updated Feb 8, 2024 414 views this year
  • << Previous: Find Books
  • Next: Cite Sources >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 19, 2024 11:22 AM
  • URL: https://guides.library.pdx.edu/c.php?g=1380834

Oxford Brookes University

Literature reviews

Reviewing the literature is a process of comparing and contrasting the existing work in the field to show any gaps in the research that your research question may fill. Sometimes literature reviews are set as stand-alone assignments, and sometimes they are part of doing the research for a longer project or dissertation. Where the literature review goes in a final project write-up may vary depending on your subject and type of research, so always check with your department or supervisor.

Scroll down for our recommended strategies and resources. 

Purpose and position of a literature review

Literature reviews can vary depending on the purpose and subject. See the list below for some of the common forms a literature review may take:

  • A stand-alone assignment designed to help develop literature searching, researching, and analysis skills, often as preparation for doing longer projects later on.  
  •  A separate chapter at the start of a dissertation, usually in a report-style dissertation in the Sciences.
  •  A smaller introductory chapter at the start of a dissertation when the whole dissertation is based on reviewing secondary literature. In this type of dissertation, the findings and discussion sections provide a more in-depth review of the literature.
  • A rigorous process within a scientific systematic review, often in Healthcare subjects. A systematic review has rigorous inclusion criteria to identify the results of a range of clinical trials and performs statistical meta-analysis on the collected data. See this video explaining t he steps of a systematic review [video] (Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Health)
  • In Humanities subjects, there might not be a separate literature review chapter. Instead, discussion of the secondary literature is woven throughout each thematic chapter and is used to help interpret primary sources such as literary texts, artworks, or historical sources.

Where to begin?

It can be hard if you don’t have a clear idea of your research question or topic. However, it’s a circular process, as the more you read, the more you can narrow your focus. Start by listing or mind-mapping some related sub-topics and plan to do a short period of exploratory reading. This guide gives a good introductory overview:

Starting your literature review (University of Reading)

A literature review is usually organised into themes relating to your overall topic. Always follow any guidance you’ve been given by your lecturer, but this page gives a useful outline literature review structure:

Structure of a literature review (Royal Literary Fund)

Not book summaries

A literature review isn’t just a set of summaries stitched together. Using sub-headings to group the literature by theme can make it easier to compare and contrast, as opposed to just describe. Don’t get confused with book reviews or annotated bibliographies .

This is quite a long literature review example from a humanities subject, but it has comments to show what the writer is doing well.

Example literature review with comments (University of Massachusetts)

Where’s the gap?

The main purpose of a literature review is to identify areas that haven’t yet been researched fully. These don’t have to be amazingly new areas, but could be a slightly different angle or context on some existing research. Look at this guide on writing gap statements:

Identifying the gap (Write like a Scientist)

Your own voice

If you find you’re just writing ‘Bloggs (2016) states…’, ‘Jin (2017) argues…’ your voice may be missing. You also need to comment on the research and form a judgement about what it shows about your topic. See this guide on how to develop your own voice - particularly useful for postgraduate students:

Developing authority (RMIT University)

Links to the discussion

If your literature review is part of a report-style dissertation (often in science and social science subjects) see this guide on how it is connected to the discussion section:

Connection with discussion chapter (University of Reading)

Further resources

If you’d like to read more about how to undertake a literature review, see this resource and book list from Brookes Library:

Dissertations and independent research book list

Back to top

Cookie statement

UC Logo

Graduate Students' Guide to Library Resources and Services

  • Literature Reviews
  • Search Tools & Strategies
  • Document Requests (Interlibrary Loan)
  • E-books (guide redirect)
  • Theses and Dissertations
  • Current Awareness Tools (Staying up-to-date)
  • Citation Management Software (guide redirect) This link opens in a new window
  • Open Access Publishing Opportunities (guide redirect) This link opens in a new window
  • Presentation Tools and Resources
  • Avoiding Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement
  • Teaching Support

Literature Reviews: An Overview

This video was created by NCSU Libraries (CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 License).

Getting Started with a Literature Review

  • Get support at the Academic Writing Center

Literature Review: 4 Steps to Compose a Literature Review

  • Meet your subject librarian

Find the subject librarian in your research area . They can help you determine the best databases and resources to use for a literature review in your field.

  • Find a research guide

Use the  Research Guide  for your subject area to find the best databases and resources in your field or topic area of focus.Some research guides include pages on literature reviews.

What is a Systematic Review?

A systematic literature review (SLRs; also known as systematic review, systematic overview, evidence summary, or research synthesis) is a summary of the research literature that is focused on a single question.

The systematic review process has been developed to minimize bias and ensure transparency . Methods should be adequately documented so that they can be replicated .

Key components of a systematic review include :

  • systematic and extensive searches to identify all the relevant published and unpublished literature
  • study selection according to predefined eligibility criteria
  • assessment of the risk of bias for included studies
  • presentation of the findings in an independent and impartial manner
  • discussion of the limitations of the evidence and of the review.
  • Systematic Reviews & Library Assistance Information about systematic and integrative reviews for the health sciences
  • << Previous: Home
  • Next: Search Tools & Strategies >>
  • Last Updated: Nov 20, 2023 4:25 PM
  • URL: https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/gradstudents

University of Cincinnati Libraries

PO Box 210033 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0033

Phone: 513-556-1424

Contact Us | Staff Directory

University of Cincinnati

Alerts | Clery and HEOA Notice | Notice of Non-Discrimination | eAccessibility Concern | Privacy Statement | Copyright Information

© 2021 University of Cincinnati

REVIEW article

A literature review of the research on students’ evaluation of teaching in higher education.

Luying Zhao&#x;

  • 1 Marxism School, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
  • 2 School of Health Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
  • 3 School of Science, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China

Students’ evaluation of teaching is a teaching quality evaluation method and teacher performance evaluation tool commonly used in Chinese and foreign universities, and it is also a controversial hot issue in the field of teaching evaluation. At present, the research results of students’ evaluation of teaching in higher education are relatively rich, mainly focusing on reliability, validity and its influencing factors, construction of index system, problems in practical application and improvement strategies. The purpose of this article is to study the relevant research results of the current Chinese and foreign academic circles, in order to provide useful inspiration for the construction of the index system and practical application of the ideological and political theory course evaluation and teaching of Chinese college students.

Introduction

Students’ evaluations of teaching (SET) is an activity for students to evaluate teachers’ teaching effect and teaching quality, including the reliability, validity, content, form, organization, and management of teaching evaluation. In the 1920s, the earliest college student evaluation system in the world began in the United States. In 1915, Purdue University in the United States gave birth to the first student evaluation scale, and in 1927 began to use the standardized student evaluation scale to evaluate teachers’ teaching, which is considered to be the beginning of the student evaluation system ( De Neve, 1991 ; Theall et al., 2001 ). After the 1980s, the college student evaluation system began to be introduced into China while it was widely used in famous universities in western countries and became an important part of the western education system ( Tu et al., 2019 ). In 2001, the Ministry of education of the people’s Republic of China issued several opinions on Strengthening Undergraduate Teaching in Colleges and universities and improving teaching quality, which clearly pointed out that students should be involved in teaching management. Many colleges and universities across the country responded positively and gradually applied student evaluation to teaching management. Relevant research was gradually enriched, and many suggestions on student evaluation were gradually adopted and implemented by colleges and universities ( Wei and Liu, 2013 ). This article will systematically analyze the relevant theoretical achievements of the current Chinese and foreign academic circles, especially the European and American World College Students’ evaluation of teaching, in order to provide useful enlightenment for the construction of the index system and practical application of the evaluation of Ideological and political theory courses for Chinese college students.

Research methodology: Literature analysis and logical analysis

This article is a literature review, so two main approaches have been adopted: documentary analysis and logical analysis. In terms of literature analysis, a large amount of literature has been consulted in writing this article, and as there is a large body of literature relating to Students’ evaluation of teaching in higher education, the authors has followed three principles in selecting literature to read. The first is to look at the time of publication of the literature, with priority given to those published recently; the second is to look at journals and authors, with priority given to well-known journals and authors; the third is to look at citation rates, with priority given to those with high citation rates; and the fourth is to pay particular attention to the two types of articles that hold pro and con views on SET. In terms of logical analysis, this article argues that the three most critical factors associated with SET are the reliability and validity of SET, the indicator system of SET, the problems that arise in the application of SET, and the countermeasures taken. This article argues that, as a review, the four most critical factors related to SET are reliability and validity, indicator systems, problems arising in application and countermeasures to be taken, and evaluation of the above perspectives. Therefore, the logical framework of this article is: an analysis of the reliability and validity of relevant SETs in the existing literature, an analysis of the indicator system, and an analysis of the problems associated with their practical application, an evaluation of the above-mentioned views on relevant SETs, and finally, a conclusion and recommendations.

Research on the reliability and validity of students’ evaluation of teaching in higher education

In students’ evaluation of teaching, reliability refers to the degree to which students’ evaluation of teaching can stably reflect teachers’ actual teaching level, which is manifested in the stability or consistency of the evaluation results; Validity refers to whether students’ evaluation of teaching can achieve the expected goals and effects ( Hong, 2010 ). Whether, it is reliable and effective is directly related to whether students’ teaching evaluation can be applied to teachers’ teaching evaluation. According to the current research results of the academic circles, although there are many doubts about the reliability of College Students’ teaching evaluation, the traditional view that its reliability is high has not been overturned. The validity is also controversial ( Uttl, 2021 ). The mainstream view is that it is effective on the whole and has been supported by abundant literature.

Views on the reliability of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education

A skeptical view of the reliability of student’s evaluation of teaching.

In the early research, due to the limitation of research design and method, scholars mostly used the average score of the class to measure the reliability of students’ teaching evaluation. Since this method ignored the differences between individual students, it exaggerated the students’ evaluation to a certain extent. Religious reliability ( Hocevar, 1991 ). With the development and application of statistics and data analysis methods, scholars began to use more scientific measurement tools to conduct empirical research on students’ teaching evaluation reliability. Cheng and Zhang (2016) tested the reliability of the samples from three levels: “inter-student reliability,” “intra-course consistency” and “inter-item reliability,” and concluded that the reliability index inflated due to scoring inertia It cannot explain the reliability of the teaching evaluation results, but shows that the reliability measurement contains more interference information. Gao et al. (2010) and other scholars used the intraclass correlation coefficient to comprehensively evaluate the reliability of students’ teaching evaluation and found that: in various indicators, students’ scores on teachers’ teaching are relatively consistent, so they can be It is judged that its rater reliability is high.

A favorable view of the reliability of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education

In contrast to Gao et al. (2010) and Morley (2012) and other scholars used the intra class correlation coefficient to comprehensively evaluate the reliability of students’ teaching evaluation and found that students’ scores of teachers’ teaching are relatively consistent in all indicators, so it can be judged that their raters have high reliability also believe that the SET tool used in universities is reasonable, reliable, and effective.

Viewpoints on the validity of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education

View of sufficient effectiveness.

He (2017) pointed out in his research that college students, as classroom participants and stakeholders, have the most say in the teaching effect, and have the necessary cognitive and judgment skills, so students’ evaluation of teaching is scientific, objective and accurate. Li et al. (2017) believe that compared with other teaching evaluation models, student evaluation of teaching has a more direct and economical advantage, and establishes a teaching system that is mainly based on student evaluation and supplemented by expert evaluation and peer evaluation. A quality assurance system is available. Foreign studies have also pointed out that, from the long-term practice of the student evaluation system in many colleges and universities, although there are doubts, its effectiveness is worthy of recognition ( Chau, 1997 ). Numerous colleges and universities in North America, Europe, and Asia are using student evaluations as a valid indicator to measure teaching effectiveness, or as one of the determinants of teacher promotion, tenure, pay-for-performance, or professional development ( Chen and Hoshower, 2003 ). Cashin and Downey (1992) even argue that student evaluations are more reliable and valid than any other data and can be used to improve teachers’ teaching.

View of insufficient effectiveness

Wang and Guan (2017) and Zhou and Qin (2018) believe that students’ teaching evaluation is students’ subjective value judgment of teachers’ teaching. Students may have unclear cognition of teaching evaluation or negative random evaluation, which leads to the deviation of teaching evaluation results and is difficult to truly reflect the problems in teaching practice. Gu et al. (2021) believes that students are still in the process of knowledge accumulation, and the dislocation of teaching evaluation subjects and perspectives caused by students’ teaching evaluation makes it difficult for them to accurately grasp the information of teaching activities, resulting in evaluation distortion. Morley (2012) , Spooren et al. (2013) and other foreign scholars pointed out that although the methods of measuring the effectiveness of students’ teaching evaluation in some typical studies are widely spread, some of them have logical problems, and educators have only reached a consensus on some characteristics of proving the effectiveness of teaching. Based on these characteristics, the effectiveness of students’ teaching evaluation cannot be clearly defined. Galbraith et al. (2012) also believes that the existing evidence is insufficient to support the effectiveness of SET as a general indicator to evaluate the teaching effect or student learning effect. This paragraph should be deleted) Wolfgang Stroebe (2020) also thinks that the existing evidence shows that students’ evaluation of teaching (sets) can not measure the teaching effect.

Factors affecting the reliability and validity of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education

Since reliability is a necessary condition for validity, the effectiveness of student evaluation of teaching needs to be supported by reliable evaluation results, so the academic circles generally consider the factors affecting reliability and validity comprehensively. According to the current research results, the influencing factors can be divided into two categories: teaching factors and non-teaching factors. Teaching factors include teaching methods, teaching contents, teaching attitudes, teaching means, etc. Non-teaching factors include students’ individual factors, such as grade, gender, specialty, academic achievement, teaching evaluation attitude, etc.; teachers’ personal factors, such as teachers’ age, gender, professional title, teachers’ favorite degree by students ( Dennis, 2022 ); and curriculum factors, such as course form, course time, course importance, course difficulty, etc. As the teaching factors themselves belong to the content covered by the students’ evaluation of teaching, their influence on the evaluation results is positive. Therefore, the discussion of the influencing factors in the academic circles mainly focuses on the non-teaching factors that cause the deviation of the evaluation results.

Chinese scholars’ research on the influencing factors of College Students’ teaching evaluation is mainly to collect the data of influencing factor assumptions from students through questionnaires and interviews, and combined with the teaching evaluation results of specific colleges and universities, use statistical methods to select appropriate models for data analysis, so as to draw conclusions. Pan and Zhang (2016) concluded through empirical research that students’ subjective cognitive factors have a greater impact on the effectiveness of teaching evaluation than objective factors such as grade, gender, academic achievement, and so on. Li and Meng (2020) used the research method of grounded theory to draw a conclusion that students’ evaluation of teaching is affected by four factors: students, teachers, schools, and courses. If it is not handled properly, it is prone to adverse selection, which affects the effectiveness of teaching evaluation and the quality of school teaching. Long (2019) pointed out after analyzing the teaching evaluation data of students in Shantou University business school that there is no inevitable positive correlation between the teaching evaluation scores obtained by teachers and students’ grades of the course, and the teaching workload of teachers has a significant negative impact on the teaching evaluation scores.

Western scholars’ research on the influencing factors of students’ teaching evaluation is more comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth than domestic. However, because the influencing factors of students’ teaching evaluation are too numerous, and there are certain differences in the survey objects selected by different students, there is no agreement on the degree of influence of each factor. Gallagher (2000) , Ginexi (2003) , Heckert et al. (2006) , and other scholars found through research that students’ characteristics (such as gender, personality, expected score of curriculum, emotion toward teachers, grade, learning expectation, major, attitude toward curriculum and teaching evaluation, the proportion of students participating in teaching evaluation in the total number of students, confidence in the effectiveness and influence of their teaching evaluation results, etc.), Teachers’ characteristics (such as gender, age, educational background, rank, relationship with students, charm and image, etc.) and curriculum characteristics (such as curriculum time, class size, curriculum nature, assessment form, etc.), and even whether the evaluation of teaching is anonymous, and whether the evaluated teachers participate in the evaluation process may have varying degrees of impact on the evaluation behavior of college students in a specific way ( Kekale, 2000 ).

Research on the indicators of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education

In the process of college students’ teaching evaluation, reasonable teaching evaluation indicators are particularly important. It plays a key role in the accuracy and influence of teaching evaluation results, and is the premise and basis for students’ teaching evaluation to help improve teaching quality. The research and analysis of college students’ teaching evaluation index includes not only the construction of the specific content of the teaching evaluation index, but also the discussion of the theoretical principles that should be followed in the construction of the index. As the central link of college students’ teaching evaluation, the research on teaching evaluation indicators will provide valuable reference for improving students’ teaching evaluation system.

Principles of constructing teaching evaluation indicators for college students

According to the current research results, the most common view in the academic circle on the construction principle of teaching evaluation indicators is to adhere to the “student-centered.” The view of “student-centered” originated from the “child-centered theory” of American educator and psychologist John Dewey, which emphasizes that the essential purpose of education is to promote the comprehensive and harmonious development of students ( Ye, 2000 ). The student-centered evaluation index system requires that the evaluation scale should be designed from the perspective of students, based on students’ cognitive level and actual needs, and based on students’ real feelings and gains. Students’ development should become the starting point and foothold of building the teaching evaluation index system ( Lv, 2014 ).

In addition to the mainstream views, scholars such as Wu et al. (2015) also believe that the design of the index system of college students’ teaching evaluation should at least include the characteristics of orientation, academic, interaction, difference, measurability and growth. Jiang and Xiong (2021) pointed out that after analyzing the evaluation indicators of four national universities in Japan, students’ learning behavior and emotional investment should be included in the evaluation index system, and more students’ “learning” should be included in the evaluation field. Tsou (2020) proposed to use AHP to integrate student evaluation, expert evaluation, and regular teaching assessment into the teaching evaluation system to form a new method of “same platform evaluation.” Ching (2019) believes that in order to develop relevant and constructive set indicators, the participation of important stakeholders, such as school managers, teachers and students, is essential, and more importantly, the service attributes that students want (power, rich experience and experience) should be taken into account.

Contents of the teaching evaluation indicators of college students

In the specific content design of college students’ teaching evaluation indicators, Chinese scholars generally agree with the setting mode of secondary indicators. Yan and Wei (2016) believes that the setting of student evaluation indicators should follow the teaching principles of constructivism theory, highlight the core concept of teacher led and student-centered, design secondary indicators covering six aspects: teaching methods, teaching content, teaching attitude, teacher ethics and style, learning elements, learning effects, and set open questions for students to express their opinions and suggestions. Zhang et al. (2017) started with five first-level indicators of teaching attitude, teaching implementation, Teaching means and methods, teaching ability and level, and teaching effect based on literature research and teaching evaluation experience in colleges and universities. There are 33 secondary evaluation indicators based on learning theory and closely related to teaching quality, covering all aspects of the teaching process. Wu et al. (2015) , from the perspective of systems theory, combined teaching evaluation theory, Chinese and other teaching evaluation cases and empirical research results, and designed a comprehensive index covering teaching enthusiasm, teaching organization, learning value, and teacher-student relationship, teaching content, teaching interaction, homework and assessment of 7 single indicators of evaluation index system. It is also worth mentioning that Zhang et al. (2019) optimized the student evaluation index system based on the new era’s requirements for higher education teaching quality, and constructed an index system of three levels: general education indicators, subject sharing indicators and school specific indicators, and added the relevant contents of “moral education” and “ideological politics” to the general education indicators.

Universities in some countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia have set up special teaching evaluation and development institutions, whose members are composed of experts from different disciplines, and experts collectively discuss and formulate standardized student teaching evaluation scales. The evaluation indicators of the scale mainly refer to D. L stufflebeam’s CIPP evaluation model ( Zhou, 2012 ). The CIPP model advocates helping managers (the makers of the indicator system) to systematically obtain and use evaluation feedback information in order to meet their needs or to utilize information resources as much as possible. Most of the colleges and universities in Western countries refer to this model, starting from the traditional student evaluation index, and divide it into three dimensions: background condition, process, and result to design evaluation index to systematically evaluate teacher teaching ( Kellaghan and Stufflebeam, 2003 ; Zhao, 2010 ). Another SEEQ model has also been praised by foreign universities. The SEEQ evaluation index is composed of four parts: core index, characteristics of students and courses, additional index (supplementary questions) and open evaluation. Among them, the core index requires students to evaluate nine parts of teachers’ teaching. These nine parts include Academic, emotional, organizational, collaboration, personal communication, curriculum development, assessment, homework, and overall impression of teachers ( Richardson, 2005 ; Marsh, 2007 ; Schellhase, 2010 ). Chinese scholars Jiang and Lu (2019) also found in their research on the students’ teaching evaluation system in ten first-class foreign universities that Stanford, MIT, Cornell and other colleges and universities evaluate students’ overall experience of the course and achieve the learning goals of the course. The evaluation of the situation and the evaluation of knowledge acquisition and skill development are included in the student evaluation index.

Research on the problems and countermeasures in the practical application of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education

Since the student evaluation system has been widely used in major colleges and universities in the world, it has not only achieved certain results, but also exposed many problems in practical application. The academic circles have abundant research results on the problems and improvement strategies in the practice of college students’ teaching evaluation. Although the opinions of various scholars are occasionally lacking, they are generally similar. This article summarizes the main points of view.

Problems existing in the practice of teaching evaluation by college students

First, the function of teaching evaluation is alienated. There is a game between teaching managers, teachers and students in the existing student teaching evaluation system, that is, managers focus more on teachers’ “teaching” rather than students’ “learning.” Exaggerating the degree of teaching evaluation’s response to teachers’ teaching level weakens its function of teaching improvement ( Becker and William, 2000 ; Jiang et al., 2018 ; Liang et al., 2020 ). Second, the evaluation index system is unscientific. According to the existing research, the unscientific aspects of teaching evaluation indicators are mainly reflected in the neglect of the subject status of students in teaching evaluation, the failure to distinguish the evaluation indicators of different professional courses, the too many invalid indicators and the complicated content, and the lack of theoretical guidance for the construction of the indicator system, etc ( Ching, 2019 ; Sun, 2021 ). Constantinou and Wijnen-Meijer (2022) also pointed out that students, peers, curriculum managers and self-evaluation should be included in teaching evaluation ( Chan, 2019 ). Third, the use of teaching evaluation results is unreasonable. In many colleges and universities, students’ teaching evaluation is a mere formality, only using quantitative scores to evaluate teachers’ performance, ignoring the value of qualitative teaching evaluation data; at the same time, the processing of teaching evaluation data is too simplistic, and a reasonable result feedback mechanism has not been formed ( Chan, 2019 ). Fourth, the management system is imperfect. Restricted by subjective and objective conditions, at present, the management of students’ teaching evaluation in Colleges and universities at home and abroad is relatively extensive ( Li et al., 2019 ), most of which are implemented by educational administration departments or entrusted to third-party evaluation institutions for operation, and few of them set up special organizations or establish clear rules and regulations to standardize the implementation of teaching evaluation.

Improvement strategies for student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education

In view of the problems existing in the actual operation of College Students’ teaching evaluation, scholars at home and abroad have given suggestions for improvement from different angles. Sun and Sun (2020) believe that the failure of students’ teaching evaluation is caused by various games in teaching evaluation, and the fundamental solution is to change the function from the role of personnel management and summative evaluation of teachers. Tools, transforming into links and means of the ongoing process of diagnosing and developing teacher teaching. Long and Wang (2019) pointed out in their research that the use of the student teaching evaluation system should clarify the value, clarify the standards, and set the rules, and conduct a comprehensive evaluation from the aspects of clarifying the purpose of evaluation, optimizing the evaluation indicators, enriching the evaluation forms, and rationally using the results. It is comprehensively constructed to realize the teaching academic value of students’ evaluation of teaching. Xu (2017) believes that timely self-improvement is an important part of the new student teaching evaluation system, so the student teaching evaluation process should be optimized based on the principle of continuous improvement, and a problem tracking and monitoring guarantee mechanism should be established. Through his research, Svinicki (2010) showed that open evaluation plays an important role in students’ teaching evaluation. The limitation of pure quantitative evaluation on students’ expression should be reduced as much as possible and more open possibilities should be provided in terms of teaching evaluation indicators. Marsh and Herbert (1987) put the perspective on the feedback of teaching evaluation results, and believed that the influence and effectiveness of students’ teaching evaluation results can be expanded through three feedback methods: summary of students’ teaching evaluation results, summary materials for each teacher, and teaching expert advice given in combination with students’ teaching evaluation results. Hassanein et al. (2012) concluded from a SET study conducted in nursing schools that improving the teaching evaluation process must take into account the diversity of student characteristics, student evaluation goals, teaching methods, and institutional context.

Comments on existing research

Research perspective.

The original intention of the student evaluation system is to let students, as the main body of teaching, evaluate teachers’ teaching behavior. However, with the popularization and development of the system in colleges and universities around the world, the conflicts of interest among teaching managers, teachers and students in teaching evaluation are gradually revealed. In this game, managers put the focus of students’ teaching evaluation on teachers, and take teaching evaluation as a simple and effective tool to measure teachers’ performance. In fact, students’ expression of teachers’ teaching is limited and controllable. In the current research results, scholars at home and abroad have a more profound understanding of the absence of students’ evaluation of teaching, generally shifting the research perspective to the concept of “student-centered” evaluation of teaching, and considering “the actual needs of students” and “promoting the all-round development of students” in the research of various parts such as the function, content and results of evaluation of teaching. However, the current research perspective is lack of comprehensiveness, and the seemingly reasonable transformation cannot resolve the contradiction between the three in the student evaluation system. Overemphasizing the student standard will magnify the deviation of the system in the evaluation of teachers’ teaching quality, and increase the cost and burden of teaching managers.

Research contents

The academic research on college students’ teaching evaluation mainly focuses on reliability, validity and its influencing factors, evaluation indicators, deficiencies in practical application and improvement strategies, among which the research results on the effectiveness of teaching evaluation are the most abundant. With the wide application of the student teaching evaluation system, the research scope of validity has expanded from the initial analysis of rationality to the research on the reliability of students’ teaching evaluation results and the final validity of students’ teaching evaluation. In terms of influencing factors, although researchers have formed a relatively unified view on its main categories, due to the large number of subtle factors and different research perspectives, the influence results of specific factors are also different, making the research results of this part complex and full of controversy. In terms of evaluation indicators, the research on the theory of index construction has been relatively complete, and the combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation can generally be used, which reflects the academic quality of index construction. However, there are still different strengths and weaknesses in the design of specific evaluation indicators, and there is a lack of a comprehensive, systematic and authoritative index design framework, so it is difficult to form a unified opinion and promote its application. In terms of problems and countermeasures in practice, scholars at home and abroad have relatively unanimous opinions on the problems existing in the current teaching evaluation process of college students, and have carried out a relatively comprehensive analysis. However, the countermeasures proposed for the problem are too vague and unconvincing, and it is necessary to further verify and concretize them in the application process to obtain more effective improvement suggestions.

Research methods

At present, scholars’ research on students’ teaching evaluation system is no longer limited to literature, but more to empirical investigation and statistical analysis. In recent years, in terms of the reliability and validity of students’ teaching evaluation and its influencing factors, more and more researchers have used statistical methods such as independence test, multiple regression analysis, ordered regression model (OLM) to analyze the data of students’ teaching evaluation. The correct and reasonable use of appropriate data processing methods has significantly improved the scientificity of the research on the effectiveness of students’ teaching evaluation. In order to build a scientific and reasonable evaluation index, researchers prefer to use questionnaires, interviews, random sampling and other methods to conduct empirical research on the subjects and cases of teaching evaluation in colleges and universities. However, a good empirical study is extremely difficult to operate, which requires a large sample size and will also cost more time, human resources and other resources. Therefore, the evidence of empirical research in the current results is still relatively shallow, and we can try to combine it with big data and artificial intelligence algorithms to supplement it with diversified research methods.

Research trends

According to the current research trend in academia, first of all, researchers will continue to explore the influencing factors of students’ teaching evaluation. The influencing factors of college students’ teaching evaluation are extremely complex, but it is extremely important to overcome the negative effects of interfering factors and improve the limitation of students’ teaching evaluation. Therefore, the research on this issue in academic circles will continue to deepen. Secondly, the rapid development of the Internet has innovated the form of students’ teaching evaluation, and students’ online teaching evaluation has become the current mainstream model. While online teaching evaluation brings convenience to the students’ teaching evaluation system, new problems such as the weakening of the realism of the scene and the difficulty of supervising the process have also appeared. In addition, how to solve the shortcomings of the online teaching evaluation system, such as strong subjectivity of students, low teacher participation, and imperfect application of result feedback, is also becoming a problem worth exploring for researchers. Finally, the integrated development of multi-disciplinary and multi-angle will be the key direction of future research on the teaching evaluation system of college students. Scholars have found in their research that the content involved in the student evaluation system is far beyond the field of education, and its scope also covers psychology, sociology, statistics, economics and many other disciplines. Therefore, some researchers have integrated and analyzed student evaluation of teaching with other disciplines. It is foreseeable that in future research, scholars will view the improvement and development of the student evaluation system from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Conclusion and recommendations

In this article, we have provided a more in-depth analysis of the theories and methods of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education in China and abroad, and point out the desirable experiences and shortcomings of them. Firstly, in terms of the reliability and validity of student’s evaluation of teaching, the current research has made great progress in terms of validation methods, and some scholars have been able to use appropriate data analysis models to improve the persuasiveness of the results. Secondly, the research on the theory and structure of the evaluation indicators for university students generally revolves around the “student-centered theory” and “secondary indicator structure,” the rationality of which has been confirmed; however, the academic circle has not yet formed a unified opinion or standard on the selection of the specific content of the evaluation indicators. However, there is no unified opinion or standard on the selection of the specific content of evaluation indicators, and fewer scholars have paid attention to the differentiation of the indicators for different courses. Finally, regarding the problems and countermeasures in the application of student’s evaluation of teaching in higher education, current research has analyzed the process of student’s evaluation of teaching from the aspects of purpose, indicator system, application of results and process management in an all-round way and found the shortcomings, however, the scholars’ expressions of improvement measures are still abstract and lack of pertinence, making it difficult to carry out concrete operations. In view of the above analysis, this article improves the research on student’s evaluation in Western higher education from a Chinese perspective, and at the same time provides a reference for the construction of an indicator system for student evaluation in Chinese universities, taking into account the actual situation of Chinese universities. The future research will be based on the successful experience of student evaluation in universities, improve the problems, explore the influence mechanism of different factors on student evaluation in universities, optimize the indicator system and management system of student evaluation, especially the indicator system of student evaluation in ideological and political theory courses in Chinese higher education will be constructed in accordance with the characteristics of Chinese ideological and political theory courses, so as to improve the teaching quality of ideological and political theory courses in Chinese higher education. We will make our contribution to improving the teaching quality of ideological and political theory courses in Chinese higher education.

Author contributions

SY: conceptualization, resources, writing-review and editing, and supervision. SY, LZ, and PX: methodology. LZ and PX: formal analysis. LZ and YC: investigation. SY and YC: project administration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was funded by National Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program for Undergraduate (No. 202210316091Y).

Acknowledgments

We thank all authors for their participation in this study and their insightful comments during the revision process.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Becker, W., and William, E. (2000). Teaching economics in the 21st century. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 109–119. doi: 10.1257/jep.14.1.109

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cashin, W. E., and Downey, R. G. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 563–572. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.563

Chan, L. (2019). The practical dilemma and optimization suggestions of college students' evaluation of teaching. Educ. Modern. 6, 187–188. doi: 10.16541/j.cnki.2095-8420.2019.94.070

Chau, C. T. (1997). A bootstrap experiment on the statistical properties of students ratings of teaching effectiveness. Res. High. Educ. 38, 497–517. doi: 10.1023/A:1024918711471

Chen, Y., and Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: an assessment of student perception and motivation. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 28, 71–88. doi: 10.1080/02602930301683

Cheng, A. L., and Zhang, L. (2016). An empirical study on the reliability of college Students' teaching evaluation results. Heilongjiang High. Educ. Res. 7, 21–25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2614.2016.07.005

Ching, G. (2019). A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching: an examination of the search, experience, and credence qualities of SET. High. Educ. Eval. Dev. 12, 63–84. doi: 10.1108/HEED-04-2018-0009

Clayson, D. E. (2018). Student evaluation of teaching and matters of reliability. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 666–681. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1393495

Constantinou, C., and Wijnen-Meijer, M. (2022). Student evaluations of teaching and the development of a comprehensive measure of teaching effectiveness for medical schools. BMC Med. Educ. 22:113. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03148-6

De Neve, H. M. F. (1991). University teachers’ thinking about lecturing: student evaluation of lecturing as an improvement perspective for the lecturer. High. Educ. 22, 63–89. doi: 10.1007/BF02351200

Dennis, C. (2022). The student evaluation of teaching and likability: what the evaluations actually measure. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 47, 313–326. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1909702

Feistauer, D., and Richter, T. (2017). How reliable are students’ evaluations of teaching quality? A variance components approach. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42, 1263–1279. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083

Gallagher, T. J. (2000). Embracing student evaluations of teaching: a case study. Teach. Sociol. 28, 140–147. doi: 10.1007/s11162-011-9229-0

Galbraith, C. S., Merrill, G. B., and Kline, D. M. (2012). Are student evaluations of teaching effectiveness valid for measuring student learning outcomes in business related classes? A neural network and bayesian analyses. Res. High. Educ. 53, 353–374. doi: 10.1007/s11162-011-9229-0

Gao, W. C., Bai, S. Y., and Yu, B. (2010). Research on the reliability of students' evaluation of teaching by using intra-group correlation coefficient. Teach. Manag. 3, 53–54. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5872.2010.01.023

Ginexi, E. M. (2003). General psychology course evaluations: differential survey response by expected grade. Teach. Psychol. 30, 248–251.

Google Scholar

Gu, R., Wang, H. N., and Lou, L. S. (2021). Optimization and application of data analysis strategy for college students' evaluation of teaching. J. Zhejiang Univ. Tech. 20, 201–207.

Hassanein, S., Abdrbo, A., and Ateeq, E. A. (2012). Student evaluation of Faculty at College of nursing. Inter. Conf. Manag. Educ. Innov. 37, 17–22.

He, Y. T. (2017). An analysis of Chinese college Students' evaluation of teaching from the perspective of ethics. J. Yangzhou Univ. 21, 29–33. doi: 10.19411/j.cnki.1007-8606.2017.03.005

Heckert, T. M., Latier, A., Ringwald-Burton, A., and Drazen, C. (2006). Relations among student effort, perceived class difficulty appropriateness, and student evaluations of teaching: is it possible to "buy" better evaluations through lenient grading? Coll. Stud. J. 40, 588–596.

Hocevar, M. D. (1991). Students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: the stability of mean ratings of the same teachers over a 13-year period. Teach. Teach. Educ. 7, 303–314. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(91)90001-6

Hong, X. B. (2010). Problems and countermeasures on the reliability and validity of teaching evaluation by college students. J. Ningbo Inst. Technol. 1:7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-7109.2010.01.025

Jiang, F., Guo, Y. F., Yang, Y. H., and Guo, Y. C. (2018). Rational choice to solve the dilemma of Students' teaching evaluation——constructing the "benefit sharing" evaluation system of schools, teachers and students. Contemp. Educ. For. 6, 66–73. doi: 10.13694/j.cnki.ddjylt.2018.06.009

Jiang, Y. J., and Lu, D. K. (2019). Research on the teaching evaluation system of first-class university students——taking ten universities including Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge as examples. High. Educ. Explor. 49–54. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2019.05.008

Jiang, H. C., and Xiong, Y. (2021). The indicators, characteristics and enlightenment of students' evaluation of teaching in Japanese national universities: taking education as an example. High. Educ. Res. 42, 103–109.

Kekale, J. (2000). Quality assessment in diverse disciplinary settings. High. Educ. 40, 465–488. doi: 10.1023/A:1004116205062

Kellaghan, T., and Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. Springer Netherlands 4, 31–62. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4

Khaola, P., and Thetsane, R. (2021). The validity and reliability of student evaluation of teaching at the National University of Lesotho. Int. J. Afr. High. Educ. 8, 139–157. doi: 10.6017/ijahe.v8i1.13367

Li, Z. G., Chen, Q., and Sun, T. T. (2019). "Student-centered" thinking and practice of improving students' teaching evaluation. Mod. Educ. Manag. 1, 62–66. doi: 10.16697/j.cnki.xdjygl.2019.01.011

Li, P. D., and Meng, Q. R. (2020). Why did the results of college students' evaluation of teaching fail: a study on influencing factors, adverse selection mechanism and its governance path. J. Educ. 2, 85–96. doi: 10.14082/j.cnki.1673-1298.2020.02.009

Li, C., Su, Y. J., and Ma, Y. C. (2017). Practical exploration of improving and perfecting students' teaching evaluation system in colleges and universities. Mod. Educ. Manag. 12, 69–73. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5485.2017.12.012

Liang, Y. C., Song, S. Q., and Zhao, A. J. (2020). Research on the alienation of the teaching evaluation system of college students. School Party Build. Ideol. Educ. 18, 55–57. doi: 10.19865/j.cnki.xxdj.2020.18.018

Long, Y. (2019). Empirical analysis of influencing factors of college teachers and Students' teaching evaluation scores. Bus. Acc. 6, 116–118. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5812.2019.06.038

Long, Y., and Wang, L. (2019). On the value dimension of "teaching academic" value of college students' evaluation of teaching. Contemp. Educ. Sci. 7–10. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2221.2019.08.003

Lv, P. (2014). The construction of student-centered teaching evaluation index system. Mod. Educ. Manag. 3, 42–45. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5485.2014.03.009

Marsh, H. W. (2007). “Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness”, in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective. eds. R. P. Perry and J. C. Smart (Dordrecht: Springer), 319–383.

Marsh, H., and Herbert, W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. Int. J. Educ. Res. 11, 253–388. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2

Morley, D. D. (2012). Claims about the reliability of student evaluations of instruction: the ecological fallacy rides again. Stud. Educ. Eval. 38, 15–20. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.01.001

Pan, Y. H., and Zhang, Y. Y. (2016). An empirical study on the factors influencing the effectiveness of college Students' evaluation of teaching: a Student's perspective. Educ. Acad. Month. 7, 51–56. doi: 10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674-2311.2016.07.007

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 30, 387–415. doi: 10.1080/02602930500099193

Schellhase, K. C. (2010). The relationship between student evaluation of instruction scores and faculty formal educational coursework. Athl. Train. Educ. J. 5, 156–164. doi: 10.4085/1947-380X-5.4.156

Spooren, P., Brockx, B., and Mortelmans, D. (2013). The validity of student evaluation of teaching. Rev. Educ. Res. 83, 598–642. doi: 10.3102/0034654313496870

Stroebe, W. (2020). Student evaluations of teaching encourages poor teaching and contributes to grade inflation: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 276–294. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2020.1756817

Sun, Q. J. (2021). Existing problems and improvement strategies of college students' evaluation of teaching. Educ. Modern. 8, 126–129. doi: 10.12365/j.issn.2095-8420.2021.23.6816

Sun, A., and Sun, Y. Z. (2020). Game and reform in Students' teaching evaluation. High. Educ. Dev. Eval. 36, 47–156. doi: 10.3963/j.issn.1672-8742.2020.05.007

Svinicki, M. D. (2010). Encouraging your students to give feedback. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2001, 17–24. doi: 10.1002/tl.24

Theall, M., Abrami, C., and Lisa, A. (2001). The student ratings debate: Are they valid ? how can we best use them. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass Press.

Tsou, C. (2020). Student evaluation of teaching (SET): a critical review of the literature. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339130475_Student_Evaluation_of_Teaching_SET_A_Critical_Review_of_the_Literature

Tu, Y. X., He, X. Q., and Rebiguli, A. (2019). On the evaluation of teaching by students in colleges and universities in my country. Educ. Modern. 32, 106–108. doi: 10.16541/j.cnki.2095-8420.2019.32.044

Uttl, B. (2021). Lessons learned from research on student evaluation of teaching in higher education. Stud. Feed. Teach. Sch. 13, 237–256. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-75150-0_15

Wang, D. F., and Guan, L. (2017). Higher education quality evaluation from the perspective of students: theoretical construction and reflection. J. Nat. Inst. Educ. Admin. 5:75. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4038.2017.05.005

Wei, H. J., and Liu, M. (2013). A review of the research on "student evaluation of teaching" in colleges and universities. J. Nat. Inst. Educ. Admin. 1:62. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4038.2013.01.013

Wu, G. Y., Wang, C. Y., and Peng, X. F. (2015). Research on student-oriented classroom teaching evaluation index system in colleges and universities. Educ. Expl. 19–23.

Xu, C. T. (2017). Construction of college Students' teaching evaluation system based on the principle of continuous improvement: taking Jimei university as an example. J. Jimei Univ. 18, 70–75.

Yan, B. B., and Wei, T. L. (2016). Constructing a "student-centered" classroom teaching evaluation system in colleges and universities. J. Inner Mongolia Normal Univ. 29, 86–88.

Ye, L. (2000). Introduction to education . Beijing: People's Education Press.

Zhang, X. J., Liu, M. D., Qi, X. G., Liu, L. B., and Duan, X. X. (2019). Research on the optimization of student evaluation indicators in the new era of higher education. Voc. Tech. Educ. 2019:26. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-3219.2019.26.012

Zhang, H. Y., Lu, S. Q., and Zhang, B. C. (2017). Research on the index system of learning evaluation and teaching based on the subject of students. Mod. Educ. Sci. 41–46. doi: 10.13980/j.cnki.xdjykx.201

Zhao, H. (2010). Evaluation of the classroom teaching of physical education with the CIPP pattern. J. Hebei Normal Univ. 12, 95–98. doi: 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.ese.2010.12.023

Zhou, T. T. (2012). Analysis of the teaching evaluation index system of some foreign college students. China Univ. Teach. 2012:2. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0450.2012.02.028

Zhou, J. L., and Qin, Y. (2018). The basic types of college students' teaching evaluation behavior deviation and its relationship with students' background characteristics. Fudan Educ. Forum. 2018:6. doi: 10.13397/j.cnki.fef.2018.06.010

Keywords: students’ evaluation of teaching, review, comments, higher education, indicator systems

Citation: Zhao L, Xu P, Chen Y and Yan S (2022) A literature review of the research on students’ evaluation of teaching in higher education. Front. Psychol . 13:1004487. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1004487

Received: 27 July 2022; Accepted: 29 August 2022; Published: 29 September 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Zhao, Xu, Chen and Yan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Shuangsheng Yan, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List

Logo of brainsci

The Use and Impact of Cognitive Enhancers among University Students: A Systematic Review

Safia sharif.

1 Psychopharmacology, Substance Misuse and Novel Psychoactive Substances Research Unit, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK; [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (F.S.)

Amira Guirguis

2 Institute of Life Sciences 2, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, UK

Suzanne Fergus

Fabrizio schifano.

Introduction: Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as “smart drugs”, “study aids” or “nootropics” are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being taken as study aids by university students. This manuscript provides an overview of popular CEs, focusing on a range of drugs/substances (e.g., prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine) that have emerged as being misused. The diverted non-prescription use of these molecules and the related potential for dependence and/or addiction is being reported. It has been demonstrated that healthy students (i.e., those without any diagnosed mental disorders) are increasingly using drugs such as methylphenidate, a mixture of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine, and modafinil, for the purpose of increasing their alertness, concentration or memory. Aim: To investigate the level of knowledge, perception and impact of the use of a range of CEs within Higher Education Institutions. Methodology: A systematic review was conducted in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Whilst 1400 studies were identified within this study through a variety of electronic databases (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus), 48 papers were deemed relevant and were included in this review. Results: The most popular molecules identified here included the stimulant CEs, e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine salt mixtures and caffeine-related compounds; stimulant CEs’ intake was more prevalent among males than females; drugs were largely obtained from friends and family, as well as via the Internet. It is therefore suggested that CEs are increasingly being used among healthy individuals, mainly students without any diagnosed cognitive disorders, to increase their alertness, concentration, or memory, in the belief that these CEs will improve their performance during examinations or when studying. The impact of stimulant CEs may include tolerance, dependence and/or somatic (e.g., cardiovascular; neurological) complications. Discussion: The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in different countries is influenced by a range of factors including legal, social and ethical factors. Considering the risk factors and motivations that encourage university students to use CE drugs, it is essential to raise awareness about CE-related harms, counteract myths regarding “safe” CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.

1. Introduction

Cognitive enhancement is defined as an “amplification or extension of core capacity of the mind by improving the internal and external information processing systems” [ 1 ]. Cognitive enhancement can be achieved in two ways, e.g., “pharmacologically”, by taking cognitive enhancer (CE) drugs/substances; or “non-pharmacologically”, by maintaining a healthy lifestyle, which includes being physically, mentally and socially active; eating a healthy, balanced diet; drinking alcohol only in moderation; and maintaining good sleep habits [ 2 ]. CEs, also known as “smart drugs” or “nootropics”, are a heterogeneous group of chemical substances that are used to improve cognitive function [ 3 ], particularly memory, alertness, attention, learning performance, creativity and motivation [ 4 ]. CEs are typically being obtained, and at times by healthy individuals [ 5 , 6 ], on prescription, over-the-counter, online, or through other sources such as family or friends [ 7 ]. The clinical impact of CEs’ ingestion can be significant, with these molecules being able to affect various neurotransmitter pathways in the brain, including the cholinergic, dopaminergic, noradrenergic and serotonergic pathways [ 8 ]. Whilst their mechanism of action is not fully understood [ 3 ], most popular CEs (e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil and amphetamine salt mixtures) are stimulants [ 9 ]. Methylphenidate increases the levels of noradrenaline (NA) and dopamine (DA) in both the prefrontal cortex and the cortical/subcortical regions, and this effect may be associated with levels of improved attention in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) [ 10 ]. Conversely, with modafinil—a medicine being used to treat narcolepsy—stimulant actions are associated with an impact on NA, glutamate (NMDA or N-methyl-D-aspartate) and DA [ 11 ]. In particular, modafinil increases DA levels in the caudate and nucleus accumbens (Nac), whilst blocking DA transporters in a healthy individual’s brain [ 12 ]. Out of these molecules, modafinil may be better tolerated, inducing less adverse drug reactions, whilst not being associated with a high risk of dependence [ 13 ]. The amphetamine salt mixtures (e.g., in the branded product Adderall) block the re-uptake of both NA and DA into the pre-synaptic neuron, and increase their release as well from the pre-synaptic neuron, hence increasing their concentrations in the synaptic cleft [ 14 ].

Indeed, since the 1940s, both modafinil and amphetamine (e.g., “go pills”) CE categories have been the subject of military research, to help soldiers stay alert whilst attenuating the effects of sleep deprivation [ 15 , 16 ]. However, these drugs are increasingly being used by healthy individuals, including students and night shift workers, to improve their cognitive and motivational functions [ 17 ]. Associations between CEs and drugs in sports have been investigated [ 18 ]. CEs and drugs in sports share many aspects with respect to “enhancement” and “doping”. The former may be more socially acceptable, whilst the latter is considered illegal and is heavily monitored by organisations such as The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The use of freely available CEs, such as caffeinated products and vitamins, have been investigated in athletes as “gateway” and “predictor” of physical enhancers use. The non-monitored CEs were found to be highly used among athletes with or without physical enhancer use [ 19 ]. Studies also showed that users of erogonomic aids such as caffeine may favour doping due to “biased reasoning patterns” [ 19 ].

It is important to note that students using CEs do not only aim to achieve a cognitive enhancement, but also a motivational enhancement and an overflow of energy. They may use a combination of CEs as well as alcohol, and/or recreational sedatives, in an attempt to achieve a good quality sleep, reduce nervousness and improve overall performance in exams and study-related assessments [ 20 , 21 ].

The lifetime prevalence rate of prescribed CEs’ intake for non-medical reasons, as a self-attempt to increase cognitive performances, among university students in the UK and Ireland has been estimated to be around 10% [ 22 ]. However, these levels of intake may be underestimated [ 23 ] and the trend has attracted a considerable interest [ 22 ], relating to its social, ethical and legal implications [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Whilst most studies have focused on the prevalence of a limited range of a few CEs (e.g., amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate and modafinil), focusing on intake by students in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), a study by Napoletano et al. (2020) identified a total of 142 unique CEs. These molecules were then sub-grouped into 10 categories, according to recently proposed classifications [ 27 ] including: prescribed drugs, plants/herbs/products, psychostimulants; image- and performance-enhancing drugs (IPEDs), miscellaneous, GABAergic (gamma- aminobutyric acid-ergic) drugs, phenethylamines, cannabimimetics, tryptamine derivatives, and piperazine derivatives. In parallel with the continuous emergence of new/novel psychoactive substances (NPS), which has enriched the repertoire of illicit drug use [ 28 ], this manuscript aims to provide an updated overview of the use of CEs among university students.

The current systematic literature review was performed in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 29 ], to estimate CEs’ prevalence of intake; and assess knowledge, awareness and impact of CEs’ use among university students.

2.1. Literature Search (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)

The focus here was on quantitative and qualitative studies relating to CEs’ use among University students: The literature search was performed using a range of key word strings, e.g., cognitive enhancers AND neuroenhancement, prescription drug misuse OR prescription drug abuse among healthy individuals AND enhancement. In particular, the search strategy was conducted from three databases Scopus, PubMed and Science direct. Finally, a manual search was also carried out using Google Scholar in order to ensure none of the key articles and studies were missed.

Inclusion criteria were quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) studies having been carried out among healthy students aged 18 years and older in HEIs. Articles were included if they related to a range of nine CEs (prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine), which were selected here because of their popularity among university students [ 4 , 7 , 22 , 26 , 30 ]. Studies written in English, from the year 2000 (i.e., from around the time when NPS started to emerge in drug scenarios) to 2020 were included in the study search. Regional/world drug reports (e.g., from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction/EMCDDA and the United Nations Office for Drug and Crime/UNODC) were included here as well. Conversely, studies focussing on underage children, on preclinical experiments or students with medical diagnoses using the selected drugs/substances for medical reasons were excluded from the study. Non-English articles were also excluded.

2.2. Quality Assessment

Based on the inclusion criteria, the selected articles were appraised for quality using PRISMA checklists [ 29 ]. Search results were exported to Mendeley, a free reference manager and academic social network. This tool was used to determine the structure of the index study methodology [ 29 ].

3.1. Summary of the Literature Search

The literature search identified a total of 1400 studies here (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus) ( Figure 1 ). Forty-eight studies were excluded as they were duplicates, 1294 studies were screened and were excluded based on their title and abstract, 10 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 48 were deemed relevant and were included in this review ( Table 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is brainsci-11-00355-g001.jpg

Cognitive enhancers’ intake by university students: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Flow Diagram.

Summary of the literature review focusing on Cognitive Enhancer (CE) drug(s)/substance(s) being considered for the study (e.g., methylphenidate, amphetamine, modafinil and piracetam, caffeine pills, guarana, cobalamin (vitamin B12), vinpocetine and pyridoxine (vitamin B6).

Table 1 shows the summary of findings from the literature review on the prevalence of CEs among university students.

Nine studies were conducted in the UK (i.e., six survey studies, two interviews and one mixed methods study). The remaining studies included survey studies that were conducted in the USA ( n = 8) and Iran ( n = 4). In Australia, three surveys and one interview, in Canada, two surveys and one focus group interview, in Germany, three surveys and one interview were conducted. Three survey studies were carried out in each of the following countries: Brazil, France, Italy and Switzerland. Two survey studies were carried out in each of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, New Zeeland and the Netherlands; and one survey study was carried out in each of the following countries: Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa and UAE. Finally, one mixed-methods study was carried out in both Lithuania and the Netherlands. Participants were students from a range of disciplines, including Medicine, Pharmacy, Engineering, Law, Computer Science, Business, Education, Psychology and Social Sciences. The sample size of the different studies ranged between 77 and 80,000 participants each.

An overview of the demographic variables, prevalence of use, technical knowledge of CEs, motivations for use, source of CEs’ acquisition and positive/negative subjective effects is summarised here.

  • Demographics’ variables

Males were here identified as the most typical CE misusers [ 7 , 22 , 30 , 31 , 41 , 51 , 52 , 63 , 66 , 70 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 75 ], with some studies reporting a male:female ratio of 3:1 [ 54 ]. In contrast with this, a Welsh study reported that female representation was slightly more than males [ 68 ].

  • 2. Prevalence of CEs’ use

A growth of CEs’ intake over the past few years has been reported, including from both high-ranking universities and highly competitive courses such as Medicine and Pharmacy [ 41 ]. In the UK, findings showed that 33% of the participants used CEs which were not prescribed to them for the purpose of study [ 68 ]. In a survey conducted among UK and Ireland university students, it was found that the lifetime prevalence of the use of modafinil, methylphenidate and amphetamine were, respectively, 6.2%, 5.9%, and 2% [ 22 ]. Conversely, the lifetime prevalence of CEs’ intake among University students in the US was estimated to range between 5% and 43% [ 76 ]. More precisely, a meta-analysis from the US estimated that the misuse of CEs among university students was 17% [ 75 ]. Compared to the US, most British university students may be more cautious in using prescription drugs as CEs [ 49 ].

A recent study in Brazil reported that, out of 1865 students from different academic disciplines, 4.2% reported to having had used CEs in the last 12 months, with the most popular molecule having been methylphenidate which was not associated with an ADHD diagnosis. With respect to what is being described in less competitive study fields [ 77 ], Medicine and Pharmacy have been identified as being both stressful and highly competitive academic courses worldwide [ 44 , 45 ]. In this respect, a study that was conducted among medical students in Iran (2000–2007) showed that methylphenidate users’ mean knowledge score was higher than that of non-users ( p = 0.008), with age (range 18–28 years), sex (male 92.5%) and 26% fourth school year having been positively correlated with knowledge score ( p < 0.05). Some 8.7% of participants had taken methylphenidate at least once in their lifetime [ 70 ]. Similarly, a study carried out in Lithuania reported that the point prevalence of CEs (modafinil, methylphenidate and amphetamine) among medical students was 8.1% [ 77 ].

Finally, caffeine use as a CE has grown in popularity worldwide [ 78 ]. A study in the UAE assessed the prevalence and perceived benefits of caffeinated beverage consumption among university students [ 51 ]. More than 98.5% of the study participants were shown to be caffeine consumers, with 31% having reported being addicted to caffeine; heavy caffeine consumption was significantly associated with heart problems [ 51 ].

Despite the global popularity of the non-prescription caffeine, most research articles report the use of prescription CEs among university students. Therefore, the true prevalence of prescription vs. non-prescription CEs among university students is not fully understood and, hence, more research is needed.

3.2. CEs’ Knowledge and Reported Positive/Negative Effects

University students may be attracted by stimulant drugs for several reasons, e.g., to increase awake time, enhance cognitive performance, improve professional and academic achievement [ 41 ], but also to help with socialising and getting high [ 79 ]. Indeed, the main motivations for misusing methylphenidate may relate to improving concentration (65.2%), helping with studying (59.8%) and increasing wakefulness (47.5%) [ 73 ]. Other studies have associated methylphenidate misuse with the need to help with concentration, stay alert, have more energy and improve self-confidence levels [ 17 , 34 , 70 ]. A 2019 UK qualitative study with Biomedical Science undergraduate students examined their understanding of the risks of non-prescribed drugs, and particularly modafinil, misuse. Drivers of use were related to university pressures and desires to increase productivity; the customisation of the sleep–wake cycle was described as a key benefit of ‘study drug’ use [ 32 ].

Increasing the levels of cognitive performance may indeed potentially allow students to study for more hours, and/or increase working memory performance [ 80 ]. According to Greely et al. (2008), modafinil may be chosen as a CE because of its high online accessibility and availability. Conversely, whilst studies in the UK suggested that CE drugs such as modafinil can enhance thinking skills [ 81 ], over-confidence was reported as one of the CE’s side effects, together with a high risk of dependence [ 2 ].

The popularity of caffeine and related products as CEs may be related to the need to boost energy, stay awake, improve mood, increase concentration and socialise [ 51 ]. In the UAE, the mean level of knowledge about caffeine was described as less than 33%. Younger participants ( p = 0.008) and those who worked in healthcare and education ( p < 0.001) were significantly more knowledgeable about its negative effects, including anxiety, insomnia, tachycardia, irritability and muscle tremors [ 51 ]. A recent systematic review focussing on the effects of the caffeine-containing plant Paullinia cupana (“guarana”) on cognition in young, healthy adults found improved levels in both reaction time and accuracy performance [ 82 ]. Guarana has also been described to improve memory performance and increase alertness levels [ 83 ]. Long-term use of high dose of guarana can, however, result in a series of adverse effects, including irritability, palpitation and anxiety [ 2 , 84 ].

Despite the legal restrictions that control the possession and supply of controlled CEs, students often obtain them due to their desired pharmacological effects. Table 2 summarises the desired effects of CEs, their neuro-modulatory effects and their legal classification.

Studies summarising Cognitive Enhancers (CEs)’ legal classification, desired effects and neuro-modulatory mechanisms.

Mixtures of CE substances/drugs used by healthy students to improve cognition is on the rise and is being considered as a type of “academic doping” [ 85 ]. Poly-CE use has been documented in previous studies [ 86 ]. In Switzerland, users reported ingesting methylphenidate in addition to other CEs. Others reported using both modafinil in addition to Alzheimer’s disease drugs. Others ingested antidepressants in combination with Parkinson’s disease drugs [ 86 ]. Studies have shown that methylphenidate users were more likely to use illicit substances as well e.g., marijuana and ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-methylene dioxymethamphetamine) as compared to other prescription CE users [ 9 ].

Poly-CE use with psychostimulant and other effects offers both synergistic and additive effects based on used substances, hence potentially combining cognitive effects with wakefulness; emotional and/or motivational effects; mood-, performance-, and executive functioning-enhancing and euphoric effects [ 87 , 88 ], with risks to health that may range from mild to serious risks including dependence, tolerance and neurological, psychological and cardiovascular disorders, with a risk of overdose potentially leading to death.

The 2015 Western Australian Stimulant Regulatory Scheme showed that students may use CE to cope with study-related stress [ 89 ]. They also found that CE users are also regular illicit psychostimulant users, yet the relationship between CE and other psychostimulant such as MDMA (ecstasy) co-use/consumption is to be determined [ 90 ].

3.3. Sources of CEs’ Acquisition

Sources of CE acquisition may relate to friends and family [ 7 , 59 ]. Students diagnosed with ADHD, but not taking their methylphenidate medication regularly, have been reported as the main source for fellow students [ 4 ]. In another study, 75.5% of methylphenidate was identified as having been purchased from friends at a university campus whilst 64.3% of modafinil was obtained online [ 22 ]. Accessing the web for drug acquisition activities is a reason for concern [ 30 ], with young people (18–25 years old) being at high risk because there is no way to know what the actual ingredients of the drugs/substances are in those products [ 30 ], they are extensive users of the Internet [ 112 ]; it was found that over a third of the websites selling modafinil specifically recommended use of the drug to aid studying [ 30 ].

4. Discussion

The current systematic review provided an in-depth and updated understanding on CEs’ prevalence of use; levels of knowledge; and their impact on HEI university students, which is clearly a critical public health issue. The past few years have seen increasing levels of concern about the use of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement among university students worldwide, with the lifetime prevalence of CEs misuse among these subjects ranging from 6% to 20%, depending on the study subject [ 67 ]. Of particular concern, however, is CE’s use in Health Sciences/ Biomedical students [ 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 45 , 48 , 54 , 57 , 63 , 67 , 70 , 71 ]. Most data initially emerged from the United States [ 61 , 75 , 113 ], eventually followed by reports from the United Kingdom [ 22 ], Australia [ 46 , 50 ]; and Europe, namely from France [ 53 , 60 ], and Italy [ 38 , 69 ].

The most popular prescription CEs among the selected ones in this study were modafinil, methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures [ 71 ], with methylphenidate being the most popular among students [ 9 ]. Conversely, the most popular freely available CE was Caffeine [ 78 ]. Although not confirmed by some studies [ 113 , 114 ], males were identified here as more likely to use CE drugs than females [ 31 , 52 , 63 , 71 , 75 , 77 ]. Some studies also showed that, despite that the number of female participants was higher than their male counterparts, the rate of CE use was much higher than in female students [ 77 ].

Although no differences between genders in favouring methylphenidate as the most popular CE or in the preferential choice of any CE were recorded, there were gender differences in motivation for use [ 33 ]. Female students’ motivation for CE use were to increase concentration, memory, alertness and academic performance, and because “friends use it”. In contrast, male students’ motivations for CE use were mainly to increase study time and experiment [ 33 ].

In general, with regard to illicit substance use, Dr Adam Winstock (CEO of the Global drug Survey) pointed out the gender differences, explaining it as possibly resulting from societal stigma, shame and cultural expectations around women taking drugs. Additional factors that influence women’s decisions in using drugs include pregnancy and motherhood. Economic status and the lower rate of criminal activity amongst women also reduce female drug use and exposure to illicit drugs as compared to males [ 115 ].

Indeed, several social factors have been identified here to influence CEs’ use practices among university students [ 56 ]. These included: peer-pressure, competition, performance demands and prior drug use [ 85 ], but also recreation [ 79 ].

The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in the different countries is affected by a range of factors, including legal, social, and ethical factors [ 33 , 40 , 116 ]. Indeed, some CEs are being openly made available online [ 30 , 117 ], where they are marketed as “smart drugs”, “study drugs”, “plant food”, “research chemicals” and “designer drugs” as well [ 30 , 112 ]. The unregulated online access, and especially so for modafinil and methylphenidate, is likely to be associated with an increase in CEs’ non-medical use and subsequent harm [ 30 ]. Indeed, high levels of modafinil may have reportedly been sold and shipped to students at high-ranking/top UK universities, mostly during the examination period [ 118 ]. Conversely, as CEs’ legal alternative to either prescribing or illicit drugs of abuse, guarana was found here to be popular, with affordable online prices encouraging young users/students to buy greater quantities in order to receive discounts and free shipping [ 30 , 119 ].

Sahakian et al. (2008) opened a debate on the positive impact on improving cognitive functions, suggesting that benefits of CEs should be maximised, and their harm minimised [ 25 ]. In some studies, CE drugs have been shown to moderately enhance cognitive performance in healthy individuals [ 120 ]. Accordingly, CE tools including pharmacological cognitive enhancement could improve the quality of life of both busy workers and exhausted students to extend their work/academic productivity levels [ 121 ], hence benefitting both the individual and society [ 25 ]. There have been extensive reports focussing on CEs’ intake to aid concentration and memory among healthy individuals, including students, academics, shift workers, and even chess players to improve their cognitive performance [ 122 ]. A study by Smith and Farah (2011a) suggested that the effects of both methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures on cognitive performances in healthy participants showed positively consistent effects in learning, but especially so in delayed recall and recognition testing, pointing to an effect on memory consolidation [ 4 ]. An additional study by Schelle et al. (2015) showed a positive effect of methylphenidate on memory and planning performance in healthy individuals. However, others have suggested that evidence regarding the clinical benefits of CEs in healthy individuals is still inconclusive [ 123 ]. A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials of the effect of both modafinil and methylphenidate in healthy individuals showed that the anticipated effects of these two agents as cognitive enhancers exceeded their actual effect [ 80 ]. Hence, it has been suggested that the ability of amphetamine-type substance mixtures to enhance academic performance among students could be attributed to their effect on energy, confidence and motivation levels rather than to a direct effect on cognitive performances [ 124 ]. In fact, individuals may be biased in predicting their own performance, e.g., they either underestimate or overestimate their academic competence [ 125 ]. Moreover, cognitive improvement seems to vary considerably from one agent to another, and Smith et al. (2011) reported that one third of studies from past literature reviews showed null results. One could then argue that there are more unpublished studies in the literature with null results, due to publication bias favouring positive results [ 4 ].

On the other hand, use of stimulant CEs may be associated with negative academic performances in terms of the euphoric state induced, with abnormal mood elation preventing the student from spending enough time in preparation for an exam [ 17 , 57 ]. Furthermore, methylphenidate is reported to present with a dependence potential [ 126 ], and modafinil dependence cases have been identified as well [ 127 ]. It is also worth noting the amphetamine-type substance-related dependence; withdrawal; and psychosis issues [ 28 ]. Untoward effects relating to the index CE may indeed influence students’ choices, with them being keen to consider modafinil as opposed to methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures. Indeed, Steward and Pickersgill (2019) found that all their CE users had ingested modafinil, with only some also having tried methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures for the purpose of study. In fact, students described how the use of methylphenidate and amphetamine salt mixtures could result in dependence and hence these were approached more cautiously [ 32 ]. Overall, however, the use of methylphenidate has significantly increased, with its consumption, in defined daily doses, having increased to approximately 2.4 billion worldwide [ 35 ]. In the UK, both methylphenidate and amphetamine compounds are Class B controlled drugs [ 128 ]. This means they can be provided via prescription, but the maximum quantity issued should not exceed 30 days (unless justified by the prescriber) and a personal import/export licence is required to transport the drug in or out of the UK if the amount exceeds a 3-month supply [ 30 ]. Modafinil is a prescription-only medicine in the UK, but it is not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or subject to scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001; hence, it is illegal to supply it without a prescription, but it is not illegal to possess the drug for personal use [ 128 ]. To cope with these restrictions, CEs’ selling websites provide discreet packaging; offer free reshipment if the package is seized; and encourage third-party, difficult to track, payment methods [ 30 ]. This outcome suggests running campaigns that mitigate harm and raise awareness among students who use CE drugs. Finally, although caffeine is also a stimulant, its use is not associated with either acquisition, affordability, availability, or legality issues [ 42 , 66 ]. However, with caffeine high-dosage intake a range of medical and psychiatric effects can be observed, most typically including anxiety, panic attacks, sleeping disorders and cardiovascular issues [ 129 ].

A Cochrane review found no evidence that short-term intake of vitamins B6 and B12 supplements improve cognitive function or mood. The review did find some evidence that daily vitamin B6 and B12 supplements can affect biochemical indices of vitamin B6 and B12 status in healthy individuals, but these changes had no overall impact on cognition [ 107 ].

According to the review of the literature, the drugs selected were chosen based on their popularity among healthy university students, but the drugs most used among students were (modafinil, methylphenidate and Adderall) and, in terms of substances, caffeine was the most popular among university students. However, a study by Carlier, J (2019) reported that methylphenidate is one of the most popular CEs and several analogues appeared on the drug market during the last years. However, little or no scientific data on these new analogues are available.

As sports organisations such as WADA are overviewing and prohibiting the use of physical enhancers, no such control exists in schools and universities. Therefore, in order to decrease the long-term deleterious effects of CEs in individuals who use them, government-level interventions are urgently required.

A harm reduction programme is also recommended to reduce the negative, legal and societal impact of substance use [ 125 ]. The programme should consider supporting individuals with problematic substance use and their families with compassion and appropriate advice and interventions, whilst safeguarding their dignity [ 125 ]. These findings suggest the importance of raising awareness of the harms of CE use, provide accurate knowledge, counteract myths regarding “safe” CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.

5. Limitations

There are a few limitations that were considered in this manuscript. The first limitation is related here to the sole focus on English language studies having been included in the search; future studies should consider further languages. The second limitation relates to the methods used by the different studies, typically involving self-reporting surveys which could have introduced biases. Finally, the current study focused only on undergraduate students; however, postgraduate students, academic staff, and remaining workers should be considered by future studies.

6. Conclusions

A number of students worldwide may be willing to consider CEs’ ingestion to improve their academic performances. The attitude of university students about CEs and their possible benefits is, however, based on anecdotal, and arguably biased, information obtained from the media, the web, and friends [ 130 ]. Overall, it seems from this review that the topic is not being sufficiently covered in the curriculum of modern universities. Conversely, this issue should be discussed, as an inter-professional or inter-disciplinary learning opportunity, from a public health perspective [ 7 , 44 ]. CEs’ use may arguably be reduced if students’ levels of awareness were raised, emphasising that CEs’ intake may pose a risk to safety, and especially so in vulnerable individuals [ 31 ]. Indeed, impacts of CE drugs’ intake may include tolerance, dependence, withdrawal, cardiovascular and neurological disorders with a related risk of death due to overdose [ 28 , 117 , 131 ]. The implementation of a harm reduction campaign, in order to bring the overall consumption down, has been proposed as well [ 41 , 91 ].

Finally, Shaw (2014) suggested that one of the most fascinating issues in the emerging field of neuroethics is pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement. Medical debate [ 21 , 132 ] has largely focused on the CEs’ potential to help those who are cognitively impaired. Hence, it is here suggested that CEs’ use by university students, seems to raise the issue of “cosmetic” neuropsychopharmacology [ 133 , 134 ].

Acknowledgments

This article is part of S.S.’s PhD research.

Author Contributions

All the Authors equally contributed to the initial planning of the data collection; S.S. drafted the paper itself. A.G., S.F., and F.S. critically reviewed the final draft prior to submission. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

F.S. was a previous (2011–2019) member of the ACMD UK; he is currently a member of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Psychiatry Advisory Board. S.S., A.G. and S.F. have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

  • Sociology Home
  • Directories

Quick Links

  • Directories Home
  • Colleges, Schools, and Departments
  • Administrative Units
  • Research Centers and Institutes
  • Resources and Services
  • Employee Directory
  • Contact UNLV
  • Social Media Directory
  • UNLV Mobile Apps
  • Department of Sociology

Sociology Society - LAB 2: Research Ethics II and Literature Review, Feb 8.

Second of nine labs organized by the undergraduate RSO, Sociology Society, to give students resources they need to start their journey into the world of research. For more information contact [email protected] or ig: @unlvsociology 

Feb 8,  3pm to 5:15pm, CHB B135

https://www.unlv.edu/event/lab-2-research-ethics-ii-literature-review

  • Open access
  • Published: 16 February 2024

The varied restorative values of campus landscapes to students’ well-being: evidence from a Chinese University

  • Xuanyi Nie 1 , 2 ,
  • Yifei Wang 3 ,
  • Chan Zhang 4 , 5 ,
  • Yu Zhao 4 &
  • Niall Kirkwood 6  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  487 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

142 Accesses

Metrics details

The literature on therapeutic landscapes highlights that the university campus landscape has restorative effects on students. This deserves more scholarly attention since mental health has become an important issue among university students. However, existing empirical studies have revealed mixed evidence with little attention to the heterogeneity across the design and, therefore, the potential therapeutic effects across different landscapes.

This research examined how 13 landscape sites on a university campus might be differentially related to student well-being. These sites were identified from a variety of sources (campus design documents, photos used in the university’s social media posts, and interviews with a small group of students) to represent a comprehensive list of places that students might visit. The data was collected in a large online survey of a Chinese university ( n  = 2,528). We asked about students’ use of individual landscape sites and the associated motivations for visits, and measured well-being using a perceived stress scale and overall evaluation of the happiness level. Bivariate analysis was used to explore the zero-order associations between landscape use and well-being. OLS (for stress) and logistic regressions (for happiness) were conducted to further evaluate the associations after controlling the student background variables and potential correlations of uses across different landscapes.

Among 13 landscape sites, four sites had significant positive associations with either or both measures of well-being after controlling for the student characteristics and use of the other landscape sites. There was also an additive benefit of visiting more landscapes. Compared to those who did not frequently visit any of the sites, well-being had a significant stepwise increase among those who frequently visited one or two and more sites. One site that was significantly related to both measures of well-being only offered distant views of landscapes, but it was right next to the study areas.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the heterogeneity of restorative effects across different landscapes on campus. The findings suggest that effective landscape design that aims to promote student well-being should be placed close to stressors (i.e., where they study), and between where they study and live to offer students opportunities to break from the common routines and to relax. The findings hold greater relevance for universities in China and institutions with similar student campus lifestyles, occupancies, and behavior patterns worldwide.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Landscape is an integral part of university campus designs. Landscape elements on university campuses not only introduce a sense of nature but also provide open spaces for student interactions among each other or with natural environments, which provide them with more pleasurable experiences [ 1 , 2 ]. Based on that, scholars have identified the restorative effects of campus landscapes on students’ well-being, an increasingly important scholarly focus in environmental planning [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Restorative effects denote positive changes in psychological states [ 9 ], of which perceived stress and happiness are two fundamental elements [ 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 ]. University campus landscapes can provide students with natural amenities and offer them spaces for restorative activities such as recreational sports and extracurricular clubs [ 12 , 13 ].

The theory of therapeutic landscape has important implications for the restorative effect of the natural landscape [ 14 ]. This concept incorporates both aesthetic and more imperceptible social qualities of the landscape that connect humans and nature [ 15 ]. The aesthetic qualities are represented by the “biophilia hypothesis,” which argues that humans have spent almost all of their evolutionary history in the natural environment [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. As a result, people are happier in natural habitats than in urban settings [ 20 ].

The social qualities are embedded in the transactions between a person and their broader socioenvironmental setting [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Such a relationship could be interpreted behaviorally through the provision of opportunities for individuals to engage in physical activities in natural environments [ 24 ]. In particular, the “enabling places” [ 21 ] acknowledge that the natural environment promotes physical activities that enable psychological regeneration. The “affective sanctuaries” highlight the importance of “third places” in the therapeutic landscapes [ 25 ], described as a retreat away from home (the first place) or work (the second place) [ 26 ]. This kind of “third places” can provide elusive opportunities for emotional refuge such as a feeling of being away from daily stress and a non-demanding social interaction recovery [ 4 ].

Existing studies have examined the impact of natural environments on campus (broadly defined as indoor and outdoor nature, as well as nature views) on student well-being, academic performance, as well as outcomes related to possible explanatory pathways (e.g., perceived restoration, temperature, physical behavior, etc.) [ 27 ]. Yet these studies showed mixed results. On the one hand, many studies suggest a positive relationship between university campus landscape and students’ well-being. Studies using data collected from universities in the United States, Scotland, and Turkey found that students with higher objective or perceived campus greenness in universities reported greater quality of life [ 7 , 28 ]. Adding to them, another study in the United States concluded that only students who frequently engage with green spaces in active ways report higher quality of life, better overall mood, and lower perceived stress [ 29 ].

Meanwhile, some studies also report no substantial associations between campus landscape and students’ well-being. For example, a study in Austria yielded no significant correlation between perceived greenness and physical activity, a crucial determinant for physical health [ 30 ]. Although a study in the United States initially showed that students who use campus landscape more often reported higher quality of life [ 31 ], the follow-up work found that such a relationship is only valid for undergraduate students, not for graduate students [ 32 ].

The inclusiveness of the findings is unsurprising given the limited number of studies available and the heterogeneity in the study designs. In particular, the mixed results may be due to the heterogeneity of landscapes examined in the studies. Yet very few empirical studies have focused on comparing the restorative effects across landscapes. In the literature on the therapeutic landscape, landscape type is predominantly defined by a palette approach, categorizing landscape elements into “blue spaces” such as lakes and ponds, and “green spaces” including forests, grass, fields, and meadows [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Among the studies that specifically focus on university campuses, they tend to focus on single landscape sites or measure the overall levels of greenness [ 4 , 5 , 7 , 28 ], overlooking the heterogeneity across campus landscape sites and its implications to students as the users.

This ignorance of nuances across different landscapes makes it difficult to develop practical guidance on how to design campus landscapes to promote student well-being. This is because existing studies suggest not all landscape sites are the same. For example, studies conducted in the United States, Spain, and China suggest that varied degrees of campus biodiversity [ 6 ], engagement with different activities [ 8 , 38 ], and different types of green spaces [ 3 ] can yield different levels of restorative effects on students. These studies suggest the importance of considering heterogeneous landscapes when examining their influences on human behavior and well-being. However, these studies treated “landscape” homogenously as green spaces or natural elements, ignoring that landscape on a university campus broadly encompasses other types of open spaces such as paved areas with green elements or artificially design promenades that are proximate to natural elements.

Furthermore, previous research has not explicitly assessed whether there may be additive effects across exposure to different landscapes. University campuses usually include a range of landscapes spread across campus – near academic buildings, in the central area with common student resources such as the library, and at peripheral locations [ 7 ]. Students tend to use and appreciate campus green spaces and consider them essential elements of the campus environment [ 39 ]. With many kinds of natural environments found on university campuses, there may be various cumulative opportunities for restoration via potential interactions with campus landscapes at different distances and locations [ 40 ].

The potential therapeutic value of campus landscape seems particularly pivotal against the backdrop of rising mental health and well-being issues among university students. Based on the national surveys of undergraduate and graduate students in the U.S., the Healthy Minds Study finds that the percentage of students who met the criteria for one or more mental health problems increased from around 40% to more than 60% from 2013 to 2021 [ 41 ]. The high prevalence of health problems among university students is not unique to one country. A multi-nation survey in 2021 found alarming levels of high stress and depression among universities across countries during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic [ 42 ].

Furthermore, although the international literature is growing, empirical research on the therapeutic values of the campus landscape in China is still very thin [ 43 , 44 ]. Attention to this specific area becomes increasingly pertinent in light of China’s recent endeavors to promote “green universities” [ 45 , 46 ]. Existing studies found that similar to the studies in the United States and other countries [ 7 , 28 , 29 ], the objective perception of the quality of landscapes or “naturalness” [ 47 , 48 , 49 ] and the capacity of providing spaces for students to relax [ 3 ] are positive factors to students’ restorative experiences and well-being. Although the results of these studies were promising, they shared the same limitations as we pointed out earlier – i.e., a decontextualized approach that fails to capture landscape heterogeneity and additive effects of restorative environment that are derived from chronic or repeated contacts with nature [ 50 , 51 , 52 ].

In response to the above gaps in the literature, this study investigates the relationship between campus landscape and students’ well-being in a major public university in Eastern China. In response to the above-mentioned limitations, this study aims to add to the existing literature by addressing the following research questions: (1) how does the impact on student well-being vary across different landscape sites on a university campus? (2) are there additive benefits across multiple landscape sites? (i.e., does visiting more landscape sites lead to a further increase in well-being?) We conducted a survey that included questions about how students use a variety of landscape sites on campus, which are designated outdoor spaces by design for student recreational and leisure uses. By simultaneously investigating the additive effect of a range of landscape sites on a Chinese university campus, we aim to provide a more comprehensive view of the role of campus landscapes in student well-being. Yet we also acknowledge that this study is conducted only at one university, thus the results may not be multipliable to other universities, for example, in different climates or cultural contexts where campus culture and students’ behavioral patterns differ.

Materials and methods

Data collection and participants.

An online survey was conducted in June of 2021 among students at Zhejiang University in China. Ethical approval was granted by the Interdisciplinary Social Science Research Centre at Zhejiang University (Project ID: 202103–01). The items analyzed in this study were embedded in the longer questionnaire with a wide range of topics (e.g., experiences on campus, attitudes towards the university, etc.) and the questions on well-being and landscape were presented in different sections of the survey. Therefore, the aim of this study (i.e., evaluating the effect of landscape on well-being) was likely blind to the students, which helped reduce the potential bias in respondent compositions because of the topic interests. All the second-year students ( N  = 5,707) were invited to participate in the survey. The survey link was sent to students via their class "groups" on the SM platform (mainly WeChat or DingTalk) by the administration staff. The online questionnaire was programmed using the platform provided by SurveyPlus ( https://www.surveyplus.cn/ ). If students accessed the questionnaire on a mobile device, the platform seamlessly redirected them to the mobile-friendly version.

Well-being measures: perceived stress and happiness

Happiness [ 53 ] and stress [ 54 ] are commonly used well-being measures. Specifically, we used the 10-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) [ 55 ]. The ten-item version has higher reliability and validity than other versions of the scale [ 56 ], with a validated Chinese translation of the questions [ 57 ]. We also conducted cognitive interviews with two undergraduates to check the validity of the Chinese version in our target population, and we made minor modifications to improve readability and clarity. For the happiness question, we adopted the single-item measure from the Chinese General Social Survey that asks respondents about their overall happiness levels, with a scale from 1 (feeling a lot of unhappiness) to 5 (feeling a lot of happiness). The question wording (in both English and Chinese) can be found in Additional file 1 : Appendix A.

Landscape site visits

We aimed to compile a comprehensive list of landscape sites that students might use on campus. We started with the campus design documents and excluded those of which the construction had not been completed by the time of this study. We then expanded the list by identifying additional sites that were featured in the university’s social media posts or mentioned in the interviews of a small group of students. This yielded a total of 13 landscape sites on the campus. The landscape sites are designated outdoor spaces by design for student recreational and leisure uses. They share common features such as seating elements, tree canopies, pedestrian pathways and trails, vegetation elements, and open green spaces for both passive and active uses. Some sites feature water attractions, gazebos, and seasonal and cultural elements. The 13 sites are distributed across the living compounds, classrooms, academic facilities, and main pathways, making them easily accessible. Figure  1 details the locations of the 13 landscape sites on the campus map. Please see Additional file 1 : Appendix B for the photos and descriptions of each site.

figure 1

The locations of landscape sites on campus

In addition, students may use landscape sites differently according to their spatial or green qualities [ 8 , 29 ]. We asked students whether they frequently visited the landscapes to gather information on the behavioral patterns of students on each site. When respondents reported frequently visiting a site, we had a follow-up question asking their reason(s) for visiting it, with the options including "party/team building," "study," "relaxation," "dating," and "group discussion," "dining," "exercising," and "being close to nature."

Demographic variables

To control for the potential confounders (i.e., student characteristics that might be related to both landscape use and wellbeing), we collected in the survey various background information about the students, including gender, GPA, ethnicity, annual family income levels, highest education levels achieved by each parent, the province they were from, Hukou (household registration) status before college (urban vs. rural), and whether the students were in a romantic relationship or not. These variables were selected because existing literature has suggested that they might be related to students’ well-being. For example, an earlier study of this student population has found that stress was significantly related to gender, parents’ education, and family income (Tibber et al., 2023). Studies of the Chinese population in general have found urban hukou was associated with higher well-being than rural hukou (e.g., Tani, 2017). Besides, romantic relationships could either positively or negatively affect students’ well-being [ 58 , 59 ]. However, our survey did not capture students’ majors or degrees, which could also be important influencers of their psychological state and behaviors.

We first conducted univariate analyses to show the distributions of student background characteristics, their happiness and stress levels, as well as the overall use of individual landscape sites on campus and the associated reasons. Then, we performed bivariate analyses to explore the zero-order associations between the number of landscape sites visited frequently and levels of well-being. Next, we used regression models to investigate whether such additive effects of landscapes held after controlling for various student background characteristics. Then, we treated the use of each landscape site as an independent variable and explored which site(s) promoted well-being after further considering the use of other landscape sites on campus. We used OLS regressions to model stress. For happiness, we first ran the ordinal logistic regressions and found that the proportional odds assumption did not hold for all the predictors. Therefore, we recoded the happiness variable into two categories (1 = a lot of unhappiness/some unhappiness/neither, 0 = a lot of happiness/some happiness) and used logistic regressions to model the likelihood of being in low levels of happiness.

Empirical results

Descriptive statistics.

A total of 2,528 students completed the survey, with a response rate of 44.3%. Slightly more than half (54.8%) of the respondents were male. Among all the respondents, 44.2% of them had GPAs greater than 4 on a 0–5 scale, and approximately a quarter (25.6%) of them had GPAs below 3.5, with the rest (30.2%) in between. A total of 23.9% of the respondents reported being in a relationship. Most of the respondents were Han Chinese (92.7%). Approximately 70% of the respondents had urban Hukou (household registration) before being admitted to the college. Approximately half of the students (51.8%) were from Zhejiang Province.

Regarding socioeconomic status, the respondents contained a mix of students from different backgrounds. Approximately one-third of the students had an annual family income of over 200,000 CNY (Chinese yuan) (approximately 30,000 USD). Another 30% of the students had a family income between 100,000–200,000 CNY, with the rest split between the two lowest income categories (< 50,000 CNY: 16.7%; 50,000–100,000 CNY: 17.5%). We classified parents' education levels into three categories: middle school or less, high school or equivalent, and bachelor's degree or more. For mothers' education levels, the percentage of respondents in each category was 31.6%, 41.9%, and 26.6%, respectively. The fathers' education showed a similar distribution with overall slightly higher levels than the mothers' education. (For the regression analyses below, we only used the mother's education as the predictor, as the education levels of both parents were correlated.) See the upper part of Table  1 for the detailed distributions of respondents' demographics.

For happiness, a total of 11.6% of the respondents chose the highest category (i.e., "feeling a lot of happiness"), 51.9% of them reported feeling some happiness, 30.1% chose the middle category indicating they were between happiness or unhappiness, and very few of them chose the two negative options ("feeling some unhappiness": 4.8%; "feeling a lot of unhappiness": 1.5%). For the PSS-10, the Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha is 0.89. In the confirmatory factor analysis that specified a one-factor model, the model fit indices were acceptable. Specifically, the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.83; the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) was 0.78; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.16. We calculated the total score from the PSS-10 after recoding the four reverse-worded items so that for each item, higher scores indicated a higher level of stress. The average score for stress is 27.6 (min = 10 and max = 50) with a standard deviation of 6.5 (See the lower part of Table  1 for the detailed distributions of respondents' well-being measures).

Table 2 shows the percentage of frequently visiting each landscape site and the corresponding reasons for landscape visits. Not all landscape sites were visited equally. The most popular site was site #1 (Lawn by West Lecture Halls), and 51.8% of the respondents reported visiting it frequently. The second tier included four sites, which were Mid-lake Island (#7), Crescent Hall Plazas (#10), Sunken Plaza/Amphitheater (#12), and Alumni Grove (#6), ordered by popularity, with the percentages of frequent visits ranging between 20 and 30%. The rest of the sites had fewer than 20% of the respondents who reported visiting them frequently. We also checked the correlations of visiting these sites (see details in Additional file 1 : Appendix C). Most of the correlations were around or below 0.3, except for Sites #10 and #12 ( r  = 0.48). This is expected because the two sites, being adjacent to each other on either side of a street (as can be seen in Fig.  1 ), share a cohesive design approach with similar characteristics and site features.

Table 2 also shows the reasons for visiting each site, “relaxation” was the most mentioned reason for most of the sites, “being close to nature” was ranked next for most of the sites, and “exercise” was often the third most mentioned reason. While most of the sites have “relaxation”, “exercise”, and “being close to nature” as the top three reasons, Site #9 (East Lecture Hall Open Skyway Corridors) is distinctive from the others in that the majority (56.3%) of the respondents reported visiting it for studying, a reason much less mentioned for other sites.

We also calculated the total number of sites they reported frequently visiting for each respondent. 29.5% of the students reported not frequently visiting any of the sites. The percentages of frequently visited one and two sites were 15.9% and 15.3%, respectively. The number was reduced to 13.1% for visiting three sites, and it started to drop more quickly from there. To have adequate sample sizes to represent different levels of landscape visits, we recoded this variable into three categories (0, 1–2, and 3 or more sites) for the analyses after.

Bivariate analysis

Figure  2 shows the distribution of the happiness answers by three levels of landscape visits (none, 1–2, and 3 or more sites). As students frequently visited more landscape sites, the distributions of the answers to the happiness question shifted toward the positive side, and this association was significant. A chi-square test of independence revealed a significant association between students’ levels of happiness (low = a lot of unhappiness/some unhappiness/neither; high = a lot of happiness/some happiness) and three levels of landscape visits ( \({\chi }^{2}(2)\) =71.19, p  < 0.001). Figure  3 compares the distributions of stress for students with three different levels of landscape visits. The distributions of stress appear to shift toward lower ends for the students visiting more landscape sites. The average stress scores were 28.8, 27.8, and 26.5 for the three groups (from the highest landscape visits to the lowest), respectively. The ANOVA test showed that the differences in stress across these three groups were significant, F (2, 2496) = 26.84, p  < 0.001. (See Additional file 1 : Appendix D for the bivariate analysis of key student demographics and two well-being measures.)

figure 2

The distribution of respondents' reported happiness and frequency of site visiting

figure 3

Distribution of stress and frequency of site-visiting

Regression analyses

Following our objectives, we tried two approaches to depict landscape visits in association with stress and happiness in the regression analyses: (1) a categorical variable indicating the overall level of landscape visits (i.e., frequently visiting 0, 1–2, and 3 or more sites) and (2) dummy variables for frequently visiting individual sites. The first approach allows us to examine whether there is an additive effect of visiting different landscape sites on well-being. The second approach enables us to assess whether the impact on well-being is the same across various landscape sites.

The regression results are reported in Table  3 . In response to our objective of examining the additive effects of landscape sites, compared to the students who did not frequently visit any of the landscape sites, those who frequently visited 1–2 sites and 3 or more sites had significantly lower levels of stress (1–2 sites: coeff. = -1.33, se = 0.38, p  < 0.001; 3 or more sites: coeff. = -2.43, se = 0.36, p  < 0.001). A further test shows that these two coefficients were significantly different ( t  = 3.20, p  = 0.001), suggesting that frequently visiting more landscape visits has additive effects of reducing stress levels (see Model 1 in Table  3 ). Essentially, the same pattern was found with happiness (Model 3), with frequently visiting landscape sites associated with a lower likelihood of being in a lower level of happiness compared to not frequently visiting any of the sites (1–2 site, coeff. = -0.48, se = 0.11, p  < 0.001; 3 or more sites: coeff. = -0.68, se = 0.11, p  < 0.001). The difference in the effects between visiting 1–2 sites and 3 or more sites was also significant ( z  = -2.07, p  = 0.039), suggesting that frequently visiting more sites is associated with an even lower likelihood of reporting lower levels of happiness.

Responding to our objective of examining the varying restorative effects across different landscape sites, we found that frequently visiting sites #1 (lawn by West Lecture Halls) and #9 (East Lecture Hall Open Skyway Corridors) were significantly associated with both lower levels of stress and a lower likelihood of being at lower levels of happiness. As shown in the univariate analyses, site #1 was the most popular site on campus. Site #9 was also unique because "study" was mentioned much more often as the reason for visiting it than reported for the other sites. In addition to those two sites, frequently visiting Site #2 (lawn at East Gate) was associated with a lower likelihood of reporting lower levels of happiness, and Site #6 (Alumni Grove) was significantly associated with lower levels of stress. The effects of the other sites were not significant after we controlled for respondent demographics and the aforementioned sites (see Models 2 and 4 in Table  3 for the details of the individual effects of different sites).

Lastly, some of the sociodemographic characteristics of students are significantly related to their well-being. Female students, compared to male students, reported significantly higher levels of stress, with no significant gender difference for happiness. A very significant predictor for student well-being, whose dominant pressure comes from academic performance, was GPA. Having a higher GPA was significantly related to experiencing less stress and feeling more happiness. Meanwhile, being a romantic relationship was significantly associated with more happiness, although it was not significantly correlated with their perceived stress.

Our results suggest that the campus landscape on a university campus could increase happiness and reduce stress. This conforms with the previous studies on the restorative values of university campus landscape elements [ 5 , 7 , 28 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. On top of that, our empirical analysis highlights the varying importance of the human well-being of different types of campus landscapes. We examined 13 sites with different locational features concerning the entire university campus.

Among the 13 sites, sites #1, #6, and #9 are significantly associated with the reduction of stress, and sites #1, #2, and #9 are significantly associated with happiness. This suggests that the restorative value of landscape sites functions differently across different sites, which complements the previous studies on university campus landscapes which only focus on single sites or treated multiple sites homogenously as green open spaces [ 4 , 5 , 7 , 28 ]. In addition, we found significant increases in well-being across the students who reported frequently visiting 0, 1–2 sites, and 3 or more landscape sites on campus. The restorative effect of the campus landscape is thereby additive.

Whilst we made no a priori predictions as to what sort of landscape would be associated with higher levels of well-being, we are able to make some tentative post hoc speculations by drawing on the theories of the therapeutic landscape. Site #1, #2, and #6 all feature vegetation and water elements, which are important facets of “biophilia" [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. However, we also found that the biophilic design itself is not sufficient in explaining the heterogeneity among the identified landscape sites. The relationship between landscape sites and stress reduction or happiness should also be integrated with the relational sociological approaches of “enabling spaces” [ 21 ] and "affective sanctuaries" [ 25 ].

Among the 13 landscape sites, Sites #1, #4, #7, #8, #12, and #13 feature water bodies and waterfront designs. However, only Site #1 is identified as being associated with stress reduction and more happiness. Through the principles of “enabling spaces” [ 21 ], Site #1 is directly located next to the lecture hall building cluster adjacent to the water features. While the vegetation and water body could provide students with a sense of connection with nature, the site also provides students with space for socialization because students use the lecture halls often. Table 2 also shows that Site #1 is the most accessed landscape site among all the 13 sites. This suggests that a landscape site needs to be frequently accessed to be able to perform restoratively for students. Furthermore, most students go there for relaxation (74.6%), being close to nature (59.9%), and exercise (23.0%), which aligns with principles of biophilia and enabling space.

Site #2 is an open lawn with no shade or trails, accompanying the East Gate to signify a grand entry. Site #1, #2, and #3 all feature open lawns. Site #2 is associated with happiness but not stress reduction. Our explanation is coined to the “symbolic meaning” of the site. Although it does not provide an intercept between study and living, this site may signify symbolic values of taking a break from the university thus escaping to “affective sanctuaries”, which might help contribute to higher levels of happiness [ 63 , 64 ]. Similar to Site #1, most students go there for relaxation (59.1%), being close to nature (46.8%), and exercise (32.8%), presenting the significance of biophilia and enabling space.

Site #6 is a densely planted grove between campus living districts (cafeteria and dormitories) and academic districts (libraries, labs, lecture halls). Aside from its cultivated repertoire of trees and colors that feature biophilic qualities, it can serve as the affective sanctuary between the first place of academic districts and the second place of campus living districts, offering a temporary break from students' daily routines [ 4 , 25 , 26 ]. This suggests that landscape spaces are more restorative when disseminated along or between the daily paths that students tend to take. Like Sites #1 and #2, most students go there for relaxation (67.7%), being close to nature (55.5%), and exercise (32.0%), highlighting the functions of this site in biophilia and enabling space.

A majority (56.3%) of the respondents reported visiting site #9 for "studying," a reason much less mentioned for the other sites. Furthermore, site #9 is not a space for students to be out there in nature, it is a rooftop area attached to and connected between classroom buildings. A series of shaded open corridors offers students a good distant view of the campus lake, lawn, canopy, and other open spaces. This conforms with the studies on views of nature and restoration that even looking at images of nature has a positive impact on emotional and physical responses to stressors [ 9 , 65 ]. The results about Site #9 conform with a previous study which suggests that visual connections with landscape elements are restorative [ 61 ]. In our research, Site #9 suggests that instead of physically being in the space, visual connections to open space and ground landscape have restorative effects.

Overall, we found three of the four landscape sites with significant positive associations with well-being tend to be located close to where students would spend most of their time. Table 2 shows that Site #1 is the most frequently visited (51.8%), and the visiting frequency of Site #2 is 12.2%, 21.2% for #6, and 18.0% for #9. The pattern is less clear as to how other designs of landscape might be related to the effectiveness in promoting well-being. For example, site #1 has a lakefront, but there are other sites with water elements that have no significant associations with well-being. Similarly, several sites feature a large open lawn, but not all of them are positively related to well-being. This suggests that simply categorizing various landscapes based on a list of vegetation types or “colors” might not be informative of their potential restorative value. The location, which denotes the frequency of visits and the “get away” function of landscape sites, and the spatial organization, which determines the types of activities that could happen in landscape sites may point to a more profound direction to understand the relationship between campus landscape and students’ well-being.

We acknowledge that this study has several limitations. Our data was collected from a cross-sectional survey. Thus, the findings regarding the relationships between landscape visits and well-being were correlational, not causal. Additionally, this research was carried out on one university campus located in East China where the local climate features warmth and humidity. Such climatic conditions and the corresponding landscape features may influence how students engage with the landscapes. The findings might be different for universities situated in regions with colder and drier weather. Moreover, the sample in this study only included second-year students. The findings might be different for other student groups. For instance, among third- or fourth-year students, who often experience heightened stress due to job searches or thesis preparation, the benefits of being exposed to the campus landscape might be more pronounced. Finally, our measurement of landscape use was based on students’ self-report of whether they frequently visited a landscape site, and terms such as “visit” and “frequently” may be subject to individual interpretation. Due to the lack of data on the exact frequency and duration of landscape visits, this study was unable to address the question concerning the levels of landscape exposure required to yield restorative effects. Future research should aim to establish causal evidence using longitudinal data with more objective and compressive measures of landscape visits (e.g., GPS data indicating the duration of stay) across different university campuses and diverse student populations.

This research empirically examines the association between campus landscape and students' well-being in China through the lens of the therapeutic landscape. The results confirm the positive relationship between the two fields [ 5 , 7 , 28 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Our research adds to the existing studies by pointing out two implications. Firstly, not all landscape sites are the same in psychological restoration. A campus landscape seems to function more effectively when it is located closer to sources of academic pressures such as lecture halls and classrooms or along students' daily commuting routes, which provides a break from students’ everyday routines. Secondly, the restorative value of the campus landscape is positively associated with more landscape visits. Even visual linkages with nature have a positive impact on emotional and physical responses to stressors [ 9 , 65 ].

Together, our findings complement the existing literature on the therapeutic landscape and university campuses. This study sheds light on important implications for future campus planning and design in China. More calibrated design strategies could help promote the campus landscape’s restorative capacity for students. Existing campuses can also seek opportunities to repurpose adjacent underutilized lots, converting them into landscape interest to provide direct access or sensory (such as visual) interest for vital improvements. In addition, Chinese university campuses are typically situated at a distance from urban centers and are enclosed. Students' daily activities are predominantly concentrated on campus, frequent at locations integral to their daily routines, such as attending classes, studying, and dining. Notably, the campus culture in China entails students' devoting a considerable amount of their time outside of class to studying in designated areas, typically unoccupied classrooms. This is a unique aspect of campus life in China, closely related to the concentration of stressors. The findings of this study hold greater relevance for universities in China and institutions with similar student campus lifestyles, occupancies, and behavior patterns worldwide.

Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):456–456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Calogiuri G, Chroni S. The impact of the natural environment on the promotion of active living: an integrative systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):873–873. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-873 .

Lu M, Fu J. Attention restoration space on a university campus: exploring restorative campus design based on environmental preferences of students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14):2629. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142629 .

Foellmer J, Kistemann T, Anthonj C. Academic greenspace and well-being — can campus landscape be therapeutic? Evidence from a German University. Wellbeing Space Soc 2021;2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2020.100003

Malekinezhad F, Courtney P, Bin Lamit H, Vigani M. Investigating the mental health impacts of university campus green space through perceived sensory dimensions and the mediation effects of perceived restorativeness on restoration experience. Front Publ Health. 2020;8:578241–578241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.578241 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ha J, Kim HJ. The restorative effects of campus landscape biodiversity: assessing visual and auditory perceptions among university students. Urban Forest Urban Greening. 2021;64:127259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127259 .

Gulwadi GB, Mishchenko ED, Hallowell G, Alves S, Kennedy M. The restorative potential of a university campus: objective greenness and student perceptions in Turkey and the United States. Landsc Urban Plan. 2019;187:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.00 .

Tudorie CA-M, Valles-Planells M, Gielen E, Arroyo R, Galiana F. Towards a Greener University: perceptions of landscape services in campus open space. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland). 2020;12(15):6047. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156047 .

Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 1991;11(3):201–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7 .

Martínez-Soto J, de la Fuente Suárez LA, Ruiz-Correa S. Exploring the links between biophilic and restorative qualities of exterior and interior spaces in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. Front Psychol. 2021;12:717116–717116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717116 .

van den Bogerd N, Dijkstra SC, Seidell JC, Maas J. Greenery in the university environment: students’ preferences and perceived restoration likelihood. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192429–e0192429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192429 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hartig T, Johansson G, Kylin C. Residence in the social ecology of stress and restoration. J Soc Issues. 2003;59(3):611–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00080 .

Markevych I, Schoierer J, Hartig T, Chudnovsky A, Hystad P, Dzhambov AM, de Vries S, Triguero-Mas M, Brauer M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ Res. 2017;158:301–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gesler WM. Therapeutic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34(7):735–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90360-3 .

Smyth F. Medical geography: therapeutic places, spaces and networks. Prog Hum Geogr. 2005;29(4):488–95. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph562pr .

Wilson EO. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In: Penn DJ, Mysterud I, editors. Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems. Somerset: Routledge; 2007. p. 250–8.

Google Scholar  

Orians G. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In: Landscape meanings and values. Edited by Penning-Rowsell E, Lowenthal D, Landscape Research Group. London, Boston: Allen and Unwin; 1986: 3–25.

Ulrich RS. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF, editors. Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum Press; 1983. p. 85–125.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kellert SR. The biological basis for human values of nature. In: The Biophilia hypothesis. edn. Edited by Kellert SR, Wilson EO. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 1993.

MacKerron G, Mourato S. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Glob Environ Chang. 2013;23(5):992–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010 .

Duff C. Exploring the role of ‘enabling places’ in promoting recovery from mental illness: a qualitative test of a relational model. Health Place. 2012;18(6):1388–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.07.003 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bell SL, Phoenix C, Lovell R, Wheeler BW. Green space, health and wellbeing: making space for individual agency. Health Place. 2015;30:287–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.005 .

Conradson D. Landscape, care and the relational self: therapeutic encounters in rural England. Health Place. 2005;11(4):337–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.02.004 .

Barton H. Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy. 2009;26:S115–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.008 .

Butterfield A, Martin D. Affective sanctuaries: understanding Maggie’s as therapeutic landscapes. Landsc Res. 2016;41(6):695–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1197386 .

Glover TD, Parry DC. A third place in the everyday lives of people living with cancer: functions of Gilda’s club of greater Toronto. Health Place. 2009;15(1):97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.02.007 .

van den Bogerd N, Coosje Dijkstra S, Koole SL, Seidell JC, de Vries R, Maas J. Nature in the indoor and outdoor study environment and secondary and tertiary education students’ well-being, academic outcomes, and possible mediating pathways: a systematic review with recommendations for science and practice. Health Place. 2020;66:102403–102403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102403 .

Hipp J, Aaron G, Betrabet G, Alves S, Sequeira S. The relationship between perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness of university campuses and student-reported quality of life. Environ Behav. 2016;48(10):1292–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515598200 .

Holt EW, Lombard QK, Best N, Smiley-Smith S, Quinn JE. Active and passive use of green space, health, and well-being amongst university students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;163(3):424. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030424 .

Loder AKF, van Poppel MNM. Sedentariness of college students is negatively associated with perceived neighborhood greenness at home, but not at university. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;17(1):235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010235 .

McFarland AL, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology (Alexandria, Va). 2008;18(2):232–8. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.18.2.232 .

McFarland AL, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. Graduate student use of campus green spaces and the impact on their perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology (Alexandria, Va). 2010;20(1):186–92. https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.20.1.186 .

Korpela K, Borodulin K, Neuvonen M, Paronen O, Tyrväinen L. Analyzing the mediators between nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional well-being. J Environ Psychol. 2014;37:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.003 .

Bell SL, Foley R, Houghton F, Maddrell A, Williams AM. From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: a scoping review. Soc Sci Med. 1982;2018(196):123–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.035 .

Nettleton S. Fell runners and walking walls: towards a sociology of living landscapes and aesthetic atmospheres as an alternative to a Lakeland picturesque. Br J Sociol. 2015;66(4):759–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12146 .

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brown KM. The haptic pleasures of ground-feel: the role of textured terrain in motivating regular exercise. Health Place. 2017;46:307–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.08.012 .

Windhorst E, Williams A. “It’s like a different world”: natural places, post-secondary students, and mental health. Health Place. 2015;34:241–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.06.002 .

Chen X, Yu JH. Exploration on design strategy of campus landscape from environmental psychology. Adv Mater Res. 2011;243–249:6461–4. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.243-249.6461 .

Speake J, Edmondson S, Nawaz H. Everyday encounters with nature: students’ perceptions and use of university campus green spaces. Human Geographies. 2013;7(1):21–31. https://doi.org/10.5719/hgeo.2013.71.21 .

Ekkel ED, de Vries S. Nearby green space and human health: evaluating accessibility metrics. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;157:214–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.008 .

Lipson SK, Zhou S, Abelson S, Heinze J, Jirsa M, Morigney J, Patterson A, Singh M, Eisenberg D. Trends in college student mental health and help-seeking by race/ethnicity: findings from the national healthy minds study, 2013–2021. J Affect Disord. 2022;306:138–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.038 .

Ochnik D, Rogowska AM, Kuśnierz C, Jakubiak M, Schütz A, Held MJ, Arzenšek A, Benatov J, Berger R, Korchagina EV, et al. Mental health prevalence and predictors among university students in nine countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-national study. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):18644–18644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97697-3 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

Wang H, Dai X, Wu J, Wu X, Nie X. Influence of urban green open space on residents’ physical activity in China. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1093–1093. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7416-7 .

Wu Z-J, Song Y, Wang H-L, Zhang F, Li F-H, Wang Z-Y. Influence of the built environment of Nanjing’s urban community on the leisure physical activity of the elderly: an empirical study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1459–1459. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7643-y .

Zhao W, Zou Y. Green university initiatives in China: a case of Tsinghua University. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2015;16(4):491–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2014-0021 .

Zhao W, Zou Y. Variation of greenness across China’s universities: motivations and resources. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2018;19(1):48–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2016-0196 .

Liu Q, Zhang Y, Lin Y, You D, Zhang W, Huang Q, van den Bosch CCK, Lan S. The relationship between self-rated naturalness of university green space and students’ restoration and health. Urban Forest Urban Greening. 2018;34:259–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.008 .

Liu W, Sun N, Guo J, Zheng Z. Campus green spaces, academic achievement and mental health of college students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(4):8618. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148618 .

Liu S, Ji Y, Li J, Peng Y, Li Z, Lai W, Feng T. Analysis of students’ positive emotions around the green space in the university campus during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Front Public Health. 2022;10:888295–888295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.888295 .

Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995;15(3):169–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 .

Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Daily GC. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1249(1):118–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x .

Article   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H. Nature and health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):207–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443 .

Pfeiffer D, Cloutier S. Planning for happy neighborhoods. J Am Plann Assoc. 2016;82(3):267–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1166347 .

Hegberg NJ, Tone EB. Physical activity and stress resilience: considering those at-risk for developing mental health problems. Ment Health Phys Act. 2014;8:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2014.10.001 .

Cohen S. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In: Spacapan S, Oskamp S, editors. The social psychology of health: the Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Newbury Park: SAGE; 1988. p. 31–67.

Lee E-H. Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nurs Res. 2012;6(4):121–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004 .

Wang Z, Chen J, Boyd JE, Zhang H, Jia X, Qiu J, Xiao Z. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the perceived stress scale in policewomen. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(12):e28610–e28610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028610 .

Benham-Clarke S, Ewing J, Barlow A, Newlove-Delgado T. Learning how relationships work: a thematic analysis of young people and relationship professionals’ perspectives on relationships and relationship education. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2332–2332. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14802-5 .

Braithwaite SR, Delevi R, Fincham FD. Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Pers Relat. 2010;17(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x .

van den Berg AE, Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(8):1203–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.002 .

Li D, Sullivan WC. Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;148:149–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.015 .

Matsuoka RH. Student performance and high school landscapes: examining the links. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010;97(4):273–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011 .

Bratman GN, Daily GC, Levy BJ, Gross JJ. The benefits of nature experience: improved affect and cognition. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;138:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005 .

Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2011;12(2):303–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7 .

Ulrich RS. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 1986;13:29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants and the organizing team who helped facilitate the survey.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

ScenesLab, Boston, USA

College of Media and International Culture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang, China

Chan Zhang & Yu Zhao

College of Humanities, Tarim University, Alar, 843300, Xinjiang, China

Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

Niall Kirkwood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Xuanyi Nie: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original draft preparation, Writing - Reviewing &; Editing; Yifei Wang: Investigation, Resources, Visualization, Writing - Reviewing &; Editing; Chan Zhang: Methodology, Resources, Data Curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Reviewing &; Editing, Funding acquisition; Yu Zhao and Niall Kirkwood: Supervision, Funding acquisition

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chan Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was granted by the Interdisciplinary Social Science Research Centre at Zhejiang University (Project ID: 202103–01). Informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix a..

Question wording for measures of happiness and stress. Appendix B. Site description. Appendix C. Correlation matrix of frequently visiting different landscape sites. Appendix D. Bivariate analysis of key demographics and two well-being measures.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nie, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, C. et al. The varied restorative values of campus landscapes to students’ well-being: evidence from a Chinese University. BMC Public Health 24 , 487 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17952-w

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2023

Accepted : 01 February 2024

Published : 16 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17952-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Restorative effects
  • University campus

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

literature review for university students

IMAGES

  1. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    literature review for university students

  2. example of a literature review asa

    literature review for university students

  3. Literature Review For Qualitative Research

    literature review for university students

  4. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    literature review for university students

  5. Literature review sample UK. Not sure about the format of literature

    literature review for university students

  6. Writing Essays About Literature: A Brief Guide for University and

    literature review for university students

VIDEO

  1. Literature Review

  2. Review of literature

  3. Part 2 Writing the Review of Literature

  4. Write Your Literature Review FAST

  5. Effective Review of Literature

  6. Literature review and its process

COMMENTS

  1. How to Write a Literature Review

    Step 1 - Search for relevant literature Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure Step 5 - Write your literature review Free lecture slides Other interesting articles Frequently asked questions Introduction Quick Run-through Step 1 & 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

  2. Writing a Literature Review

    In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they're interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later resea...

  3. Write a Literature Review: for Undergraduates

    A literature review means finding, reading and summarising the published research relevant to your question, in other words finding out what is already known about your topic.

  4. Getting started

    What is a literature review? Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in ...

  5. Literature review

    Reading and researching To produce a good literature review, you must show that you have researched and read widely. A wide-ranging review will often include books, journal articles, reports, government documents and credible web resources. The quality of your review will be judged by the quality of your sources.

  6. Video: Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

    Writing a literature review is an inevitable part of being a graduate student. So, before spending hours of your time working on a project involving a literature review, it helps to understand what a "literature review" is, and why it is important. ... Associate Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State ...

  7. 5. The Literature Review

    A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that ...

  8. How to write a literature review

    Organising your argument. Your literature review should be a logical, well-structured argument organised into an introduction, body and conclusion. plan before you start writing - creating a mind map or outline can help to clarify your thinking before you start drafting. refine as you write - give yourself time to write many drafts, and ...

  9. Literature review

    A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context. A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report.

  10. Literature Reviews

    Students often misinterpret the term "literature review" to mean merely a collection of source summaries, similar to annotations or article abstracts. Although summarizing is an element of a literature review, the purpose is to create a comprehensive representation of your understanding of a topic or area of research, such as what has already ...

  11. Literature Review

    Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy by Judith Garrard Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy, Sixth Edition is the ultimate 'how to' guide for learning the practical and useful methods for reviewing scientific literature in the health sciences. This text is an outstanding resource for students who need a practical, step-by-step set of instructions for how to organize, conduct, and ...

  12. Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

    Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes? Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post? Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged. <<

  13. PDF Writing an Effective Literature Review

    Whatever stage you are at in your academic life, you will have to review the literature and write about it. You will be asked to do this as a student when you write essays, dissertations and theses. Later, whenever you write an academic paper, there will usually be some element of literature review in the introduction. And if you have to

  14. How to Conduct a Literature Review: A Guide for Graduate Students

    Depending on your area of research, the type of literature review you do for your thesis will vary. Consult with your advisor about the requirements for your discipline. You can view theses and dissertations from your field in the library's Digital Repository can give you ideas about how your literature review should be structured.

  15. Literature Review

    Writing Engineering & science Honours thesis writing Thesis structure Literature Review What is a literature review? Students are often unsure of how to write a literature review. This is usually because, unlike other stages of a thesis such as Methods and Results, they have never written a literature review before. FAQs about literature reviews

  16. Literature reviews for graduate students

    Literature reviews for graduate students On this page What is a literature review? Literature review type definitions Literature review protocols and guidelines To Google Scholar, or not to Google Scholar Subject headings vs. Keywords Keeping track of your research Project management software Citation management software Saved searches

  17. PDF LITERATURE REVIEWS

    comprehensive overview ten practical tips OVERVIEW WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW? PURPOSES OF A LITERATURE REVIEW orient your reader by defining key concepts (theoretical) and/or providing relevant background (empirical) "motivate" your research, i.e. demonstrating the relevance of your project

  18. Literature Review Basics

    Follow this guide to learn how to write a literature review, beginning with a synthesis matrix. This guide will help you understand what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done. Also includes information on Annotated Bibliographies. Covers what a lit review is, lit review types, writing a lit review and further readings.

  19. What is a Literature Review?

    This excellent overview of the literature review explains what a literature review and outlines processes and best practices for doing one. It includes input from an NCSU professor on what a literature review is and what it should do. (Shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US license, attributed to North Carolina State University Libraries).

  20. Literature reviews

    Reviewing the literature is a process of comparing and contrasting the existing work in the field to show any gaps in the research that your research question may fill. Sometimes literature reviews are set as stand-alone assignments, and sometimes they are part of doing the research for a longer project or dissertation.

  21. Literature Reviews

    Get support at the Academic Writing Center; Literature Review: 4 Steps to Compose a Literature Review. Meet your subject librarian; Find the subject librarian in your research area.They can help you determine the best databases and resources to use for a literature review in your field.

  22. PDF A literature review on students' university choice and satisfaction

    A literature review on students' university choice and satisfaction Dimali Wijesinghe*, Lakshmi Ranwala, Sampath Siriwardena, Lalith Edirisinghe and Veronica Kurukulaarachchi Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, CINEC Campus, Sri Lanka. Received 8 March, 2023; Accepted 27 April, 2023

  23. Frontiers

    Jiang, Y. J., and Lu, D. K. (2019). Research on the teaching evaluation system of first-class university students——taking ten universities including Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge as examples. ... (2022) A literature review of the research on students' evaluation of teaching in higher education. Front. Psychol. 13:1004487. doi: 10. ...

  24. The Use and Impact of Cognitive Enhancers among University Students: A

    Table 1 shows the summary of findings from the literature review on the prevalence of CEs among university students. Nine studies were conducted in the UK (i.e., six survey studies, two interviews and one mixed methods study). The remaining studies included survey studies that were conducted in the USA (n = 8) and Iran (n = 4). In Australia ...

  25. Reading Habits and Attitudes among University Students: A Review

    This paper aims to review the latest literature on reading habits and attitudes among university students. The scope of this literature review was extracted from journal articles and electronic ...

  26. The Development and Validation of a Scale to Assess Perception of

    The literature review and semi-structured interviews resulted in the first version of the University Students' Perception of PE Scale with six domains and 33 items: habituated behavior in PA (behavioral factor) (five items); self-efficacy in PE (personal factor) (five items); attitude and experience in PE (personal factor) (eight items ...

  27. Sociology Society

    Second of nine labs organized by the undergraduate RSO, Sociology Society, to give students resources they need to start their journey into the world of research. For more information contact [email protected] or ig: @unlvsociology ...

  28. The varied restorative values of campus landscapes to students' well

    The literature on therapeutic landscapes highlights that the university campus landscape has restorative effects on students. This deserves more scholarly attention since mental health has become an important issue among university students. However, existing empirical studies have revealed mixed evidence with little attention to the heterogeneity across the design and, therefore, the ...