Tagros, Glen D.
BSIT – 4B
224098
REFLECTION PAPER
ON
“THE LITERATURE REVIEW”
The lecture on writing a literature review provided me with a broader and more
comprehensive understanding of what a literature review is. When I first sat down to watch the
video, I thought of the literature review as a long introduction where it mentioned relevant works.
However, the video provided evidence that literature reviews are more than a description, they
are analyses with intent. A literature review situates your research as part of a wider field,
identifies your work in relation to what exists and is already known, and importantly, positions
where you will call for investigation. This framing shifted how I view its role, not as a formality
but as the backbone that justifies why my research is relevant.
One important lesson I learned is that synthesis is more valuable than summary. Dr. Lilia
Savillano explained that just summarizing each work is not enough because it does not show
real critical thinking. Instead, researchers need to connect findings, spot patterns, and point out
contradictions across different studies. This made me reflect on how I usually write Chapter II of
my papers, since I often go through each source one by one. Moving forward, I realize I should
organize them by themes or common issues so the review reads like a discussion instead of a
list of authors.
Another key lesson that I took from the video was the credibility of sources you can cite.
While the internet can lead to tons and tons of information, not all of it is of good academic
quality. The reminder to weigh peer-reviewed journals and credible journals fulfilled a lot with
me, and while having a quantity is certainly important, depth and reliability also matters. For my
capstone project, I think it is reasonable for my literature review to be based on solid studies
about software frameworks, methodologies, and evaluation criteria rather than "fun" blog posts
and informal articles. In being more selective, I feel like I can be academically responsible.
Equally important was the idea that a literature review must reveal the researcher’s own
voice. Too often, students treat this section as if they must disappear behind the words of
others. The lecture clarified that the review is also a platform to demonstrate critical thinking by
pointing out strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in previous work. This resonates with me
personally because I sometimes hesitate to critique published studies, assuming that my role is
only to respect and report them. Now I see that pointing out their limits is not disrespectful, it is
how I can take part in the academic conversation. The advice on structure was also very useful:
organizing studies by theme, theory, or method, and focusing on recent sources are strategies I
can apply right away. This will help me write reviews that do more than summarize, they will
build an argument
In the end, the lecture changed how I view the literature review. I no longer see it as a
dull requirement, but as a valuable chance to guide and support my research. It works both as a
map of what has been done and as a guide for where to go next. Moving forward, I plan to
approach my literature review not only as a way to collect information but as a chance to show
my analytical ability and justify the direction of my work. By synthesizing instead of
summarizing, choosing sources critically, and letting my own academic voice be heard, I can
transform this section into one of the strongest parts of my research.
