How to write the review of related literature for a dissertation on teacher effectiveness: collect studies around each variable, group them as Indian and foreign, give every study the same four-part entry, and finish by showing the gap your study fills. That is the whole method. The rest of this guide shows each step with entries built from real, published studies, so you can see what a finished entry looks like before you write your own.
Teacher effectiveness is a frequently chosen construct for M.Ed dissertations in India, and the Review of Related Literature (RRL) chapter is where such dissertations often lose marks: not because the studies are missing, but because they are listed one after another with nothing connecting them. The steps below fix that.
Step 1: Fix the scope before you search
Write down your dissertation’s variables in one line, for example: teacher effectiveness (dependent), and one or two of emotional intelligence, school type, gender, teaching experience or professional commitment (independent or comparison variables). Every study in your RRL must touch at least one of those, and the strongest studies touch two.
Then list the search words for each variable: the construct name, its common variants, and the population. For teacher effectiveness the variants include “teaching effectiveness”; for your population include the level (secondary, higher secondary, B.Ed trainees) and the place. Run those words in the databases your library gives you, in Google Scholar, and in the repository of previous Indian theses described in our guide to what Shodhganga is and what it holds. Record every search string and date in a notebook; you will need them if your guide asks how the studies were chosen.
Step 2: Choose the structure examiners expect
Indian M.Ed dissertations most often organise the RRL in one of two ways, and your guide will have a preference:
- By origin: “Studies conducted in India” followed by “Studies conducted abroad”, with each part arranged by theme or by year.
- By variable: one section per variable or per pair of variables, with Indian and foreign studies inside each.
For a dissertation on teacher effectiveness, the second structure usually reads better, because the reader wants to know what is known about teacher effectiveness and emotional intelligence, then about teacher effectiveness and school type, and so on. Whichever you choose, say in the first paragraph of the chapter how it is organised. If you are working to a PhD-level procedure rather than an M.Ed one, the eight-step method in our guide to the literature review for a PhD thesis in India applies, and our annotated review of literature examples show finished passages from M.Ed, MBA and M.Phil.
Keep a literature matrix as you read, because it is the raw material for every later step. One row per study, with columns for author and year, place, sample, variables, tool, design, finding and a line of your own about its limits. Fill it from the full paper while you read, not afterwards from memory. When you sit down to write, the matrix sorts by variable in a minute, and you will find that the review is largely a matter of reading down a column. It also shows you quickly when you have only read abstracts, because those rows have empty cells.
Step 3: Give every study the same four-part entry
An RRL entry has four parts, in this order: who (author and year), what was studied and on whom (sample), how it was measured (tool), and what was found. Keep each entry to three or four sentences. The following three entries are built from published studies that were opened for this guide; each states only what the source reports.
Entry 1 (Indian study, two variables). Bala (2017) studied the relationship between teacher effectiveness and emotional intelligence among 200 secondary school teachers selected by random sampling. She used the Teacher Effectiveness Scale by Kulsum (2000) and the Emotional Intelligence Scale by Hyde, Pethe and Dhar (2001). The study reported significant differences in teacher effectiveness between male and female and between government and private school teachers, and a positive and significant relationship between teacher effectiveness and emotional intelligence.
Entry 2 (Indian study, school type). Soni (2017) compared the teacher effectiveness of 160 teachers, 80 male and 80 female, from government and private secondary schools in the Ahmedabad districts, using the Teacher Effectiveness Scale by Kumar and Mutha (1985) and t-tests. The study reported significant differences in teacher effectiveness between government and private school teachers, with the direction of the difference varying across its gender subgroups.
Entry 3 (foreign study, policy and achievement). Darling-Hammond (2000) combined a 50-state survey of policies, state case studies, the 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Surveys and the National Assessment of Educational Progress. She reported that measures of teacher preparation and certification were by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics, before and after controlling for student poverty and language status.
Look at what the entries do not do. They do not praise the study, they do not copy its abstract, and they do not claim anything the source did not report. Take your own entries from the full paper, not from a summary, and cite them in the format your department uses; our guide to APA style for an Indian thesis covers the reference list.
Entries 1 and 2 also quietly hand you something useful: the names of scales that Indian studies of this construct have used. When you reach your methodology chapter, our guide to standardised tools for an M.Ed dissertation explains how to check permission and reliability before you adopt one.
Step 4: Summarise in a table, then write across the studies
A summary table at the end of each section lets the examiner see your coverage in one glance:
| Author and year | Place | Sample | Variables | Tool | Main finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bala (2017) | India | 200 secondary school teachers | Teacher effectiveness, emotional intelligence, gender, school type | Kulsum (2000); Hyde, Pethe and Dhar (2001) | Positive and significant relationship; differences by gender and school type |
| Soni (2017) | Ahmedabad districts, India | 160 secondary school teachers | Teacher effectiveness, school type, gender | Kumar and Mutha (1985) | Significant differences between government and private school teachers |
| Darling-Hammond (2000) | United States | State-level policy and national achievement data | Teacher preparation and certification, student achievement | Surveys and national assessment data | Preparation and certification the strongest correlates of achievement |
The table is only the evidence. The paragraph after it is the review. It should compare, not repeat: “Studies in India have consistently compared government and private school teachers, while studies abroad have focused on preparation and certification as predictors” is a sentence about the field, not about one paper. Write one such paragraph per section, using only claims your table supports.
Here is the kind of comparison paragraph that follows a table, written only from the three entries above and labelled as an illustration of the move, not as a complete review:
Two Indian studies of secondary school teachers (Bala, 2017; Soni, 2017) compared teacher effectiveness across government and private schools and both reported significant differences, although they used different scales and different samples. Bala additionally related effectiveness to emotional intelligence. Work abroad has approached teacher quality through preparation and certification rather than through teacher attributes (Darling-Hammond, 2000). The present study therefore examines [your variable pair] among [your population], which the reviewed studies did not cover.
Note the final sentence: the comparison ends by pointing at your study. That is what turns a summary into a review.
Step 5: Move from the studies to your gap
The last page of the RRL is where the chapter earns its place. Read your own table and ask three questions: which variable pairs have been studied often, which population or place has not been studied, and which tool or design has not been tried. Write the answer as a short “Need for the present study” section that leads directly into your objectives. If the studies you found were all on secondary school teachers and your dissertation is on higher secondary or B.Ed trainees, that is a gap you can state. If you cannot find a gap, your problem statement needs work first; our worked examples of the statement of the problem show how the gap and the problem fit together.
Step 6: How many studies, and how recent?
No national regulation sets a number of studies for an M.Ed RRL; your university’s guideline, your guide and the approved dissertations in your department set the practical standard. Look at two or three recently approved dissertations from your own department and note how many studies they reviewed and how far back they went. Then aim for the same range of quantity, with the most weight on studies from the last decade and a few older studies that are genuinely foundational for your construct.
Step 7: Paraphrase, cite and avoid the copy-paste trap
Review chapters are where similarity reports go red, because they are made of other people’s sentences. Write each entry from your notes, not from the abstract on your screen, and attach the citation as you write. A chapter that summarises many studies in your own words is far safer than one built from long quotations.
Common mistakes in a teacher effectiveness RRL
- A list of “Author (year) found” sentences with no grouping. Group by variable and compare across studies.
- Only studies on the identical population. Include adjacent populations and foreign studies; say how they differ.
- Reporting a finding the paper did not report. If you only read the abstract, say only what the abstract says.
- Mixing up the tool and the construct. A study that used one effectiveness scale defines effectiveness through that scale; say which.
- No gap. The chapter ends without telling the examiner why your study is needed.
Putting the chapter together
The RRL is long, and it has to stay consistent with your problem, objectives and tools. Tesify helps you structure the chapter and assists you as you write your own paraphrases. More than 9,000 students have used it, it has supported 15,000+ chapters, and every word of your dissertation stays 100% written by you.
Start your dissertation in Tesify
Frequently asked questions
What is the review of related literature in an M.Ed dissertation?
It is the chapter, usually Chapter 2, that summarises and compares earlier studies related to your variables, shows what is already known and states the gap your study fills.
How should I organise the review for teacher effectiveness?
Either by origin, with studies in India followed by studies abroad, or by variable, with one section for each variable or variable pair. Whichever you choose, state it in the opening paragraph of the chapter.
What should each study entry contain?
The author and year, the sample, the tool and the finding, in three or four sentences. Keep the same order for every entry so the chapter reads consistently.
How many studies should I review?
There is no national number. Check your university’s guideline and two or three recently approved dissertations from your department, and match their range.
Should I include foreign studies?
Yes, where your guide or format asks for them. Foreign studies show how the construct is understood and measured elsewhere; state how their settings differ from yours.
Where can I find previous studies on teacher effectiveness?
In your library databases, Google Scholar, journal sites and the Shodhganga repository of Indian theses. Record each search string and date.
Can I use the abstract to write the entry?
Use it to decide whether a study is relevant, but write the entry from the full paper. If you can only read the abstract, report only what the abstract states.
How do I keep the review chapter in my own words?
Write each entry in your own words from your notes, cite as you write, and keep direct quotations short and marked.
Which tools did earlier Indian studies use to measure teacher effectiveness?
The studies above report using the Teacher Effectiveness Scale by Kumar and Mutha (1985) and the Teacher Effectiveness Scale by Kulsum (2000). Check permission and reliability before adopting any scale.
How do I write the gap?
Read your summary table and name the variable pair, population, place or design that the studies have not covered, then link that to your first objective.