Literature review on coronavirus Assignment | Get Homework Help

original research articles about the topic have been published in the past five years. ( use sources from 2015-2020 only ) it would be great if it mentions about bat-borne diseases.

Grading Standards for the Literature Review

UWP 104E Science Writing

As you write and revise your Literature Review, use the following checklist to keep the draft on track for what I will evaluate.  During class, we typically discuss these grading standards, practice meeting them, and sometimes examine samples.  If you have any questions about any of the following grading standards, be sure to get in touch with me for clarification.

• Length: 1500 to 2400 words (excluding the Title and Bibliography)
• Format: Double-spaced using 12-point Times New Roman font
• Topic: a focused current topic in your scientific major or minor
• Sources: six to eight original research articles (IMRADs) published within the last five years, each with its own “Methods” section. Upload these sources to a separate Canvas Assignments slot when you turn in the final draft of the assignment, having first highlighted any referenced passages in the sources.
• Audience: specialists in your scientific major or minor
• First and final drafts turned in complete (not only hitting the word count but including all the major requirements of the assignment)

Title, Subheadings, and Sub-subheadings

• Craft a title for the overall literature review aimed at specialists
  • Use field-specific jargon
  • Indicate the topic and key elements of the roadmap
  • Show the trajectory of research, synthesis, and evaluation
  • Avoid list-mode or additive logic
  • Avoid verbs that lead to a complete sentence
• Include subheadings “Introduction,” “Discussion,” and “Conclusion”
• Add topical sub-subheadings in the Discussion section for thematically grouped articles
  • Give ample detail with field-specific jargon to clarify the section’s theme

Hook

• Craft a single sentence placed at the very beginning
• Target specialists
• Avoid a pop science tone
• Avoid focusing on the overarching problem all the articles address
• Focus instead on the key obstacle researchers face in solving the overarching problem
• Optional: zoom in on the problem as tackled by an article representative of those in the cluster you are synthesizing
• Supply context or purpose behind the research as a subordinate clause to avoid abruptness
• Provide a clear sense of why the method or result presents problems
• Include citations as needed for any claims

Background

• Transition from the hook into the background
• Devote one or two paragraphs to relevant background context for the six to eight articles synthesized
• Include explicit transitions and topic sentences at the start of each paragraph
• Include cited reference to at least one article older than five years
• Do not include reference or citation to the 6-8 articles to be synthesized
• Avoid dumbing-down the background; remind specialists what they likely already know about past research
• Avoid defining terms or explaining concepts specialists would already know

Roadmap Paragraph

• Transition in a word, phrase, or sentence between the background and roadmap paragraph
• Craft several sentences in a full-sized paragraph to outline the trajectory of research in detail
• Feel free to use metadiscourse (“Of the eight articles reviewed here…”)
• Clearly indicate not only the two to three themes and how they are linked, but the articles under each theme and how they are linked
• Name the articles by reference to the first author’s last name: Smith et al.
• Avoid list-mode or additive logic
• Accurately forecast all key elements from the body of the literature review
  • Sequence the points to match their sequence later
  • Use the same transitional logic to connect these points as used later
  • Employ the same key terminology here as in title, hook, sub-subheadings, and topic sentences of body paragraphs
• Emphasize your key evaluations (criticism and praise) and the main moments of synthesis of your articles

Themes

• Sequence the subheaded theme sections to match the order promised in the roadmap
• Explicitly use the same transitional logic as in the roadmap to move from theme to theme
• Avoid list-mode or additive logic
• Don’t let the subheadings of themes substitute for transitions

Mini-Intro Paragraphs

• For each subheaded theme section, craft a brief single paragraph introducing its theme
• Clarify why these articles are grouped together in this theme
• Name the articles the theme addresses (by reference to the first author’s last name: Smith et al.).
• Focus on key specifics and details from the articles’ hypotheses, methods, or results
• Sum up praise, criticism, similarities distinguished, or differences resolved
• Use a mini-intro or the theme’s mini-outro or both to indicate a fork in the road if promised by the roadmap

Body Paragraphs

• For each subheaded theme section, devote as many body paragraphs as necessary to follow through on the promises in the mini-intro
• Open each body paragraph with a single topic sentence that
  • Transitions from the previous paragraph
  • States the author(s) of the article(s) you are addressing
  • Makes a claim about the article(s)
• Rather than referring to whole articles, focus on hypotheses, methods, results, or the signficiance and evaluation of findings within articles.
• Employ the synthesis cycle of rhetorical strategies to synthesize and evaluate the articles:
  • Find similarities, then distinguish articles by finding differences.
  • Once you find differences, resolve or explain them. Address conflicts as best you can rather than simply pointing them out.
  • Criticize to connect. Where differences arise, weigh and evaluate.  Identify limitations, unanswered questions, or inadequacies in one article and in another some attempt to address these limitations, answer these questions, or fix these inadequacies.
• Include citations as necessary

• Avoid the following
  • Explanations of concepts or definitions of terms specialists would not need.
  • Generalizations such as “data,” “evidence,” or “research” in favor of details and specifics
  • Summary of the articles; give only enough summary to provide a basis for synthesis and evaluation
  • Hovering too long over one particular article
  • Policy assertions, “should” use or stating what “is important/essential,” or reference to ethics, legislation, religion, morality, or cost figures
  • Phrasing about what articles “could,” “would,” “might,” “must,” “can,” or “need to” do rather than reporting what articles actually did
  • Focusing on agreements and similarities among articles, or connections expressed through “further” and “builds on” verbs and their synonyms
  • Connecting articles through similarities or differences in purpose, focus, or goals
  • Unfair or unrealistic criticisms of articles

Mini-Outro Paragraphs

• Transition explicitly in a topic sentence at the outset of a mini-outro paragraph
• For each subhead section, craft a brief mini-outro paragraph summing up “where we are” in terms of the section’s theme
  • Name the articles (via the first author’s last name, as in Smith et al.)
  • As needed, indicate dead ends in this branch of the trajectory of current research or need for future research along these lines
  • As needed, point out key overall inadequacies of method/result that set up the need for the fix in the next subheaded section
• Avoid unnecessary repetition of points
• Use a mini-outro or the section’s mini-intro or both to indicate a fork in the road if promised by the roadmap

Conclusion

• Craft a transition and topic sentence
• In a single, detailed paragraph draw the current research together
  • State key conclusions (knowns)
  • Identify remaining unknowns
• Include citations
• End on suggestions for future research

Bibliography and Citations

• Use MLA guidelines for your in-text citations and bibliography
• I will return assignments without MLA citations and bibliography or if cited or referenced passages in the sources are not highlighted
• Include frequent in-text citations and a variety of tag-lines
• In tag lines, refer only to the article’s first author’s last name and “et al.”
  • Do not include article titles in tag lines

Global Issues

• Establish a consistent backbone in content and key phrasing of title, hook, roadmap, subheadings, and topic sentences
• Use clear, concise, and formal language
• Employ sound grammar that doesn’t interfere with the clarity of meaning
• Avoid lengthy explanations of concepts or definitions of terms specialist readers would not need
• Frequently use better than list-mode logic marked by a variety of transitions between sentences, between paragraphs, and between sections
• Use the old-to-new principle for effective flow
• Literature Review

  UWP 104E Science Writing

   

   

  Why the Literature Review? 

   

  A literature review synthesizes and evaluates the current original research on a given topic for an audience of science specialists.  Rather than reading, synthesizing, and evaluating the many IMRADs published monthly in their field, these scientists keep up to date by reading literature reviews.

   

  As a writer of a literature review, you must first find a representative collection of recent original research articles on a current topic, then synthesize and evaluate them to identify the current trajectory of research.  Doing so requires that you dig into the details and specifics of these articles and closely examine their hypotheses, methods, results, and the significance and value of their findings.

   

  The rhetorical skill of synthesizing and evaluating past research will prove useful to you as a science writer beyond the task of writing literature reviews.  Many other scientific documents also employ the rhetorical strategies of synthesis and evaluation, including the introductions of IMRADs and grant proposals where they provide a rationale for the research at hand.

   

   

  The Traditional Narrative Literature Review 

   

  Literature reviews come in many types.  You might have read or written some of them already in your other classes, or otherwise encountered systematic, scoping, mapping, umbrella, critical, overview, or meta-analysis reviews in the past.  Each of these types enjoys prevalence in certain fields or varying degrees of effectiveness for certain topics.  Different fields or journals also have different expectations regarding format, structure, and the employment of other rhetorical strategies.  For example, some literature reviews might rely more or less explicitly on roadmaps, offer differing degrees of background information, foreground individual articles or establish thematic relations among many articles, or place their conclusions along the way or at the end.  These divergent approaches present quite dissimilar writing tasks and challenges, and this fact makes practicing the process of drafting a “standard literature review” difficult.

   

  Fortunately, one type of literature review does focus on the core rhetorical strategy central to all the rest: the traditional narrative literature review.  This core rhetorical strategy involves making critical connections among original research articles to show the trajectory of research.  This trajectory of research proves essential to specialist readers of literature reviews.  When it comes to allocating time and money to the next step forward in new research, they must make careful decisions; unless forced to do so, they don’t usually take random shots in the dark.  And because improving on past research is almost always their goal, scientists first try to understand that past research.

   

  Understanding past research means puzzling together a sometimes chaotic array of hypotheses, methods, results, and interpretations of findings whether they are complementary, contradictory, or at first glance random and unrelated.  It means identifying not only what has been accomplished but weighing accomplishments to determine what remains to be done. A literature review surveys the chaos, and finds or imposes order, pattern, and meaning in the form of a trajectory of research.

   

  A Focused, Current Topic in Your Major

   

  If you like, you can to continue using the topic you pursued for your Rhetorical Analysis.  On the other hand, if you have lost interest in that topic, or you couldn’t find enough current research articles published within the five-year timeframe, then consider changing topics.

   

  As with your Rhetorical Analysis, think about topics that have recently come up in the courses you’re taking in your major.  You can also search our Canvas Pages where past students have posted entries about their topics and offered advice on how well those topics worked for the various assignments.  Feel free to use any of these past topics and their associated sources.  I rarely say no to any topics unless they are not in your major or minor, they are too old, or so new that too few IMRADs exist to require a literature review at this time.

   

  By “currently,” I mean that original research articles about the topic have been published in the past five years.  I understand that for some majors (electrical engineering, for example), research published five years ago might be considered quite old, whereas in other majors (chemistry), five years is still new.  Nevertheless, the five-year target is a good rule of thumb.

   

  Scope, Themes, and the “Mini-literature Review” 

   

  Many published literature reviews run to twenty-five pages or more and usually cover dozens of articles, comprising a writing task well beyond the scope of a quarter-long composition course.

   

  However, in this respect we can take our cue from the organizational approach of these full-scale literature reviews.  Often you’ll find that they are divided into subheaded sections, each of which address a different theme.  These themes draw from various original research articles in the literature review’s overall library of sources.  Sometimes the sources all along in only one theme, though more commonly the same sources are mentioned in different themes.

   

  To narrow the scope of the assignment to a more manageable task, focus on what a full-scale literature review would treat as a single theme.  You’ll further subdivide that theme into two or three other themed and subheaded sections.  For this reason, you should choose articles to synthesize in your literature review that are very closely related—articles that would belong in only one subheaded theme of a full-scale literature review.  Be careful, that is, not to choose articles that a full-scale literature review would assign to different themes.

   

  For example, rather than address a disease’s causes, then its treatments, focus on either one or the other.  If you can, in fact, further narrow your scope to only one cause or one treatment.  Rather than the topic of solar cells in general, to take another example, focus instead on a technical problem in a particular kind of solar cell which new technology might help alleviate, such as increasing the efficiency of its energy production or its durability or both.

   

  Your Library of Articles

   

  I recommend that you find a total of ten or more current IMRADs.  Finding more articles than you actually need will enable you to see connections among them more easily.  If you can’t find enough articles, now is the time to change topics.  In your literature review, you will synthesize and evaluate six to eight articles of original research, but you will also one or two articles of older research as well—articles published ten years ago or more whose work provides a foundation or stage for the most current articles.

   

  Comb through the library databases devoted to your major using Subject Guides.  Once you’ve found an article, search its bibliography for others you can also use.  All your articles must be written by the author(s) who did the research, thinking, and writing.  In the sciences, such articles contain explicit details on the methods used, usually in a section labeled “Methods,” “Methods and Materials,” “Procedures,” “Experimental Procedures,” and so on.  You might also need to find other research to support the claims you make, especially in the background section of the Introduction.  In any case, avoid generalist sources, the type of pop science articles such as the one you used in your Rhetorical Analysis.

   

  After you find your articles, read and highlight for yourself what you consider their key points.  These articles were written for specialists in your major, so don’t be discouraged or daunted if you don’t understand them completely.  Part of the upper-division challenge of this course is your intellectual engagement with current original research in your scientific major.

   

  The Synthesis Cycle: Similarity, Difference, Evaluation

   

  Select six to eight IMRADs from your library of sources to synthesize in your literature review.  In order to help you organize your understanding of the articles, consider making a chart for yourself, or use the one I have provided.  Focus on each article’s key sections: hypothesis, methods, results, and evaluations.  Jot down key moments from each section of each article, then look for similarities and differences among the various articles.

   

  Use the most important similarities to form groupings you foresee becoming the two or three themes of your literature review.  Then move down one level to begin synthesizing the articles within each theme.  The similarities you’ve already identified in grouping them together represent your starting point in applying the three steps of the synthesis cycle: similarity, difference, and evaluation.

   

  Among the articles within a theme, move past the initial similarities.  Ask yourself, If two articles use similar methods to find similar results, why do we need both articles?  What distinguishes them?  If they merely confirm each other’s approaches and findings, you need say very little about the second article at all.

   

  Dig deep into the different parts of your article to find these differences.  Various possible scenarios arise.  Articles might share a common method such as a single parameter, characteristic, or quality they all measure even while differing in other parameters.  They might share a common result achieved through differing methods; they might even share the same methods yet arrive at different results.  If only the methods are similar or only the results are similar, your task is then to address the ways in which similar methods lead to differing results or differing methods lead to similar results.  Of course, an evaluation of better and worse approaches and findings can greatly help here.

   

  Identify differences, then resolve or explain them.  Differences become meaningful only against a background of similarity—otherwise, pure differences might indicate articles simply belong in different themes or even different literature reviews.  Other differences range across a spectrum of minor distinctions between two articles to outright conflict or disagreement.  Once you identify a difference, don’t run away from it.  Work to explain or resolve such differences.

   

  Evaluation.  Often the explanation or resolution of differences requires an evaluation of the articles.  Where does this kind of evaluation come from?  Some will originate in the articles themselves as their authors immediately reflect on the value of their own work in their Discussion sections.  Some will come from other scientists writing in other articles (typically in the Introductions of their own IMRADs where they assess previous work as it bolsters their own experiments).  Finally, some will be your own original thinking about an article’s contributions.

   

  Ask yourself, If two articles use different methods, why and which is better?  If they arrive at different results, why and which is better?  When you identify improvement and praise an article’s methods/results for being somehow “better,” pinpoint what specifically is improved.  Common sorts of praise for improvement include

   

  • greater efficiency
  • higher reliability
  • better accuracy
  • finer precision
  • wider scope of application
  • expanded range of functionality
  • superior explanatory power
  • broader effective incorporation of evidence
  • greater elegance

   

  However, such improvements are always relative, not absolute.  When you claim one article offers an improvement in methods or results, you are logically (though perhaps not yet explicitly) asserting that another article in this respect is worse.  Articulate that “worse” as your criticism of the article.

   

  Notice that methods and results are interdependent here.  For example, if you believe an article’s results are limited, incomplete, or in some other way inadequate, you can usually trace these results back to the methods that produced them and identify a limitation or inadequacy there as well.  On the other hand, if you see a methodological inadequacy first, remember that the inadequacy only matters if you can trace it to some resulting inadequate finding.

   

  For each article, you might also ask yourself this key question: If its hypothesis, methods, and results are perfect and finish the line of research, why do we need a second article?  In any article that follows, you should be able to identify an attempt to answer the questions the first article left open, or even to fix its inadequacies.  To that degree, remember that you are not criticizing articles just to be negative.  The reason for criticizing any given method or result is because you can find another article that tries to answer this inadequacy with a fix—and this fix is something to praise.  The second article doesn’t have to succeed and fully answer the inadequacy, though typically its improved method will lead to an improved result.  Such inadequacies and fixes establish strong logical linkages between sources, allowing you and your readers to trace a trajectory of past research that add to our understanding of its direction and its future possible course.

   

  What to Avoid

   

  Pop science writing for generalists or “dumbing down” your topic.  Complex concepts and field-specific jargon are not only acceptable for a literature aimed at specialists, but essential.  Avoid explanations of concepts or definitions of terms they would not need.

   

  Generalizations.  Also avoid substituting details and specifics from the articles with generalizations.  Such generalizations include reference to “data” or “evidence,” or referring to “studies” or “research” rather than stating the actual data, evidence, or information or research from a study.

   

  Summary or hovering.  Summary should play a minor role here.  If your readers wanted summaries of the original research articles, they could easily read the abstracts.  You should provide only enough summary to allow for the main job of the literature review, synthesis and evaluation.  Along similar lines, avoid hovering over one article for an extended period.  Overreliance on a single article usually leads to too much summary of that article and too little coverage of other articles.  It might also indicate that further secondary research is needed or that the topic isn’t ready for a literature review due to lack of enough recent research.

   

  Policy assertions or cost.  A literature review is not usually the place to assert your own policy opinions about what “should” happen next.  Typically, therefore, you avoid claims about policy, ethics, legislation, religion, morality, etc.  Even reference to cost (usually for engineering majors) should be avoided—the literature review is not a business document such as an engineering report directed at a CEO.  Replace discussion of high or low cost with the underlying scientific and engineering causes that drive up or bring down cost.

   

  Would, could, should, might, must, can, needs to, etc.  Literature reviews report methods and results that already exist, so you should not characterize methods that “could” be done, or substitute clear methods and results with claims about what “was essential” or “was important” to do next.

   

  Weak additive logic: similarities, agreements, and “further” verbs.  Avoid merely identifying similarities or agreements between articles (in their methods or results).  These similarities are often expressed with additive logical transitions like “furthermore” or “in addition,” or verbs such as “further” or “build on.”  We assume the articles are furthering or building on each other’s research, but in order to understand how, we must then dig deeper into detailed and meaningful differences between methods and results, often distinguishing articles through assessment.  Which article is better?  In what specific way?

   

  Connecting articles through purpose, focus, or goal.  Connecting articles through their purposes, focuses, or goals often fails whether you identify similarities or differences.  Readers assume you have grouped articles into the same literature review, for example, because the articles are similar in purpose, focus, or goal, so arriving at that conclusion doesn’t provide valuable synthesis or evaluation of the articles.  On the other hand, in terms of differences, when you argue that one article differs from another in terms of their purposes, focuses, or goals, these articles might actually belong in two different literature reviews.  They might also work well together in a full-scale literature review synthesizing dozens of articles in several themes, but not so well in a mini-literature review of the sort we’re writing here.

   

  Unfairness.  Strike a tone in your word choice that you consider fair to the work of the authors.  Would those authors find your word choice objectionable if you stated your characterization of their work face-to-face?  Watch out for unfair and unrealistic criticisms of scope such as claiming an article does not consider a topic far beyond its authors’ goals or claiming a sample size is too small though in fact it represents a sample size as large as might be feasible.

   

   

  Structure

   

  As you draft your literature review, consult the outline plan provided as well as the following explanations and notes as needed.  Your paper should be 1500 to 2400 words, excluding the bibliography.  Please use Times New Roman font with double-spacing.

   

  Title

   

  Usually you should wait to craft your title until after you have drafted your literature review.  In your title, state not only the topic in as much jargon-specific detail as you can give, but the direction of your synthesis and evaluation overall.  Don’t worry about brevity; worry about specifics.  What key methods and results prove especially problematic?  Which ones addressed these problems best?  Avoid simply listing methods/results from your six to eight articles.  Instead, weave them together with assessments that match whatever work you did to synthesize the articles.

   

   

  Introduction

   

  The hook.  The opening for almost any piece of writing should grab the attention of the target audience and introduce the topic without either beating around the bush or overwhelming the reader with too much detail too soon.  Therefore, after the subheading “Introduction,” craft a single hook sentence that does so.

   

  Remember, however, that your target audience consists of specialists, so the best hook should probably be a current problem.  Be careful not to open with a hook more appropriate to a pop science article for generalist readers, such as stating the overarching problem or the big picture.  For example, if all your articles are seeking an AIDS vaccine, that’s the overarching problem.  The hook should instead single out the key obstacle researchers are facing right now in solving that problem.  Use sophisticated jargon and specifics a specialist reader would expect.  Consider zooming in on a particular representative article among those in the cluster you are synthesizing to highlight the problem all the articles face.  If necessary, you can alleviate any abruptness in the phrasing of the hook by supplying some context or purpose behind the research, and—if necessary for a specialist reader—a clear sense of why the method or result presents problems.

   

  Relevant background: older articles.  Next, draft a paragraph or two of relevant background context for the overarching problem all of your articles address, including reference with citations to at least one article older than five years—important seminal articles, for example, that set the stage for the six to eight articles you are synthesizing.  Do not use your cluster of six to eight articles in order to introduce themselves; they are not their own background.  Remember, too, that you are addressing specialists.  Don’t bore them.  These paragraphs are only meant to remind specialists of what they probably already know.

   

  Roadmap paragraph.  Transition into your roadmap paragraph so that it does not feel tacked on and abrupt.  Craft several sentences in a full-sized paragraph to outline the trajectory of research in detail.  Feel free to use metadiscourse (“Of the eight articles reviewed here…”), clearly indicating not only the two to three themes and how they are linked, but the articles under each theme and how they are linked.  Be sure to name the articles by reference to the first author’s last name: Smith et al., and in showing linkages between themes and between articles within a theme, avoid list-mode or additive logic

   

  The main job of the roadmap is to forecast all key elements from the body of the literature review.  Sequence the points to match their sequence later, using the same transitional logic to connect these points.  Employ the same key terminology here as in title, hook, sub-subheadings, and topic sentences of body paragraphs, and of course be sure to emphasize your key evaluations (criticism and praise) and the main moments of synthesis of your articles.

  Discussion

   

  Roadmap point sequence, content, and transitional logic.  Add the subheading “Discussion,” then break up the body of the Discussion into two or three subheaded sections.  Give subheading titles with ample detail to clarify the section’s theme.  The sequence and content of these sections should match the order promised in the roadmap as well as adopting the same transitional logic as you move from section to section.  Avoid additive logic here or letting the subheadings substitute for transitions.

   

  Mini-intro paragraphs.  After each topical subheading, craft a brief paragraph introducing the theme of the section.  Here you specify for your reader why you have grouped these articles together, making sure to name the articles (by reference to the first author’s last name: Smith et al.).  Focus on key specifics and details from the articles’ hypotheses, methods, or results, and sum up your praise, criticism, the similarities that will lead to differences or differences you are resolving.  If your roadmap includes a significant fork in the road, use either your mini-intro paragraph or your mini-outro paragraph to clarify for your reader that we are now arriving at this fork.

   

  Topic sentences.  Clear topic sentence are key navigational cues for your reader.  Include three elements in the topic sentence of a body paragraph: 1) a transition from the previous paragraph, 2) the names of the authors whose articles this paragraph addresses, and 3) your main claim.  You should be able to fit all three into a single sentence.

   

  Paragraph transition.  First, clearly transition from the previous paragraph.  How does this paragraph relate to the one before it?

   

  Author names.  Next, state the author(s) of the article(s) you are addressing.  If you only name the authors in citations, you risk slipping into writing a research paper rather than a review of the current literature.  Foreground the articles; don’t let them disappear behind the scenes.

   

  Your claim.  Finally, and most importantly, make a claim.  You might claim, for example, that the article or articles address or attempt to fix an inadequacy in method or result from previous articles.  Or you might claim a key distinction that helps distinguish otherwise similar articles; conversely, you might resolve differing or conflicting articles.

   

  Body paragraph content.  Do not hover over any particular article too long.  Remember that if the reader of a literature review is interested in a particular article, they will go read it.  Be highly selective in what methods and results you summarize, stating those methods and results that give a clear sense of the article’s overall approach and findings so you can assess them.  Do so next.  For example, you might praise whatever you believe to be an improvement in methods and results, criticize them, distinguish similarities with other articles, or resolve differences.  Include citations for all of these claims unless the evaluation and so on is your own work.

   

  Mini-outro paragraphs.  Wrap up a subheaded section with a brief paragraph summing up “where we are,” again with clear reference to the names of the articles (via the first author’s last name, as in Smith et al.)  Avoid unnecessary repetition of points just made.  Instead, think of the outro-paragraph as a chance to indicate a dead end in this particular branch of the overall trajectory of current research, a need for future research, or perhaps a key inadequacy of method/result that sets up the need for the fix in the next subheaded section.  You can also use mini-outro paragraphs to set up forks in the road promised in your roadmap.

   

  Conclusion

   

   

  Bibliography

   

  At the top of a new page after your Conclusion, add a bibliography using the MLA citation format.  Throughout the literature review, remember to cite your articles frequently, including page numbers.  When you turn in your final draft, remember to upload these articles to a separate slot in Canvas Assignments from where you submit your final draft, having first highlighted passages you reference with citations in your draft.