literature review theoretical and conceptual framework

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

What they are & how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | March 2023

If you’re new to academic research, sooner or later you’re bound to run into the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework . These are closely related but distinctly different things (despite some people using them interchangeably) and it’s important to understand what each means. In this post, we’ll unpack both theoretical and conceptual frameworks in plain language along with practical examples , so that you can approach your research with confidence.

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

What is a theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, what is a conceptual framework, example of a conceptual framework.

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

A theoretical framework (also sometimes referred to as a foundation of theory) is essentially a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions that together form a structured, comprehensive view of a specific phenomenon.

In other words, a theoretical framework is a collection of existing theories, models and frameworks that provides a foundation of core knowledge – a “lay of the land”, so to speak, from which you can build a research study. For this reason, it’s usually presented fairly early within the literature review section of a dissertation, thesis or research paper .

Let’s look at an example to make the theoretical framework a little more tangible.

If your research aims involve understanding what factors contributed toward people trusting investment brokers, you’d need to first lay down some theory so that it’s crystal clear what exactly you mean by this. For example, you would need to define what you mean by “trust”, as there are many potential definitions of this concept. The same would be true for any other constructs or variables of interest.

You’d also need to identify what existing theories have to say in relation to your research aim. In this case, you could discuss some of the key literature in relation to organisational trust. A quick search on Google Scholar using some well-considered keywords generally provides a good starting point.

Typically, you’ll present your theoretical framework in written form , although sometimes it will make sense to utilise some visuals to show how different theories relate to each other. Your theoretical framework may revolve around just one major theory , or it could comprise a collection of different interrelated theories and models. In some cases, there will be a lot to cover and in some cases, not. Regardless of size, the theoretical framework is a critical ingredient in any study.

Simply put, the theoretical framework is the core foundation of theory that you’ll build your research upon. As we’ve mentioned many times on the blog, good research is developed by standing on the shoulders of giants . It’s extremely unlikely that your research topic will be completely novel and that there’ll be absolutely no existing theory that relates to it. If that’s the case, the most likely explanation is that you just haven’t reviewed enough literature yet! So, make sure that you take the time to review and digest the seminal sources.

Need a helping hand?

A conceptual framework is typically a visual representation (although it can also be written out) of the expected relationships and connections between various concepts, constructs or variables. In other words, a conceptual framework visualises how the researcher views and organises the various concepts and variables within their study. This is typically based on aspects drawn from the theoretical framework, so there is a relationship between the two.

Quite commonly, conceptual frameworks are used to visualise the potential causal relationships and pathways that the researcher expects to find, based on their understanding of both the theoretical literature and the existing empirical research . Therefore, the conceptual framework is often used to develop research questions and hypotheses .

Let’s look at an example of a conceptual framework to make it a little more tangible. You’ll notice that in this specific conceptual framework, the hypotheses are integrated into the visual, helping to connect the rest of the document to the framework.

As you can see, conceptual frameworks often make use of different shapes , lines and arrows to visualise the connections and relationships between different components and/or variables. Ultimately, the conceptual framework provides an opportunity for you to make explicit your understanding of how everything is connected . So, be sure to make use of all the visual aids you can – clean design, well-considered colours and concise text are your friends.

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

As you can see, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are closely related concepts, but they differ in terms of focus and purpose. The theoretical framework is used to lay down a foundation of theory on which your study will be built, whereas the conceptual framework visualises what you anticipate the relationships between concepts, constructs and variables may be, based on your understanding of the existing literature and the specific context and focus of your research. In other words, they’re different tools for different jobs , but they’re neighbours in the toolbox.

Naturally, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are not mutually exclusive . In fact, it’s quite likely that you’ll include both in your dissertation or thesis, especially if your research aims involve investigating relationships between variables. Of course, every research project is different and universities differ in terms of their expectations for dissertations and theses, so it’s always a good idea to have a look at past projects to get a feel for what the norms and expectations are at your specific institution.

Want to learn more about research terminology, methods and techniques? Be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for hands-on help, have a look at our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

23 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

thanks for given very interested understand about both theoritical and conceptual framework

I am researching teacher beliefs about inclusive education but not using a theoretical framework just conceptual frame using teacher beliefs, inclusive education and inclusive practices as my concepts

good, fantastic

great! thanks for the clarification. I am planning to use both for my implementation evaluation of EmONC service at primary health care facility level. its theoretical foundation rooted from the principles of implementation science.

This is a good one…now have a better understanding of Theoretical and Conceptual frameworks. Highly grateful

Very educating and fantastic,good to be part of you guys,I appreciate your enlightened concern.

Thanks for shedding light on these two t opics. Much clearer in my head now.

Simple and clear!

The differences between the two topics was well explained, thank you very much!

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

Hello Gradcoach! I’m excited with your fantastic educational videos which mainly focused on all over research process. I’m a student, I kindly ask and need your support. So, if it’s possible please send me the PDF format of all topic provided here, I put my email below, thank you!

I am really grateful I found this website. This is very helpful for an MPA student like myself.

I’m clear with these two terminologies now. Useful information. I appreciate it. Thank you

I’m well inform about these two concepts in research. Thanks

I found this really helpful. It is well explained. Thank you.

very clear and useful. information important at start of research!!

Wow, great information, clear and concise review of the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Thank you! keep up the good work.

thank you so much. Educative and realistic.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Table of Contents

A literature review and a theoretical framework are both important components of academic research. However, they serve different purposes and have distinct characteristics. In this article, we will examine the concepts of literature review and theoretical framework, explore their significance, and highlight the key differences between the two.

Defining the Concepts: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Before we dive into the details, let's clarify what a literature review and a theoretical framework actually mean.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research and scholarly articles on a specific topic. It involves reviewing and summarizing the current knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. By examining previous studies, the scholar can identify knowledge gaps, assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, and present a comprehensive overview of the topic.

When conducting a literature review, the scholar delves into a vast array of sources, including academic journals, books, conference proceedings, and reputable online databases. This extensive exploration allows them to gather relevant information, theories, and methodologies related to their research topic.

Furthermore, a literature review provides a solid foundation for the research by establishing the context and significance of the study. It helps researchers identify the key concepts, theories, and variables that are relevant to their research objectives. By critically analyzing the existing literature, scholars can identify research gaps and propose new avenues for scientific investigation.

Moreover, a literature review is not merely a summary of previous studies. It requires a critical evaluation of the methodologies used, the quality of the data collected, and the validity of the conclusions drawn.

Researchers must assess the credibility and reliability of the sources they include in their review to ensure the accuracy and robustness of their analysis.

What is a Theoretical Framework?

A theoretical framework provides a conceptual explanation for the research problem or question being investigated. It serves as a foundation that guides the formulation of hypotheses and research objectives. A theoretical framework helps researchers to analyze and interpret their findings by establishing a set of assumptions, concepts, and relationships that underpin their study. It provides a structured framework for organizing and presenting research outcomes.

When developing a theoretical framework, researchers draw upon existing theories and concepts from relevant disciplines to create a conceptual framework that aligns with their research objectives. This framework helps researchers to define the variables they will study, establish the relationships between these variables, and propose hypotheses that can be tested through empirical research.

Furthermore, a theoretical framework provides a roadmap for researchers to navigate through the complexities of their study. It helps them to identify the key constructs and variables that need to be measured and analyzed. By providing a clear structure, the theoretical framework ensures that researchers stay focused on their research objectives and avoid getting lost in a sea of information.

Moreover, a theoretical framework allows researchers to make connections between their study and existing theories or models. By building upon established knowledge, researchers can contribute to the advancement of their field and provide new insights and perspectives. The theoretical framework also helps researchers interpret their findings in a meaningful way and draw conclusions that have theoretical and practical implications.

In summary, both a literature review and a theoretical framework play crucial roles in the research process. While a literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge and identifies research gaps, a theoretical framework establishes the conceptual foundation for the study and guides the formulation of research objectives and hypotheses. Together, these two elements contribute to the development of a robust and well-grounded research study.

The Purpose and Importance of Literature Reviews

Now that we have a clear understanding of what a literature review is, let's explore its purpose and significance.

A literature review plays a crucial role in academic research. It serves several purposes, including:

• Providing a comprehensive understanding of the existing literature in a particular field.
• Identifying the gaps, controversies, or inconsistencies in the current knowledge.
• Helping researchers to refine their research questions and objectives.
• Ensuring that the research being conducted is novel and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

The Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review

There are numerous benefits to conducting a literature review, such as:

• Enhancing the researcher's knowledge and understanding of the subject area.
• Providing a framework for developing research hypotheses and objectives.
• Identifying potential research methodologies and approaches.
• Informing the selection of appropriate data collection and analysis methods.
• Guiding the interpretation and discussion of research findings.

The Purpose and Importance of Theoretical Frameworks

Moving on to theoretical frameworks, let us discuss their purpose and importance.

When conducting research, theoretical frameworks play a crucial role in providing a solid foundation for the study. They serve as a guiding tool for researchers, helping them navigate through the complexities of their research and providing a framework for understanding and interpreting their findings.

The Function of Theoretical Frameworks in Research

Theoretical frameworks serve multiple functions in research:

• Providing a conceptual framework enables researchers to clearly define the scope and direction of their study.
• Acting as a roadmap, guiding researchers in formulating their research objectives and hypotheses. It helps them identify the key variables and relationships they want to explore, providing a solid foundation for their research.
• Helping researchers identify and select appropriate research methods and techniques. When it comes to selecting research methods and techniques, theoretical frameworks are invaluable. They provide researchers with a lens through which they can evaluate different methods and techniques, ensuring that they choose the most appropriate ones for their study. By aligning their methods with the theoretical framework, researchers can enhance the validity and reliability of their research.
• Supporting the interpretation and explanation of research findings. Once the data has been collected, theoretical frameworks help researchers make sense of their findings. They provide a framework for interpreting and explaining the results, allowing researchers to draw meaningful conclusions. By grounding their analysis in a theoretical framework, researchers can provide a solid foundation for their findings and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
• Facilitating the integration of new knowledge with existing theories and concepts. Theoretical frameworks also play a crucial role in the advancement of knowledge. By integrating new findings with existing theories and concepts, researchers can contribute to the development of their field.

The Advantages of Developing a Theoretical Framework

Developing a theoretical framework offers several advantages:

• Enhancing the researcher's understanding of the research problem. By developing a theoretical framework, researchers gain a deeper understanding of the research problem they are investigating.  This enhanced understanding allows researchers to approach their study with clarity and purpose.
• Facilitating the selection of an appropriate research design. Choosing the right research design is crucial for the success of a study. A well-developed theoretical framework helps researchers select the most appropriate research design by providing a clear direction and focus. It ensures that the research design aligns with the research objectives and hypotheses, maximizing the chances of obtaining valid and reliable results.
• Helping researchers organize their thoughts and ideas systematically. This organization helps researchers stay focused and ensures that all aspects of the research problem are considered. By structuring their thoughts, researchers can effectively communicate their ideas and findings to others.
• Guiding the analysis and interpretation of research findings. When it comes to analyzing and interpreting research findings, a theoretical framework provides researchers with a framework to guide their process. It helps researchers identify patterns, relationships, and themes within the data, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis.

Developing a theoretical framework is essential for ensuring the validity and reliability of a study. By aligning the research with established theories and concepts, researchers can enhance the credibility of their study. A well-developed theoretical framework provides a solid foundation for the research, increasing the chances of obtaining accurate and meaningful results.

Differences Between Literature Reviews and Theoretical Frameworks

Now, let's explore the key differences between literature reviews and theoretical frameworks.

Key Differences:

• Focus: A literature review focuses on summarizing existing research, while a theoretical framework focuses on providing a conceptual foundation for the study.
• Scope: A literature review covers a broad range of related research, while a theoretical framework is more specific to the research problem at hand.
• Timing: A literature review is typically conducted early in the research process, while a theoretical framework is often developed alongside the research design.
• Purpose: A literature review aims to inform the research and establish its context, while a theoretical framework aims to guide the interpretation and analysis of findings.

In conclusion

Understanding the distinction between a literature review and a theoretical framework is crucial for conducting effective and meaningful academic research. While a literature review provides an overview of existing research, a theoretical framework guides the formulation, analysis, and interpretation of research. Both components are essential for building a strong foundation of knowledge in any field. By comprehending their purpose, significance, and key differences, researchers can enhance the quality and rigor of their research endeavors.

Love using SciSpace tools? Enjoy discounts! Use SR40 (40% off yearly) and SR20 (20% off monthly). Claim yours here 👉 SciSpace Premium

Learn more about Literature Review

5 literature review tools to ace your reseach (+2 bonus tools)

Role of AI in Systematic Literature Review

Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

A complete guide on how to write a literature review

How to Use AI Tools for Conducting a Literature Review

You might also like

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — Best Chat PDF Tools

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews
• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Introduction

Revisiting theoretical frameworks

Revisiting conceptual frameworks, differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks, examples of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, developing frameworks for your study.

• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are both essential components of research, guiding and structuring the research. Although they are closely related, the conceptual and theoretical framework in any research project serve distinct purposes and have different characteristics. In this section, we provide an overview of the key differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are foundational components of any research study. They each play a crucial role in guiding and structuring the research, from the formation of research questions to the interpretation of results .

While both the theoretical and conceptual framework provides a structure for a study, they serve different functions and can impact the research in distinct ways depending on how they are combined. These differences might seem subtle, but they can significantly impact your research design and outcomes, which is why it is important to think through each one of them.

The theoretical framework describes the broader lens through which the researcher views the topic and guides their overall understanding and approach. It connects the theoretical perspective to the data collection and data analysis strategy and offers a structure for organizing and interpreting the collected data.

On the other hand, the conceptual framework describes in detail and connects specific concepts and variables to illustrate potential relationships between them. It serves as a guide for assessing which aspects of the data are relevant and specifying how the research question is being answered. While the theoretical framework outlines how more abstract-level theories shape the study, the conceptual framework operationalizes the empirical observations that can be connected to theory and broader understanding.

Understanding these differences is crucial when designing and conducting your research study. In this chapter, we will look deeper at the distinctions between these types of frameworks, and how they interplay in qualitative research . We aim to provide you with a solid understanding of both, allowing you to effectively utilize them in your own research.

Theoretical frameworks play a central role in research, serving as the bedrock of any investigation. This section offers a refresher on the essential elements and functions of theoretical frameworks in research.

A theoretical framework refers to existing theory, concepts, and definitions that you use to collect relevant data and offer meaningful empirical findings. Providing an overall orientation or lens, it guides your understanding of the research problem and directs your approach to data collection and analysis .

Your chosen theoretical framework directly influences your research questions and methodological choices . It contains specific theories or sets of assumptions drawn from relevant disciplines—such as sociology, psychology, or economics—that you apply to understand your research topic. These existing models and concepts are tools to help you organize and make sense of your data.

The theoretical framework also plays a key role in crafting your research questions and objectives. By determining the theories that are relevant to your research, the theoretical framework shapes the nature and direction of your study. It's essential to note, however, that the theoretical framework's role in qualitative research is not to predict outcomes. Instead, it offers a broader structure to understand and interpret your data, enabling you to situate your findings within the broader academic discourse in a way that makes your research findings meaningful to you and your research audience.

Conceptual frameworks , though related to theoretical frameworks , serve distinct functions within research. This section reexamines the characteristics and functions of conceptual frameworks to provide a better understanding of their roles in qualitative research .

A conceptual framework, in essence, is a system of concepts, assumptions, and beliefs that supports and informs your research. It outlines the specific variables or concepts you'll examine in your study and proposes relationships between them. It's more detailed and specific than a theoretical framework, acting as a contextualized guide for the collection and interpretation of empirical data.

The main role of a conceptual framework is to illustrate the presumed relationships between the variables or concepts you're investigating. These variables or concepts, which you derive from your theoretical framework, are integral to your research questions , objectives, and hypotheses . The conceptual framework shows how you theorize these concepts are related, providing a visual or narrative model of your research.

A study's own conceptual framework plays a vital role in guiding the data collection process and the subsequent analysis . The conceptual framework specifies which data you need to collect and provides a structure for interpreting and making sense of the collected data. For instance, if your conceptual framework identifies a particular variable as impacting another, your data collection and analysis will be geared towards investigating this relationship.

Rigorous research starts with ATLAS.ti

Turn your data into insights easily and efficiently with our intuitive software. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti.

Though interconnected, theoretical and conceptual frameworks have distinct roles in research and contribute differently to the research. This section will contrast the two in terms of scope, purpose, their role in the research process, and their relationship to the data analysis strategy and research question .

Scope and purpose of theoretical and conceptual frameworks

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks differ fundamentally in their scope. Theoretical frameworks provide a broad and general view of the research problem, rooted in established theories. They explain phenomena by applying a particular theoretical lens. Conceptual frameworks, on the other hand, offer a more focused view of the specific research problem. They explicitly outline the concrete concepts and variables involved in the study and the relationships between them.

While both frameworks guide the research process, they do so in different ways. Theoretical frameworks guide the overall approach to understanding the research problem by indicating the broader conversation the researcher is contributing to and shaping the research questions.

Conceptual frameworks provide a map for the study, guiding the data collection and interpretation process, including what variables or concepts to explore and how to analyze them.

Study design and data analysis

The two types of frameworks relate differently to the research question and design. The theoretical framework often inspires the research question based on previous theories' predictions or understanding about the phenomena under investigation. A conceptual framework then emerges from the research question, providing a contextualized structure for what exactly the research will explore.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks also play distinct roles in data analysis. Theoretical frameworks provide the lens for interpreting the data, informing what kinds of themes and patterns might be relevant. Conceptual frameworks, however, present the variables concepts and variables and the relationships among them that will be analyzed. Conceptual frameworks may illustrate concepts and relationships based on previous theory, but they can also include novel concepts or relationships that stem from the particular context being studied.

Finally, the two types of frameworks relate differently to the research question and design. The theoretical framework basically differs from the conceptual framework in that it often inspires the research question based on the theories' predictions about the phenomena under investigation. A conceptual framework, on the other hand, emerges from the research question, providing a structure for investigating it.

Using case studies , we can effectively demonstrate the differences between theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Let’s take a look at some real-world examples that highlight the unique role and function of each framework within a research context.

Consider a study exploring the impact of classroom environments on student learning outcomes. The theoretical framework might be grounded in Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which offers a broad lens for understanding how students learn and process information.

Within this theoretical framework, the researcher formulates the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework identifies specific variables to study such as classroom layout, teacher-student ratio, availability of learning materials, and student performance as the dependent variable. It then outlines the expected relationships between these variables, such as proposing that a lower teacher-student ratio and well-equipped classrooms positively impact student performance.

Another study might aim to understand the factors influencing the job satisfaction of employees in a corporate setting. The theoretical framework could be based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, interpreting job satisfaction in terms of fulfilling employees' physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs.

From this theoretical perspective, the researcher constructs the conceptual framework, identifying specific variables such as salary (physiological needs), job security (safety needs), teamwork (social needs), recognition (esteem needs), and career development opportunities (self-actualization needs). The conceptual framework proposes relationships among these variables and job satisfaction, such as higher salaries and more recognition being related to higher job satisfaction.

After understanding the unique roles and functions of these types of frameworks, you might ask: How do I develop them for my study? It's essential to remember that it's not a question of choosing one over the other, as both frameworks can and often do coexist within the same research project.

The choice of a theoretical and a conceptual framework often depends on the nature of your research question . If your research question is more exploratory and requires a broad understanding of the problem, a theoretical framework can provide a useful lens for interpretation. However, your conceptual framework may end up looking rather different to previous theory as you collect data and discover new concepts or relationships.

Consider the nature of your research problem as well. If you are studying a well-researched problem and there are established theories about it, using a theoretical framework to interpret your findings in light of these theories might be beneficial. But if your study explores a novel problem or aims to understand specific processes or relationships, developing a conceptual framework that maps these specific elements could prove more effective.

Your research methodology could also inform your choice. If your study is more interpretive and aims to understand people's experiences and perceptions, a theoretical framework can outline broader concepts that are relevant to approaching your study. Your conceptual framework can then shed light on the specific concepts that emerged in your data. By carefully thinking through your theoretical and conceptual frameworks, you can effectively utilize both types of frameworks in your research, ensuring a solid foundation for your study.

Turn data into theory with ATLAS.ti

Use our software for every stage of your research project. Trya free trial of ATLAS.ti today.

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124.
• 2 Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
• 3 Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004.
• 4 Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132.
• PMID: 35759629
• PMCID: PMC9582830
• DOI: 10.1187/cbe.21-05-0134

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conceptual framework from Sabel et…

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017).

Similar articles

• Synthesising conceptual frameworks for patient and public involvement in research - a critical appraisal of a meta-narrative review. Evans D, Hopewell-Kelly N, Kok M, White J. Evans D, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Oct 25;18(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0572-0. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018. PMID: 30359226 Free PMC article.
• The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
• Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Green HE. Green HE. Nurse Res. 2014 Jul;21(6):34-8. doi: 10.7748/nr.21.6.34.e1252. Nurse Res. 2014. PMID: 25059086
• Enhancing Educational Scholarship Through Conceptual Frameworks: A Challenge and Roadmap for Medical Educators. Zackoff MW, Real FJ, Abramson EL, Li ST, Klein MD, Gusic ME. Zackoff MW, et al. Acad Pediatr. 2019 Mar;19(2):135-141. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2018.08.003. Epub 2018 Aug 20. Acad Pediatr. 2019. PMID: 30138745 Review.
• What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Featherstone R, Hartling L. Pollock M, et al. Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 14;5(1):190. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5. Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27842604 Free PMC article. Review.
• Empowering the future: improving community wellbeing and health literacy through outreach and service-learning. Restini CBA, Weiler T, Porter-Stransky KA, Vollbrecht PJ, Wisco JJ. Restini CBA, et al. Front Public Health. 2024 Aug 9;12:1441778. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1441778. eCollection 2024. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39185127 Free PMC article.
• The effect of the Sport Education Model in physical education on student learning attitude: a systematic review. Zhang J, Xiao W, Soh KG, Yao G, Anuar MABM, Bai X, Bao L. Zhang J, et al. BMC Public Health. 2024 Apr 2;24(1):949. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18243-0. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38566018 Free PMC article.
• Building conceptual and methodological bridges between SSE's diversity, equity, and inclusion statement and educational actions in evolutionary biology. Sbeglia GC, Nehm RH. Sbeglia GC, et al. Evolution. 2024 May 1;78(5):809-820. doi: 10.1093/evolut/qpae026. Evolution. 2024. PMID: 38427827
• Change as a Scientific Enterprise: Practical Suggestions about Using Change Theory. Reinholz DL, Andrews TC. Reinholz DL, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2024 Mar;23(1):es1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.23-06-0103. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2024. PMID: 38166019 Free PMC article.
• "I don't Know what I Would do Without it" How Life Science Graduate Students Describe Resource Value. Weatherton M, Von der Mehden BM, Schussler EE. Weatherton M, et al. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2023 Dec;22(4):ar34. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-11-0241. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2023. PMID: 37751509 Free PMC article.
• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning. OD Practitioner, 32(4), 4–13.
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 - DOI
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage. In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage.
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Research Process Guide

• Step 1 - Identifying and Developing a Topic
• Step 2 - Narrowing Your Topic
• Step 3 - Developing Research Questions
• Step 4 - Conducting a Literature Review
• Step 5 - Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework
• Step 6 - Determining Research Methodology
• Step 6a - Determining Research Methodology - Quantitative Research Methods
• Step 6b - Determining Research Methodology - Qualitative Design
• Step 7 - Considering Ethical Issues in Research with Human Subjects - Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Step 8 - Collecting Data
• Step 9 - Analyzing Data
• Step 10 - Interpreting Results
• Step 11 - Writing Up Results

Step 5: Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

For all empirical research, you must choose a conceptual or theoretical framework to “frame” or “ground” your study. Theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks are often difficult to understand and challenging to choose which is the right one (s) for your research objective (Hatch, 2002). Truthfully, it is difficult to get a real understanding of what these frameworks are and how you are supposed to find what works for your study. The discussion of your framework is addressed in your Chapter 1, the introduction and then is further explored through in-depth discussion in your Chapter 2 literature review.

“Theory is supposed to help researchers of any persuasion clarify what they are up to and to help them to explain to others what they are up to” (Walcott, 1995, p. 189, as cited in Fallon, 2016). It is important to discuss in the beginning to help researchers “clarify what they are up to” and important at the writing stage to “help explain to others what they are up to” (Fallon, 2016).  

What is the difference between the conceptual and the theoretical framework?

Often, the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework are used interchangeably, which, in this author’s opinion, makes an already difficult to understand idea even more confusing. According to Imenda (2014) and Mensah et al. (2020), there is a very distinct difference between conceptual and theoretical frameworks, not only how they are defined but also, how and when they are used in empirical research.

Imenda (2014) contends that the framework “is the soul of every research project” (p.185). Essentially, it determines how the researcher formulates the research problem, goes about investigating the problem, and what meaning or significance the research lends to the data collected and analyzed investigating the problem.  

Very generally, you would use a theoretical framework if you were conducting deductive research as you test a theory or theories. “A theoretical framework comprises the theories expressed by experts in the field into which you plan to research, which you draw upon to provide a theoretical coat hanger for your data analysis and interpretation of results” (Kivunja, 2018, p.45 ).  Often this framework is based on established theories like, the Set Theory, evolution, the theory of matter or similar pre-existing generalizations like Newton’s law of motion (Imenda, 2014). A good theoretical framework should be linked to, and possibly emerge from your literature review.

Using a theoretical framework allows you to (Kivunja, 2018):

• Increase the credibility and validity of your research
• Interpret meaning found in data collection
• Evaluate solutions for solving your research problem

According to Mensah et al.(2020) the theoretical framework for your research is not a summary of your own thoughts about your research. Rather, it is a compilation of the thoughts of giants in your field, as they relate to your proposed research, as you understand those theories, and how you will use those theories to understand the data collected.

Additionally, Jabareen (2009) defines a conceptual framework as interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive  understanding of a phenomenon. “A conceptual framework is the total, logical orientation and associations of anything and everything that forms the underlying thinking, structures, plans and practices and implementation of your entire research project” (Kivunja, 2018, p. 45). You would largely use a conceptual framework when conducting inductive research, as it helps the researcher answer questions that are core to qualitative research, such as the nature of reality, the way things are and how things really work in a real world (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Some consideration of the following questions can help define your conceptual framework (Kinvunja, 2018):

• What do you want to do in your research? And why do you want to do it?
• How do you plan to do it?
• What meaning will you make of the data?
• Which worldview will you situate your study in? (i.e. Positivist? Interpretist? Constructivist?)

Examples of conceptual frameworks include the definitions a sociologist uses to describe a culture and the types of data an economist considers when evaluating a country’s industry. The conceptual framework consists of the ideas that are used to define research and evaluate data. Conceptual frameworks are often laid out at the beginning of a paper or an experiment description for a reader to understand the methods used (Mensah et al., 2020).

Writing it up

After choosing your framework is to articulate the theory or concept that grounds your study by defining it and demonstrating the rationale for this particular set of theories or concepts guiding your inquiry.  Write up your theoretical perspective sections for your research plan following your choice of worldview/ research paradigm. For a quantitative study you are particularly interested in theory using the procedures for a causal analysis. For qualitative research, you should locate qualitative journal articles that use a priori theory (knowledge that is acquired not through experience) that is modified during the process of research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Also, you should generate or develop a theory at the end of your study. For a mixed methods study which uses a transformative (critical theoretical lens) identify how the lens specifically shapes the research process.                                   

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2 018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Fallon, M. (2016). Writing up quantitative research in the social and behavioral sciences. Sense. https://kean.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,cpid&custid=keaninf&db=nlebk&AN=1288374&site=ehost-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C1

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2 (163-194), 105.

Hatch, J. A. ( 2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. SUNY Press.

Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks?  Journal of Social Sciences, 38 (2), 185-195.

Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (4), 49-62.

Kivunja, C. ( 2018, December 3). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Higher Education, 7 (6), 44-53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf  

Mensah, R. O., Agyemang, F., Acquah, A., Babah, P. A., & Dontoh, J. (2020). Discourses on conceptual and theoretical frameworks in research: Meaning and implications for researchers. Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies, 4 (5), 53-64.

• Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.kean.edu/ResearchProcessGuide

Home » Education » What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

Literature review and theoretical framework are two indispensable components of research . Both are equally important for the foundation of a research study.

Key Areas Covered

1.  What is Literature Review       – Definition, Features 2.  What is Theoretical Framework      – Definition, Features 3.  Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework      – Comparison of Key Differences

What is a Literature Review

A literature review is a vital component of a research study. A literature review is a discussion on the already existing material in the subject area. Thus, this will require a collection of published (in print or online) work concerning the selected research area. In other words, a literature review is a review of the literature in the related subject area. A literature review makes a case for the research study. It analyzes the existing literature in order to identify and highlight a gap in the literature.

Moreover, a good literature review is a critical discussion, displaying the writer’s knowledge of relevant theories and approaches and awareness of contrasting arguments. A literature review should have the following features (Caulley, 1992)

• Compare and contrast different researchers’ views
• Identify areas in which researchers are in disagreement
• Group researchers who have similar conclusions
• Criticize the  methodology
• Highlight exemplary studies
• Highlight gaps in research
• Indicate the connection between your study and previous studies
• Indicate how your study will contribute to the literature in general
• Conclude by summarizing what the literature indicates

Furthermore, the structure of a literature review is similar to that of an article or essay . Overall, literature reviews help researchers to evaluate the existing literature, identify a gap in the research area, place their study in the existing research and identify future research.

What is a Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is the research component that introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists. It is also the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill the research gap identified by the literature review. Moreover, it is the structure that holds the structure of the research theory.

The researcher may not easily find the theoretical framework within the literature. Therefore, he or she may have to go through many research studies and course readings for theories and models relevant to the research problem under investigation. In addition, the theory must be selected based on its relevance, ease of application, and explanatory power.

Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

A literature review is a critical evaluation of the existing published work in a selected research area, while a theoretical framework is a component in research that introduces and describes the theory behind the research problem.

Moreover, the literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under investigation in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap. Therefore, a literature review is backwards-looking while theory framework is forward-looking.

In conclusion, the main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

1. Caulley, D. N. “Writing a critical review of the literature.” La Trobe University: Bundoora (1992). 2. “ Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework .” Research Guide.

Image Courtesy:

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions

Abstract This essay starts with a discussion of the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as components of a manuscript. This discussion includes similarities and distinctions among these components and their relation to other sections of a manuscript such as the problem statement, discussion, and implications. The essay concludes with an overview of the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as separate types of manuscripts.

Related Papers

Ernest Kwakye

Human Resource Development Review

Maria Plakhotnik

Tonette S Rocco

Abstract Making the transition to management is one of the most difficult challenges first-time managers face. Organizations pay for the failure of first-time managers and benefit from their success. The purpose of this article is to challenge Hill's (1992) argument that the transition to management involves two processes:“a process of learning from experience” and “a transformation of professional identity”(p. 121) and suggest a third process—building leadership potential.

Monica Lee , Thomas Garavan

Abstract One aspect of personality, perceptions of internal versus external control of reinforcement, shifts under conditions of change. This review of the literature examines the relationship between planned organizational change and locus of control. The review includes literature from the disciplines of clinical and social psychology, adult development, education and learning theory, business and management, and human resource development (HRD).

Tonette Rocco

Carlos Albornoz

Judith Bernier , Maria Plakhotnik

ED492742 - An Examination of Qualitative Empirical Studies at the AHRD from 1999-2003: Research Purpose, Research Questions, and Inquiry Literature Cited.

RELATED PAPERS

Chaundra L. Whitehead

Drea Zigarmi

Ciaran McFadden , Tonette S Rocco

New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development

Diane Chapman , Nancy C. Hunt-Fire , Tonette S Rocco , Nancy Fire

Tonette S Rocco , Maria Plakhotnik

Sunyoung Park

Usman Ghani

Drea Zigarmi , Brad Shuck

Human Resource Development …

Robin S. Grenier

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences

Nana Oppong

Ian Baptiste

A. Herd , Brad Shuck

Ronan Carbery

Tonette S Rocco , Linda Bliss

zakia ghani

Tonette S Rocco , Judith Bernier

ΡΙΤΑ ΠΟΥΠΑΚΗ

farouk iddrisu

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Khalil Dirani

HTTP://EDUCATION. FIU. EDU/ …

Sanghamitra Chaudhuri

mahdi kateb

Vicky Zygouris-Coe

Jamie Callahan

Rajendran Raju

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation

Published on October 14, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on July 18, 2023 by Tegan George.

Your theoretical framework defines the key concepts in your research, suggests relationships between them, and discusses relevant theories based on your literature review .

A strong theoretical framework gives your research direction. It allows you to convincingly interpret, explain, and generalize from your findings and show the relevance of your thesis or dissertation topic in your field.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Sample problem statement and research questions, sample theoretical framework, your theoretical framework, other interesting articles.

Your theoretical framework is based on:

• Your problem statement
• Your research questions
• Your literature review

A new boutique downtown is struggling with the fact that many of their online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases. This is a big issue for the otherwise fast-growing store.Management wants to increase customer loyalty. They believe that improved customer satisfaction will play a major role in achieving their goal of increased return customers.

To investigate this problem, you have zeroed in on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

• Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.
• Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.
• Research question : How can the satisfaction of the boutique’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

The concepts of “customer loyalty” and “customer satisfaction” are clearly central to this study, along with their relationship to the likelihood that a customer will return. Your theoretical framework should define these concepts and discuss theories about the relationship between these variables.

Some sub-questions could include:

• What is the relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction?
• How satisfied and loyal are the boutique’s online customers currently?
• What factors affect the satisfaction and loyalty of the boutique’s online customers?

As the concepts of “loyalty” and “customer satisfaction” play a major role in the investigation and will later be measured, they are essential concepts to define within your theoretical framework .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Below is a simplified example showing how you can describe and compare theories in your thesis or dissertation . In this example, we focus on the concept of customer satisfaction introduced above.

Customer satisfaction

Thomassen (2003, p. 69) defines customer satisfaction as “the perception of the customer as a result of consciously or unconsciously comparing their experiences with their expectations.” Kotler & Keller (2008, p. 80) build on this definition, stating that customer satisfaction is determined by “the degree to which someone is happy or disappointed with the observed performance of a product in relation to his or her expectations.”

Performance that is below expectations leads to a dissatisfied customer, while performance that satisfies expectations produces satisfied customers (Kotler & Keller, 2003, p. 80).

The definition of Zeithaml and Bitner (2003, p. 86) is slightly different from that of Thomassen. They posit that “satisfaction is the consumer fulfillment response. It is a judgement that a product or service feature, or the product of service itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment.” Zeithaml and Bitner’s emphasis is thus on obtaining a certain satisfaction in relation to purchasing.

Thomassen’s definition is the most relevant to the aims of this study, given the emphasis it places on unconscious perception. Although Zeithaml and Bitner, like Thomassen, say that customer satisfaction is a reaction to the experience gained, there is no distinction between conscious and unconscious comparisons in their definition.

The boutique claims in its mission statement that it wants to sell not only a product, but also a feeling. As a result, unconscious comparison will play an important role in the satisfaction of its customers. Thomassen’s definition is therefore more relevant.

Thomassen’s Customer Satisfaction Model

According to Thomassen, both the so-called “value proposition” and other influences have an impact on final customer satisfaction. In his satisfaction model (Fig. 1), Thomassen shows that word-of-mouth, personal needs, past experiences, and marketing and public relations determine customers’ needs and expectations.

These factors are compared to their experiences, with the interplay between expectations and experiences determining a customer’s satisfaction level. Thomassen’s model is important for this study as it allows us to determine both the extent to which the boutique’s customers are satisfied, as well as where improvements can be made.

Figure 1 Customer satisfaction creation 

Of course, you could analyze the concepts more thoroughly and compare additional definitions to each other. You could also discuss the theories and ideas of key authors in greater detail and provide several models to illustrate different concepts.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

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.

Vinz, S. (2023, July 18). Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation. Scribbr. Retrieved September 6, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework-example/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

Other students also liked

What is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A patient-centered conceptual model of aya cancer survivorship care informed by a qualitative interview study.

Simple Summary

1. introduction, 2.1. recruitment, 2.2. interview approach, 2.3. analysis, 3.1. overall themes, 3.2. care coordination and healthcare system navigation support.

“So there really wasn’t much time. Or was there? I didn’t know to ask that question. Okay, I know this is growing—is there enough time for me to get a consultation? I don’t know if maybe I could have waited a few days. I just don’t know, because I didn’t know that question to ask... But I just went ahead and signed away because I felt like I was—I hate to say the word bullied, but I felt like I was in a corner. I was like oh my god—this cancer’s bigger than me, just get it out, kill it! Do what you need to do.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I, I mostly blamed myself for my inexperience in hospitals, I guess. But yeah, I felt like people weren’t necessarily completely clear, well, telling me exactly what I had to do. What I should do. Like when I should ask for help or when I didn’t need to, that sort of thing.”— Participant 2, female, renal cell carcinoma, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I felt like I had to be the care coordinator. I had to make sure everybody knew what the other was doing. Proactively ask for appointments—like okay, I’m going to have to get radiation next. And they’re like oh, you can wait for that until the week before, and I was like, but what if I don’t like [the provider]? You’re going to put me in a box. So I had to just be proactive to get the kind of care that I wanted to get. And I felt like my care coordinator, which is exhausting.”— Participant 4, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I was first getting treatment somewhere and I didn’t feel completely taken care of there. As a nurse practitioner, I felt like I was asking—I was supposed to be a patient then, I wasn’t supposed to be a health care provider. So I felt like I was directing my care and I was reminding them of things. It didn’t feel like the right fit for me with my oncologist and the care team, so I ended up after getting a second opinion switching to another hospital.”— Participant 3, female, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“Gosh, that’s really why I became an advocate—I just couldn’t believe the lack of treating me as a holistic person. I understand that I guess to be an oncologist you’re going to meet patients who ultimately die from it, and I get that they’re trying to make sure that you don’t die, and that is of course great, you kind of need that. But what about a nurse navigator or even like the nurse? There was no follow up... there needs to be a middle person. Whether it be that nurse or that social worker, and it should be mandatory that every AYA... have an initial conversation [with them] and then determine if you want to work with them...The follow ups just go through the cracks.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I felt like my oncologist was very good at giving me medications to deal with nausea and other side effects when I needed them...But I had to research online what are things that I could use and then go and ask for it, as opposed to someone presenting me with “these are all the resources” or “these are things you should consider, let us know what you need”. I felt like the latter would have been much more helpful. I went to [other specialty cancer centers, and] both of those hospitals did provide that. Like “here’s your coordinator, here’s a whole pamphlet, here’s all the resources we have. Here’s how you use each one”. So I thought that was really cool.”— Participant 4, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

3.3. Mental Health Support

“Definitely anxiety, depression for sure. I think those would be the biggest two that I’ve had to deal with. It’s an everyday struggle … Anxious about my cancer getting worse or also having cancer in my family or friends, since I already know what it feels like, having cancer. I wouldn’t want any of my loved ones to go through the same thing.”— Participant 6, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“Cancer is trauma, and even though a lot may not equate it with that term, because they just don’t know, a lot of us have PTSD. And that’s not talked about enough… every experience in the AYA community matters. So that might be why someone would not [talk to a researcher about their cancer experience], because they might feel like you could talk to someone better. It’s really about insecurity, but also too how they’ve been treated throughout their treatment. It can be hard to discuss and be traumatic. I can now verbally talk about it without bursting into tears, but not everyone can.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“Obviously having cancer kind of like fucks you up mentally. But I’ve been going to therapy, I actually take an antianxiety med now.”— Participant 8, female, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 15–19 years old at diagnosis .

“Like I thought, I thought I was alone for like five years … Post treatment I actually had a really bad depressive episode, because I was just in such despair because I thought I was alone and no one else was like me. And I did hours of searching and finally found a couple of organizations that led me to other things. But I would have liked to have those resources [earlier], I wouldn’t have felt so alone.”— Participant 8, female, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 15–19 years old at diagnosis .

“I actually learned about the support groups from Instagram … just as a young Black woman, [it was important] to see other women of color that were young and that looked like me, because I was not seeing that at my cancer center. So that was a huge support for me. Also, just by sharing my story, it allowed me to pay it forward to other young adults and also inspired me to get involved in advocacy work.”— Participant 9, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

3.4. Peer Support and Making “Cancer Friends”

“It’s bad enough I’m an AYA, it’s bad enough I’m Black, it’s bad enough I’m a woman, it’s bad enough that I am an only child. I feel like all of these things were hitting me—and I have cancer, and now I literally have no one? It’s been hard.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“So, I think at the time the quintessential experience of being the youngest person at the cancer center in the waiting room, you know, not seeing anybody else my age unless they were in a caregiver capacity... And just feeling like I was the only person my age that had cancer and was getting treatment. And so the experience was very different when you are under 40. I didn’t know other people that had gone through that at the time.”— Participant 10, male, testicular cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“As I was nearing the end of chemotherapy, I was feeling like I couldn’t really talk to my friends the same, and I didn’t really have people to relate to, and I felt like an astronaut. My brain was foggy, I really wanted to talk to someone about [my side effects and stuff] without worrying people. I remember Stupid Cancer was the big [AYA organization] at the time, and I saw that they had in-person Meetups. I decided to go … and then I instantly was like oh, maybe this [is] a window into a community I didn’t even know existed. I didn’t picture people in their 20s and 30s with cancer hanging out before this. That was the beginning of making cancer friends, [we have fun but] also if someone does need to vent about their situation, treatment, insurance, or relationships going away because of cancer, you’re the perfect [person] to talk to about it.”— Participant 11, male, testicular cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I went through a lot of side effects. I literally had the motherlode of side effects and what was very hurtful was when my oncologist would be like yeah, you know, a lot of patients get that. Well, it’s my first time seeing my tongue turn black, so you might want to have some sort of—I don’t know, like compassion for how freaked out I would be. Even my throat would swell and I had difficulty swallowing. ‘Oh, I’ve seen it before, I’ve seen worse.’ Well, I’ve never seen worse.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I wish that that there was an AYA program at the hospital to tell me about these resources. To tell me like, hey, there’s a Gilda’s Club, it’s 10 to 15 min from here. There’s a meeting once a month. You can go and meet people your own age. It’s safe. People are really cool. Check it out. And now you can join these virtually. Just having somebody to say to me that is totally normal to feel that way. There are other people your age that get treatment here and you can meet them. That would have been really awesome.”— Participant 10, male, testicular cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I think just introducing for patients, that adolescent young adult oncology exists, and there is support out there for AYA’s. I didn’t really dive into the AYA support community until after treatment and got connected to a lot of resources and a lot of friends that way. But I think if I had known that resources like that existed while I was going through treatment, it would have been helpful just to know that I wasn’t alone and all these amazing organizations exist.”— Participant 12, female, osteosarcoma, 15–19 years old at diagnosis .

3.5. Empathic Communication about Fertility Preservation

“When I got diagnosed in the hospital … they had brought in a blood specialist and he described leukemia to me … After he left one of the interns immediately asked me, like so do you have any kids? And I was like no. And he was like, have you thought about freezing your eggs? And I’m like, dude, this dude just told me about cancer, like I haven’t, I can’t talk about kids right now like. You know?”— Participant 13, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“The timing was rushed because it was overwhelming. I feel like if you sit down with anybody, man, woman, whatever, and tell them you might not be able to have kids, that’s pretty heavy and something you want to sit with. And … it’s not like it was free to go get the sperm banking done and have it stored. But I was like well, if I don’t do this, that might be it, I might never have kids. Even if I don’t want them at the moment, taking the option off just seemed scary. So yeah, I would have liked to have had more time.”— Participant 11, male, testicular cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“Everything for me happened within like three days, so there was no, no ability to like, I don’t even know what it’s called. But to … freeze my eggs, I didn’t have that option because of the type of cancer I had everything had to be done so quickly. The only thing I was told in regards to fertility is you may not be able to have kids. There’s a high likelihood with the chemotherapy you are receiving that you may not be able to have children after this. There was no offering of like any type of resources. I only found that out afterwards, [about] all like the different type of programs for patients.”— Participant 15, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“We talked about [fertility preservation] in [my support] group before and I guess, well, I mean for guys it’s easy, so they’re super on top of it as far as when we spoke about it. But a lot of [women] who were in similar positions to me where it was all just really sad. From my experience [the doctors] were like, okay, you’re here now, here’s your doctor, here’s your treatment. Oh, by the way there’s this [fertility preservation option], we kind of want to get started right now, so could you just not [have kids] … It wasn’t a huge deal, but I was a little sad.”— Participant 14, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“There should have been a follow up call [after my diagnosis]. Because that was a really intense moment. My first time as the patient … Why wasn’t there a follow up? Like hey, I know you just heard a lot of information, let’s talk about this. I feel like I should have at least been required to get a consultation with an infertility specialist, even though it wouldn’t have been covered under my insurance. I feel that conversation should at least have been had so they could make sure I was really making the best decision for myself at that time. Sorry, I get really passionate and very angered about it.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I lost my fertility. No one prepared me for that. I didn’t receive initial counseling going into that surgery or coming out of it. I didn’t expect to experience that kind of grief, because I was single all this time, and childless, and now I am chronically single and barren forever. None of my doctors cared to see how that would affect me.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I don’t really have trouble communicating with [doctors]. I’m a lawyer and I did a lot of research, so I generally got the comments that ‘oh, you’re so knowledgeable, you’re an easy patient.’ [But] I don’t think they necessarily answered all my questions, or gave me all the resources that were available, or were upfront about side effects, which I found frustrating…[the doctors failed] to mention fertility resources [so] I found my own stuff … I certainly wouldn’t say I got most of my information from my oncologist, but I found it in other places.”— Participant 4, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“My oncologist is very respectful of my wishes in terms of wanting to have another baby … but then [she] also wasn’t afraid to tell me, you know, we can only do one round of harvesting your eggs, because it’s not safe to do more. She did a really good job acknowledging my dream and weighing that accordingly, [so] I’m not risking life … but I’m still able to try to, you know, preserve my fertility before having this definitive surgery.”— Participant 5, female, ovarian cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“Before I started chemo, my social worker came to talk to me in the hospital room and she just wanted me to know like hey, your doctors want you to do chemo, but you don’t have to do it right now, you can work on the fertility thing, if it’s important to you. So she made me feel comfortable that it was okay to delay the treatment.”— Participant 7, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

3.6. Financial Burden and Need for Support

“We needed help, we had help from family and friends, but again, the financial burden … is just a nightmare. You got the financial burden, you got the paperwork. You’re supposed to be focusing on your health.”— Participant 5, female, ovarian cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I worked in fine dining and didn’t have any insurance … And then the diagnosis alone racked up I think tens of thousands of [dollars in] debt and I was just through biopsies and scans and you know. I was going to, which is laughable, but it was called free clinic. It took a long time before I was diagnosed; go get bloodwork, come back in two weeks, schedule another appointment for two weeks later. And debt was mounting.”— Participant 16, male, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“I probably know more about the American health services than I ever wanted to know … it’s just not the way I would have liked to have learned it.”— Participant 8, female, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 15–19 years old at diagnosis .

“With my age I am able to be on my dad’s insurance and it is a really good insurance plan. So it hasn’t been like insanely expensive or anything … But as I approach my 26th birthday, the cutoff [of staying on my parents’ insurance], I have lots of concerns with finding good health care on my own.”— Participant 14, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

3.7. Quality of Life

“When I was first diagnosed I was studying for a board license for civil engineering. I was still thinking I’m going to be in chemo for eight hours, I’ll have a lot of time to study at the hospital. It wasn’t like that at all. That’s when I was in denial, and I think after that, that’s when depression hit me. I was like you know what? It’s over, I’m just going to keep my job now. There’s no way I can study for the exam … Sometimes in my back of my mind I’m still thinking I want to be a licensed engineer and all I have to do is pass that exam. I start dreaming that when I pass the exam, I’m going to get my promotion and travel more, which I used to do before diagnosis … I guess career-wise I still think about getting my license, even if I don’t keep working in the engineering field, I want to feel accomplished. I want to be able to say even through or despite cancer, I was still able to accomplish that.”— Participant 6, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“So because I got sick, at least with my internship hours, I could have been done last December. But I was going through treatment. And my friend and I were collecting hours and going to school at the same time. She already finished herself, got certified, she’s my boss right now. She’s my supervisor. We were like at the same level, she’s already above me. So and she doesn’t treat me any lower, but I’m still a little upset sometimes because I could have been there by now if I hadn’t gotten sick.”— Participant 13, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“I’ve been a dog groomer on and off for about 10 years. And I when I was finally able to get back into work [right after my surgery], I felt like they didn’t understand what I was going through. Like I was very anxious, and there’s a lot of sounds in a grooming salon. And it was really putting me on edge. And I started to wear earplugs to deal with that. And then I started getting like looks from my coworkers and like I just started to feel less and less welcome there. And I just gave up on it and I ended up quitting that job. I just didn’t feel very good there anymore.”— Participant 2, female, renal cell carcinoma, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I did officially go back up to my regular hours, but there are some days that I take time off for appointments. I try to schedule for example my scans in one day, for example, so I only have to take one day off whenever I can…It’s not just cancer that we deal with, we still have to deal with what other people go through as well, for example taking time out for dental and eye doctor appointments. I still have to take time off for that.”— Participant 6, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I had never been to the hospital before. And so I had to go through getting my diagnosis. Going through all these different procedures. And every one alone. They transferred me because they didn’t have the resources where I live to treat me. They transferred me to Houston, so my life got uprooted. My job put on hold. I had to move about five hours away so I could get treatment.”— Participant 13, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

3.8. Information about and Support Mitigating Side Effects and Late Effects

“The important elements for young adult cancer care compared to the typical cancer patient that you think of, like 50, 60, 70, they’re worried more about the here and now, and they don’t necessarily have to worry about side effects 20, 30 years down the road, because life expectancy, they won’t be there. I was diagnosed at 25. God willing, I’ll be alive for 50 more years beyond that. I don’t want to be dealing with side effects for years on end, so if there’s an option that’s a little bit more conservative treatment, which will possibly result in less side effects but maybe instead of saying it’s 100% certain, it’s 80% certain. That’s a 20% difference, so I think addressing that in terms that are easily understood by young adults, and also not in a talk down to manner, is super important.”— Participant 17, male, testicular cancer, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“Oh, and then the thing I always forget are the other secondary effects of treatment. I had to have both shoulders and both hips replaced, and I had no idea that was going to be in my future whatsoever, at the time of treatment.”— Participant 18, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“I have osteoporosis and I’m not even 25 yet, so that’s kind of concerning for the future.”— Participant 14, female, leukemia, 20–29 years old at diagnosis .

“The one thing I do deal with is, because of all the surgery I’ve had, I have chronic nerve pain, nerve damage, so that’s not fun to deal with. I wish I would have known that it was a possibility, because I was not told that it was a possibility that this could happen.”— Participant 19, female, sarcoma, 15–19 years old at diagnosis .

“I’ve got major issues with the majority of my organs. I have liver damage. I have heart failure. I was in a wheelchair for a while. I was on bedrest for a very long time right after everything. I am disabled. I am on disability. And I do not have the energy I once did. Napping and every couple days just being totally exhausted is kind of part of my life.”— Participant 20, female, leukemia, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“I have permanent damage—I don’t feel my feet, my toes from the upper balls to my toes. Sometimes the numbness goes up my legs… and I’ve fallen, actually almost fractured my ankle in January because I didn’t feel my foot. It was so sudden and severe, and … no one seemed to take it as seriously as I did, which is frustrating.”— Participant 1, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

3.9. Attention to the Unique Needs of Young Adults

“[My center had] an AYA program. Granted, they have so much volume because they have a special unit, so I think volume begets resources. But they have providers who are knowledgeable and not just oncologists, but lots of different providers who are knowledgeable about issues that AYA’s face, especially fertility. Sometimes we respond differently to drugs. If every center could have somebody who has a special research focus, to keep up to date on AYA’s. Or a pamphlet, a website, that even would have been helpful. I feel like there’s many ways to skin the cat, but it’s just providing age-appropriate information.”— Participant 4, female, breast cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

“But I definitely wanted more [young adult] support specifically. And not just in general cancer support, I went through this huge ordeal; it’s completely life changing. And I just, to me the more support I’m getting I feel more in control and I have more power.”— Participant 5, female, ovarian cancer, 30–39 years old at diagnosis .

4. Discussion

4.1. care coordination and healthcare system navigation, 4.2. mental health support, 4.3. aya peer support, 4.4. empathic communication about fertility preservation, 4.5. financial burden, 4.6. quality of life, 4.7. education and support regarding side effects and late effects, 4.8. attention to the unique needs of young adults, 4.9. limitations, 4.10. implications for cancer survivors, 5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Nekhlyudov, L.; Mollica, M.A.; Jacobsen, P.B.; Mayer, D.K.; Shulman, L.N.; Geiger, A.M. Developing a Quality of Cancer Survi-vorship Care Framework: Implications for Clinical Care, Research, and Policy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019 , 111 , djz089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andersen, R.M. Revisiting the Behavioral Model and Access to Medical Care: Does it Matter? J. Health Soc. Behav. 1995 , 36 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moore, A.R. Qualitative Study of Factors Contributing to Fertility Service Use Among Cancer Survivors of Reproductive Age in the US. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA, 2021. Volume 2353. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canzona, M.R.; Victorson, D.E.; Murphy, K.; Clayman, M.L.; Patel, B.; Puccinelli-Ortega, N.; McLean, T.W.; Harry, O.; Little-Greene, D.; Salsman, J.M. A Conceptual Model of Fertility Concerns Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. Psycho-Oncology 2021 , 30 , 1383–1392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bober, S.L.; Varela, V.S. Sexuality in Adult Cancer Survivors: Challenges and Intervention. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012 , 30 , 3712–3719. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Danhauer, S.C.; Canzona, M.; Tucker-Seeley, R.D.; Reeve, B.B.; Nightingale, C.L.; Howard, D.S.; Puccinelli-Ortega, N.; Little-Greene, D.; Salsman, J.M. Stakeholder-Informed Conceptual Framework for Financial Burden Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. Psycho-Oncology 2021 , 31 , 597–605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Courneya, K.S.; Friedenreich, C.M. Framework PEACE: An organizational model for examining physical exercise across the cancer experience. Ann. Behav. Med. 2001 , 23 , 263–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strauser, D.R.; Jones, A.; Chiu, C.-Y.; Tansey, T.; Chan, F. Career Development of Young Adult Cancer Survivors: A Conceptual Framework. J. Vocat. Rehabil. 2015 , 42 , 167–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le Boutillier, C.; Archer, S.; Barry, C.; King, A.; Mansfield, L.; Urch, C. Conceptual Framework for Living with and Beyond Cancer: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis. Psycho-Oncology 2019 , 28 , 948–959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matheson, L.; Boulton, M.; Lavender, V.; Collins, G.; Mitchell-Floyd, T.; Watson, E. The Experiences of Young Adults with Hodgkin Lymphoma Transitioning to Survivorship: A Grounded Theory Study. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2016 , 43 , E195–E2014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haase, J.E. The Adolescent Resilience Model as a Guide to Interventions. J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs. 2004 , 21 , 289–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kroenke, C.H. A Conceptual Model of Social Networks and Mechanisms of Cancer Mortality, and Potential Strategies to Improve Survival. Transl. Behav. Med. 2018 , 8 , 629–642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Luberto, C.M.; Hall, D.L.; Chad-Friedman, E.; Park, E.R. Theoretical Rationale and Case Illustration of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Fear of Cancer Recurrence. J. Clin. Psychol. Med. Settings 2019 , 26 , 449–460. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Warner, E.L.; Kent, E.E.; Trevino, K.M.; Parsons, H.M.; Zebrack, B.J.; Kirchhoff, A.C. Social Well-Being Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancer 2016 , 122 , 1029–1037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Model of Survivorship Care Working Group. Model of Survivorship Care: Critical Components of Cancer Survivorship Care in Australia Position Statement ; Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Model of Survivorship Care Working Group: Sydney, Australia, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor, R.M.; Pearce, S.; Gibson, F.; Fern, L.; Whelan, J. Developing a Conceptual Model of Teenage and Young Adult Experiences of Cancer through Meta-Synthesis. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2013 , 50 , 832–846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fern, L.A.; Taylor, R.M.; Whelan, J.; Pearce, S.; Grew, T.; Brooman, K.; Starkey, C.; Millington, H.; Ashton, J.; Gibson, F. The Art of Age-Appropriate Care: Reflecting on a Conceptual Model of the Cancer Experience for Teenagers and Young Adults. Cancer Nurs. 2013 , 36 , E27–E38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hammond, C. Against a Singular Message of Distinctness: Challenging Dominant Representations of Adolescents and Young Adults in Oncology. J. Adolesc. Young-Adult Oncol. 2017 , 6 , 45–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2019 , 11 , 589–597. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Byrne, D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Quant. 2021 , 56 , 1391–1412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Neubauer, B.E.; Witkop, C.T.; Varpio, L. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2019 , 8 , 90–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tong, A.; Sainsbury, P.; Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2007 , 19 , 349–357. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cactus Cancer Society. About Us. 2022. Available online: https://cactuscancer.org/about/ (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; Wisdom, J.P.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2015 , 42 , 533–544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Institute, N.C. Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. 2024. Available online: https://www.cancer.gov/types/aya (accessed on 23 August 2024).
• Black & White Cancer Survivors Foundation. BWCSF. 2014. Available online: https://www.blackandwhitecancersurvivorsfoundation.com/ (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Teen Cancer America. Teen Cancer America. Available online: https://teencanceramerica.org/ (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Young Adult Survivors United. Young Adult Survivors United. 2022. Available online: https://www.yasurvivors.org/ (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Testicular Cancer Foundation. TCF. 2022. Available online: https://www.testicularcancer.org/ (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Sisters Network Inc. A National African American Breast Cancer Survivorship Organization. 2022. Available online: https://www.sistersnetworkinc.org/ (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Imerman Angels. Imerman Angels Your One-on-One Cancer Support Community. 2020. Available online: https://imermanangels.org/ (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Creswell, J.W.; Klassen, A.C.; Clark, V.L.P.; Smith, K.C.; The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in Health Sciences , 2nd ed.; National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2011.
• Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches ; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, G.W.; Stern, S.A.; Hilton, L.; Tucker, J.S.; Kennedy, D.P.; Golinelli, D.; Wenzel, S.L. When, where, why and with whom homeless women engage in risky sexual behaviors: A framework for understanding complex and varied decision-making processes. Sex Roles 2009 , 61 , 536–553. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. Am. Psychol. 1977 , 32 , 513–531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spradley, J.P. Asking Descriptive Questions, in The Ethnographic Interview ; Wadsworth Group: St Albans Ln, NC, USA, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leech, B.L. Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 2002 , 35 , 665–668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saunders, B.; Sim, J.; Kingstone, T.; Baker, S.; Waterfield, J.; Bartlam, B.; Burroughs, H.; Jinks, C. Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 2018 , 52 , 1893–1907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guba, E.G. ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper: Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. Educ. Commun. Technol. 1981 , 29 , 75–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krefting, L. Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 1991 , 45 , 214–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crozier, G.; Denzin, N.; Lincoln, Y. Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamilton, A.B.; Finley, E.P. Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction. Psychiatry Res. 2019 , 280 , 112516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maietta, R.; Mihas, P.; Swartout, K.; Petruzzelli, J.; Hamilton, A. Sort and Sift, Think and Shift: Let the Data Be Your Guide an Applied Approach to Working With, Learning From, and Privileging Qualitative Data. Qual. Rep. 2021 , 26 , 2045–2060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Friese, S. Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti , 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung, C.K.; Zebrack, B. What do adolescents and young adults want from cancer resources? Insights from a Delphi panel of AYA patients. Support. Care Cancer 2017 , 25 , 119–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Avutu, V.; Lynch, K.A.; Barnett, M.E.; Vera, J.A.; Glade Bender, J.L.; Tap, W.D.; Atkinson, T.M. Psychosocial Needs and Pref-erences for Care among Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients (Ages 15–39): A Qualitative Study. Cancers 2022 , 14 , 710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Osborn, M.; Johnson, R.; Thompson, K.; Anazodo, A.; Albritton, K.; Ferrari, A.; Stark, D. Models of care for adolescent and young adult cancer programs. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2019 , 66 , e27991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bibby, H.; White, V.; Thompson, K.; Anazodo, A. What Are the Unmet Needs and Care Experiences of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer? A Systematic Review. J. Adolesc. Young-Adult Oncol. 2017 , 6 , 6–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Magni, C.; Veneroni, L.; Silva, M.; Casanova, M.; Chiaravalli, S.; Massimino, M.; Clerici, C.A.; Ferrari, A. Model of Care for Ado-lescents and Young Adults with Cancer: The Youth Project in Milan. Front. Pediatr. 2016 , 4 , 88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gorin, S.S.; Haggstrom, D.; Han, P.K.J.; Fairfield, K.M.; Krebs, P.; Clauser, S.B. Cancer Care Coordination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 30 Years of Empirical Studies. Ann. Behav. Med. 2017 , 51 , 532–546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, S.; Mooney, S.; Cable, M.; Taylor, R.M. The Blueprint of Care for Teenagers and Young Adults with Cancer , 2nd ed.; Teenage Cancer Trust: London, UK, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta, A.A.; Papadakos, J.K.; Jones, J.M.; Amin, L.; Chang, E.K.; Korenblum, C.; Mina, D.S.; McCabe, L.; Mitchell, L.; Giuliani, M.E. Reimagining care for adolescent and young adult cancer programs: Moving with the times. Cancer 2016 , 122 , 1038–1046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shapiro, J. “Violence” in medicine: Necessary and unnecessary, intentional and unintentional. Philos. Ethics Hum. Ities Med. 2018 , 13 , 7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salmond, S.; Dorsen, C. Time to Reflect and Take Action on Health Disparities and Health Inequities. Orthop. Nurs. 2022 , 41 , 64–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Casanova-Perez, R.; Apodaca, C.; Bascom, E.; Mohanraj, D.; Lane, C.; Vidyarthi, D.; Beneteau, E.; Sabin, J.; Pratt, W.; Weibel, N.; et al. Broken down by bias: Healthcare biases experienced by BIPOC and LGBTQ+ patients. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2021 , 2021 , 275–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gannon, T.; Phillips, B.; Saunders, D.; Berner, A.M. Knowing to Ask and Feeling Safe to Tell-Understanding the Influences of HCP-Patient Interactions in Cancer Care for LGBTQ+ Children and Young People. Front. Oncol. 2022 , 12 , 891874. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desai, M.J.; Gold, R.S.; Jones, C.K.; Din, H.; Dietz, A.C.; Shliakhtsitsava, K.; Martinez, M.E.; Vaida, F.; Su, H.-C.I. Mental Health Outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult Female Cancer Survivors of a Sexual Minority. J. Adolesc. Young-Adult Oncol. 2021 , 10 , 148–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eisape, A.; Nogueira, A. See Change: Overcoming Anti-Black Racism in Health Systems. Front. Public Health 2022 , 10 , 895684. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alegría, M.; Green, J.G.; McLaughlin, K.A.; Loder, S. Disparities in Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Mental Health Services in the US ; William, T., Ed.; Grant Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, P.S.; Lane, M.; Olfson, M.; Pincus, H.A.; Wells, K.B.; Kessler, R.C. Twelve-Month Use of Mental Health Services in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2005 , 62 , 629–640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schellinger, S.E.; Anderson, E.W.; Frazer, M.S.; Cain, C.L. Patient Self-Defined Goals: Essentials of Person-Centered Care for Serious Illness. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med. 2018 , 35 , 159–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zebrack, B. Information and service needs for young adult cancer patients. Support. Care Cancer 2008 , 16 , 1353–1360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LaRosa, K.N.; Stern, M.; Bleck, J.; Lynn, C.; Hudson, J.; Reed, D.R.; Quinn, G.P.; Donovan, K.A. Adolescent and Young Adult Patients with Cancer: Perceptions of Care. J. Adolesc. Young-Adult Oncol. 2017 , 6 , 512–518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yabroff, K.R.; Gansler, T.; Wender, R.C.; Cullen, K.J.; Brawley, O.W.; Gansler, T. Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high-performing health care system. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2019 , 69 , 166–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reed, D.; Block, R.G.; Johnson, R. Creating an Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Program: Lessons Learned from Pediatric and Adult Oncology Practice Bases. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2014 , 12 , 1409–1415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrari, A.; Thomas, D.; Franklin, A.R.K.; Hayes-Lattin, B.M.; Mascarin, M.; van der Graaf, W.; Albritton, K.H. Starting an Ad-olescent and Young Adult Program: Some Success Stories and Some Obstacles to Overcome. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010 , 28 , 4850–4857. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zebrack, B.J.; Corbett, V.; Embry, L.; Aguilar, C.; Meeske, K.A.; Hayes-Lattin, B.; Block, R.; Zeman, D.T.; Cole, S. Psychological distress and unsatisfied need for psychosocial support in adolescent and young adult cancer patients during the first year fol-lowing diagnosis. Psychooncology 2014 , 23 , 1267–1275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tai, E.; Buchanan, N.; Townsend, J.; Fairley, T.; Moore, A.; Richardson, L.C. Health status of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. Cancer 2012 , 118 , 4884–4891. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kent, E.E.; Parry, C.; Montoya, M.J.; Sender, L.S.; Morris, R.A.; Anton-Culver, H. “You’re too young for this”: Adolescent and young adults’ perspectives on cancer survivorship. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2012 , 30 , 260–279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Miedema, B.; Hamilton, R.; Easley, J. From “invincibility” to “normalcy”: Coping strategies of young adults during the cancer journey. Palliat. Support Care 2007 , 5 , 41–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zebrack, B.; Kent, E.E.; Keegan, T.H.; Kato, I.; Smith, A.W.; AYA Hope Study Collaborative Group. “Cancer sucks,” and other ponderings by adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2014 , 32 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pannier, S.T.; Warner, E.L.; Fowler, B.; Fair, D.; Salmon, S.K.; Kirchhoff, A.C. Age-Specific Patient Navigation Preferences Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. J. Cancer Educ. 2019 , 34 , 242–251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zebrack, B.J. Psychological, social, and behavioral issues for young adults with cancer. Cancer 2011 , 117 (Suppl. S10), 2289–2294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zebrack, B.J.; Block, R.; Hayes-Lattin, B.; Embry, L.; Aguilar, C.; Meeske, K.A.; Li, Y.; Butler, M.; Cole, S. Psychosocial service use and unmet need among recently diagnosed adolescent and young adult cancer patients. Cancer 2013 , 119 , 201–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• D’agostino, N.M.; Edelstein, K. Psychosocial challenges and resource needs of young adult cancer survivors: Implications for program development. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2013 , 31 , 585–600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bender, J.L.; Puri, N.; Salih, S.; D’agostino, N.M.; Tsimicalis, A.; Howard, A.F.; Garland, S.N.; Chalifour, K.; Drake, E.K.; Marrato, A.; et al. Peer Support Needs and Preferences for Digital Peer Navigation among Adolescent and Young Adults with Cancer: A Canadian Cross-Sectional Survey. Curr. Oncol. 2022 , 29 , 1163–1175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zebrack, B.; Bleyer, A.; Albritton, K.; Medearis, S.; Tang, J. Assessing the health care needs of adolescent and young adult cancer patients and survivors. Cancer 2006 , 107 , 2915–2923. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, E.; Becker, H.; Kim, S. Unmet needs in adolescents and young adults with cancer: A mixed-method study using social media. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2022 , 64 , 31–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benedict, C.; Thom, B.; Friedman, D.N.; Pottenger, E.; Raghunathan, N.; Kelvin, J.F. Fertility information needs and concerns post-treatment contribute to lowered quality of life among young adult female cancer survivors. Support. Care Cancer 2018 , 26 , 2209–2215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Benedict, C.; Shuk, E.; Ford, J.S. Fertility issues in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. J. Adolesc. Young-Adult Oncol. 2016 , 5 , 48–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guy, G.P.; Yabroff, K.R.; Ekwueme, D.U.; Smith, A.W.; Dowling, E.C.; Rechis, R.; Nutt, S.; Richardson, L.C. Estimating the health and economic burden of cancer among those diagnosed as adolescents and young adults. Health Aff. 2014 , 33 , 1024–1031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, A.D.; Zheng, Z.; Han, X.; Qi, R.; Zhao, J.; Yabroff, K.R.; Nathan, P.C. Medical Financial Hardship in Survivors of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer in the United States. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021 , 113 , 997–1004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Young Adults and the Affordable Care Act: Protecting Young Adults and Eliminating Burdens on Families and Businesses. Programs and Initiatives. 2022. Available online: https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Files/adult_child_fact_sheet (accessed on 11 May 2022).
• Ayanian, J.Z.; Weissman, J.S.; Schneider, E.C.; Ginsburg, J.A.; Zaslavsky, A.M. Unmet Health Needs of Uninsured Adults in the United States. JAMA 2000 , 284 , 2061–2069. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Landwehr, M.S.; Watson, S.E.; Macpherson, C.F.; Novak, K.A.; Johnson, R.H. The cost of cancer: A retrospective analysis of the financial impact of cancer on young adults. Cancer Med. 2016 , 5 , 863–870. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Han, X.; Jemal, A.D. The Affordable Care Act and Cancer Care for Young Adults. Cancer J. 2017 , 23 , 194–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quinn, G.P.; Goncalves, V.; Sehovic, I.; Bowman, M.L.; Reed, D.R. Quality of life in adolescent and young adult cancer patients: A systematic review of the literature. Patient Relat. Outcome Meas. 2015 , 6 , 19–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Magasi, S.; Marshall, H.K.; Winters, C.; Victorson, D. Cancer Survivors’ Disability Experiences and Identities: A Qualitative Exploration to Advance Cancer Equity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 3112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janssen, S.H.M.; van der Graaf, W.T.A.; van der Meer, D.J.; Manten-Horst, E.; Husson, O. Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Survivorship Practices: An Overview. Cancers 2021 , 13 , 4847. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• White, V.; Skaczkowski, G.; Thompson, K.; Bibby, H.; Coory, M.; Pinkerton, R.; Nicholls, W.; Orme, L.M.; Conyers, R.; Phillips, M.B.; et al. Experiences of Care of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer in Australia. J. Adolesc. Young-Adult Oncol. 2018 , 7 , 315–325. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wilkinson, J. Young people with cancer—How should their care be organized? Eur. J. Cancer Care 2003 , 12 , 65–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albritton, K.H.; Wiggins, C.H.; Nelson, H.E.; Weeks, J.C. Site of Oncologic Specialty Care for Older Adolescents in Utah. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007 , 25 , 4616–4621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marshall, S.; Grinyer, A.; Limmer, M. The Experience of Adolescents and Young Adults Treated for Cancer in an Adult Setting: A Review of the Literature. J. Adolesc. Young-Adult Oncol. 2018 , 7 , 283–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Flanagin, A.; Frey, T.; Christiansen, S.L.; AMA Manual of Style Committee. Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals. JAMA 2021 , 326 , 621–627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Linas, B.P.; Assoumou, S.A. Laying the Foundation for a New and Inclusive Science. JAMA Netw. Open 2022 , 5 , e2148540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stewart, J.; Krows, M.L.; Schaafsma, T.T.; Heller, K.B.; Brown, E.R.; Boonyaratanakornkit, J.; Brown, C.E.; Leingang, H.; Liou, C.; Bershteyn, A.; et al. Comparison of Racial, Ethnic, and Geographic Location Diversity of Participants Enrolled in Clinic-Based vs 2 Remote COVID-19 Clinical Trials. JAMA Netw. Open 2022 , 5 , e2148325. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Figueroa Gray, M.S.; Shapiro, L.; Dorsey, C.N.; Randall, S.; Casperson, M.; Chawla, N.; Zebrack, B.; Fujii, M.M.; Hahn, E.E.; Keegan, T.H.M.; et al. A Patient-Centered Conceptual Model of AYA Cancer Survivorship Care Informed by a Qualitative Interview Study. Cancers 2024 , 16 , 3073. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16173073

Figueroa Gray MS, Shapiro L, Dorsey CN, Randall S, Casperson M, Chawla N, Zebrack B, Fujii MM, Hahn EE, Keegan THM, et al. A Patient-Centered Conceptual Model of AYA Cancer Survivorship Care Informed by a Qualitative Interview Study. Cancers . 2024; 16(17):3073. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16173073

Figueroa Gray, Marlaine S., Lily Shapiro, Caitlin N. Dorsey, Sarah Randall, Mallory Casperson, Neetu Chawla, Brad Zebrack, Monica M. Fujii, Erin E. Hahn, Theresa H. M. Keegan, and et al. 2024. "A Patient-Centered Conceptual Model of AYA Cancer Survivorship Care Informed by a Qualitative Interview Study" Cancers 16, no. 17: 3073. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16173073

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 126 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Developmental Psychology

• Early Publication
• Review in Advance

Review Article

Reframing adolescent identity: a global perspective for the digital age.

• Selcuk R. Sirin 1 , Scott Z. Brauer 1 , and R. Canan Tugberk 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; email: [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected]
• Vol. 6 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-101059
• © Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). All rights reserved

This review provides a comprehensive evaluation of adolescent identity development research, critically examining the significant gap between the global distribution of adolescents and the focus of scholarly work. While over 85% of the world's youth live in the majority world—Africa, Asia, and Latin America—only 15% of developmental psychology studies explore these populations, revealing a critical gap in global perspectives on adolescent identity development. This review also emphasizes the lack of theoretical and empirical focus on the transformative role of digital technology in shaping identities. Through a systematic review of research, we provide both an empirical base and a conceptual framework to understand adolescent identity in an increasingly connected world. We also suggest several concrete steps for incorporating global perspectives and digital realities into developmental psychology research in general and identity development research in particular.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, childhood adversity and neural development: a systematic review, adolescent–parent relationships: progress, processes, and prospects, the life course consequences of very preterm birth, cognitive aging and dementia: a life-span perspective, media and the development of gender role stereotypes, development of adhd: etiology, heterogeneity, and early life course, language development in context, the development of social categorization, screen time, social media use, and adolescent development, neighborhood effects on children's development in experimental and nonexperimental research.

Publication Date: 04 Sep 2024

Online Option

Sign in to access your institutional or personal subscription or get immediate access to your online copy - available in PDF and ePub formats

Development and validation of the high school students’ Mathematics Discourse Feedback Skills Scale (MDFSS)

• Published: 07 September 2024

Cite this article

• Hao Chen 1 , 2 ,
• Sanyi Tang 3 ,
• Shang Zhang 1 ,
• Jie Xu 1 &
• Guangsheng Wang 3  

This study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing high school students’ mathematics discourse feedback skills (MDFS) in order to measure their feedback literacy performance in mathematics. First, the researcher constructed a theoretical framework of MDFS, including comparative analysis, expressing communication, mathematical reasoning, monitor and adjust, diagnostic evaluation, and implementation capacity, through literature review, and designed the mathematics discourse feedback skills scale (MDFSS) questions accordingly. Subsequently, 9 experts conducted two rounds of content validity tests on the theoretical framework and scale questions, while 32 high school student volunteers conducted surface validity tests. Then, 273 high school students participated in the item analysis of the scale. Ultimately, 1681 high school students assessed the structural validity of the scale. In these assessments, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on 841 high school students, and confirmatory factor analysis with first-order and second-order models was conducted on 840 students. The study also conducted reliability, validity, and measurement invariance tests on the survey questionnaire. Based on the results of these analyses, the researcher confirmed that the final version of the scale consisted of 24 items. The results of the study indicated that the scale provided a valid evidence for measuring the MDFS of high school students. The study is of great significance to academic and educational practice, as it not only deepens the research on student feedback literacy in mathematics, but also provides a valuable reference tool for improving the academic quality of mathematics among high school students in China and other Asian countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The data generated during the current study are not publicly available since they constitute an excerpt of research in progress. Data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Al-Nuaimi, M. N., & Al-Emran, M. (2024). Development and validation of ICT unethical behavior scale among undergraduate students. Current Psychology, 43 (10), 8760–8776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05038-6

Article   Google Scholar  

Attard, C., Edwards-Groves, C., & Grootenboer, P. (2018). Dialogic practices in the mathematics classroom. In J. Hunter, P. Perger, & L. Darragh (Eds.), Making waves, opening spaces (Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 122–129). MERGA

Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54 (2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assessment & evaluation in Higher Education, 44 (5), 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108

Carless, D. (2020). Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: A need for teacher-student partnerships. Higher Education Research and Development, 39 (3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodnessof-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Chong, S. W. (2021). Reconsidering student feedbackliteracy from an ecological perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46 (1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765

Cortez, C. P., Osenar-Rosqueta, A. M. F., & Prudente, M. S. (2023). Cooperative-flipped classroom under online modality: En hancing students’ mathematics achievement and critical thinking attitude. International Journal of Educational Research, 120 ,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102213

DeKleijn, R. A. M. (2023). Supporting student and teacher feedback literacy: an instructional model for student feedback processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48 (2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967283

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 , 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Goldman, Z. W. (2018). Communicating competently in graduate school: a conditional process analysis using self-regulation. Western Journal of Communication, 83 (1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1416488

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the roleof feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34 (3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785384

Hemmi, K., & Ryve, A. (2015). Effective mathematics teaching in Finnish and Swedish teacher education discourses. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18 , 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9293-4

Heron, M., Donaghue, H., & Balloo, K. (2023). Observational feedback literacy: designing post observation feedback for learning. Teaching in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2191786

Hu, X. (2023). Research on the evaluation and cultivation of senior high school students’ science critical thinking. Graduate Dissertation.

Ilhan, A., Pocan, S., & Gemcioglu, M. (2022). The effect of mathematics class commitment and anxiety on mathematics success: A path analysis study. Education and Urban Society, 54 (2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211028621

Jeannotte, D., & Kieran, C. (2017). A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics,96 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9761-8 .

Kamid, K., Kurniawan, D., & Rahman, A. (2022). A comparativestudy: Students’ process skills and students’ analytical thinking with learningmodels. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 26 (2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v26i2.53326

Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2020). The Development of Secondary Students’ Feedback Literacy: Peer Assessment as an Intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 113 (6), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1835794

Kiemer, K., Groschner, A., Pehmer, A.-K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a Classroom Discourse Intervention on Teachers’ Practice and Students’ Motivation to Learn Mathematics and Science. Learning and Instruction, 35 , 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th Ed). Guilford Press.

Knuth, E., & Peressini, D. (2001). Unpacking the nature of discourse in mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle SchoOl, 6 (5), 320–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/41180959

Koyama, M. (2019). Issues of mathematics curriculum in Japan: changing curriculum policies and developing curriculum frameworks for mathematics. In C. Vistro-Yu & T. Toh (Eds.), School mathematics curricula: mathematics education– an Asian perspective (pp. 171–187). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_9 .

Li, F., & Han, Y. (2021). Student feedback literacy in L2 disciplinary writing: insights from international graduate students at a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47 (2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1908957

Malecka, B., Boud, D., & Carless, D. (2020). Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 27 (7), 908–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784

Malecka, B., Boud, D., Tai, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2022). Navigating feedback practices across learning contexts: implications for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47 (8), 1330–1344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2041544

Merenda, P. F. (1997). A guide to the proper use of factor analysis in the conduct and reporting of research: Pitfalls to avoid. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30 (3), 156–154.

Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45 (4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955

MOEPRC. (2020). Curriculum standard for general high school mathematics (2017 edition revised in 2020) . People’s Education Press.

Nicol, D. (2021). The Power of Internal Feedback: Exploiting Natural Comparison Processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46 (5), 756–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314

Nieminen, J. H., & Carless, D. (2022). Feedback literacy: a critical review of an emerging concept. Higher Education, 85 , 1381–1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9

Rahmatika, D., & Waluya, S. B. (2023). Students’ mathematical reasoning ability viewed from self-regulated learning in the missouri mathematics project learning with open-ended approach. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education, 12 (1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.15294/ujme.v12i1.66188

Santos, L., & Semana, S. (2015). Developing mathematicswritten communication through expository writing supported by assessmentstrategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88 (1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9557-z

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Sfard, A. (2012). Introduction: Developing mathematical discourse - some insights from communicational research. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.013

Si, S. X., & Cullen, J. B. (1998). Response categories andpotential cultural bias: Effects of an explicit middle point in cross-culturalsurveys. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6 (3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028885

Song, B. K. (2022). Bifactor modelling of the psychological constructs of learner feedback literacy: conceptions of feedback, feedback trust and self-efficacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47 (8), 1444–1457. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2042187

Steen-Utheima, A., & Wittek, A. L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 15 , 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002

Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement:enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. High Educ, 76 (3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3

Temple, C., & Doerr, H. (2012). Developing fluency in the mathematical register through conversation in a tenth-grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81 (3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9398-6

Vani, M. F., Lucibello, K. M., & Sabiston, C. M. (2024). Development and validation of the body-related embarrassment scale (BREM). Current Psychology, 43 (11), 10467–10483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05183-y

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Zone of proximal development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 52–91). Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

Wang, M., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43 , 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008

Wong, K. Y., Koyama, M., & Lee, K. H. (2014). Mathematics curriculum policies: a framework with case studies from Japan, Korea, and Singapore. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education. advances in mathematics education . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2_5

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wu, X., Zhang, Y., Wu, R., et al. (2022). A comparative study on cognitive diagnostic assessment of mathematical key competencies and learning trajectories. Current Psychology, 41 , 7854–7866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01230-0

Xu, B., Lu, X., Yang, X., & Bao, J. (2022). Mathematicians’, mathematics educators’, and mathematics teachers’ professional conceptions of the school learning of mathematical modelling in China. ZDM Mathematics Education, 54 , 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01356-4

Yang, L., Chen, Y., Li, X., & Li, T. (2017). The relationship between parenting styles and self monitoring learning of the senior high school students-The mediating effects of core self-evaluation. Journal of Zhejiang University (Science Edition) , 44 (2), 214–220.

Zhang, J., Gao, M., Holmes, W., Mavrikis, M., & Ma, N. (2019). Interaction patterns in exploratory learning environments for mathematics: a sequential analysis of feedback and external representations in Chinese schools. Interactive Learning Environments, 29 (7), 1211–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1620290

Zhan, Y. (2022). Developing and validating a student feedback literacy scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47 (7), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all those who participated in this study. They are also grateful to Professor Robert A. Cheke from the UK for language editing, and to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on this paper.

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC: 12031010).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Shaanxi Normal University, 710062, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China

Hao Chen, Shang Zhang & Jie Xu

Affiliated Secondary School, Xizang Minzu University, 712082, Xianyang, People’s Republic of China

School of Mathematics and Statistics, Shaanxi Normal University, 710119, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China

Sanyi Tang & Guangsheng Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Hao Chen drafted the manuscript. Sanyi Tang and Guangsheng Wang served as the research advisor. Guangsheng Wang and Hao Chen contributed significantly to the conception, the data analysis, and manuscript revision. Shang Zhang and Jie Xu collected the data and worked as writer’s assistant. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guangsheng Wang .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

This study gained ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education, Shaanxi Normal University in China.

Informed consent

All participants in the study provided informed consent.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chen, H., Tang, S., Zhang, S. et al. Development and validation of the high school students’ Mathematics Discourse Feedback Skills Scale (MDFSS). Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06578-1

Download citation

Accepted : 15 August 2024

Published : 07 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06578-1

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

• High school students
• Mathematics discourse
• Discourse feedback
• Feedback literacy
• Skill scales
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research