Introduction Banduras social learning theory and Vygotskys social development theory are theories that have application

across various fields of study including psychology, sociology, and education. Both of these theories are highly intertwined and provide key insight into the nature of human learning. The major premise of Banduras theory is that individuals learn by observing others and the conse uences of their choices and then modeling the most successful behaviors. Vygotsky proposes that social interaction is crucial to cognitive development. !e suggests there must be an individual with a higher level of understanding, the "ore #nowledgeable $ther %"#$& and that the difference between what a person can learn by interacting with the "#$ and what he can learn on his own is the area where learning occurs. !e referred to this area as the 'one of (ro)imal *evelopment %'(*&. Both Bandura and Vygotskys theories tie knowledge gain to social interaction and it is this assumption that is studied in this annotated bibliography.

Social Theories of Learning Bloom, *. %+,,-&. .ollaborative test taking/ Benefits for learning and retention. College Teaching, 57%0&, +123 ++,. 4etrieved 5eb 6, +,1,, 7cademic 8earch (remier database. The author conducted two studies over the course of four college semesters in which all students were tasked to complete four e)ams with no outside help. 7fter the first attempt at the test, one semesters class was allowed to re3take the test using notes and te)tbooks, but still working individually, while the students in the other semester were given the opportunity to work collaboratively in small groups. In the first year, the fall semester students worked collaboratively while the spring semester students took the second test open3book9 the second year, the roles were reversed. $verall, the e)periment included :6+ students, an average of 10; per class, providing a rather substantial sample si<e. In both e)periments, the students who worked collaboratively performed significantly % p<.001) better on the second e)am than those who utili<ed the open3book techni ue. (roviding even greater validity to the results, Bloom completed a statistical analysis that showed there was no significant difference in terms of scores on the initial e)am %i.e. no outside help& in any one semester. 5urther, three of the tests were re3administered at a later date, and in both cases the students who had previously worked collaboratively showed better retention than those who worked alone, but with outside resources. The author notes the clearly demonstrated benefit of social learning and working collaboratively and offers techni ues and suggestions for others to incorporate collaborative testing into their training sessions to facilitate better mastery of the material and higher overall recall. 7ll in all, this is a very well done study. It provides a large sample si<e with no significant difference in the population and proves on more than one occasion that working in groups produces better initial effort and higher retention to a statistically significant level. The author talks about ways she attempted to mitigate someone not studying for the e)am and simply assuming theyd make use the group effort to pass the course. The study is even more effective due to the fact that this was a large3lecture style course that most students were taking as an elective. 5or this reason, there was not necessarily an intrinsic interest or motivation on the part of the average student to need or have to perform well on these e)ams. This study provides e)cellent evidence in support of the concept of collaborative learning and its benefits to human learning and cognitive improvement. Brett, (., = >agra, ?. %+,,:&. 7n investigation into students use of a computer3based social learning space/ @essons for facilitating collaborative approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 3 %+&, +A13+-+. doi/1,.1111Bj.10263A:;:.+,,:.,,0:6.) 7s society continues to move into the Information 7ge, many college campuses are utili<ing the various opportunities presented to them through new technology including the use of computer labs. *ifferent types of computer labs e)ist ranging from those with individual, isolated computers and strict rules prohibiting talking, eating, etc. to those with groups of computers clustered together in a more social, rela)ed atmosphere permitting some of the previously mentioned offenses. Building on the social learning suggestion that collaboration and interaction with peers encourages deeper, more conceptual, learning, the purpose of this study by Brett and >agra is to determine if the computer labs in more social settings indeed foster more collaborative work. The authors proposed five hypotheses suggesting that collaborative work would be more likely to take place in these more open labs and that there would not be a negative impact on concentration. Through the use of observation, uestionnaires, and interviews, Brett and >agra determined that all of their hypotheses were supported. This study does have some major limitations. 5irst, it only covered a five3week period of time in the middle of the semester9 different and longer time periods may yield different results. 8econd, while the study did find increased collaboration, it failed to correlate this increased collaboration to increased higher3level learning amongst the individuals. 7lso, the sample si<e was very limited. $nly forty students answered the uestionnaire presented and only 1: students sat down for an interview to discuss their use of the computer lab. $n a typical college campus, 0, and 1: students, respectively, can hardly be claimed as representative of the entire student body population. 7lso, the

students involved with the uestionnaire and interview were chosen as students who already used this particular computer lab that was oriented towards encouraging group work. This fact is detrimental to the study as it indicates a potential bias in the sample audience. The authors encourage a transition to computer labs that are more likely to facilitate interaction and collaboration amongst peers, and if social learning theory holds true, this should in turn facilitate deeper learning in the students. This study, however, does not provide that evidence. Brooks, @. %+,,-&. 8ocial learning by design/ The role of social media. !no"ledge #uest, 37%:&, :A32,. 4etrieved 5eb 2, +,1,, 7cademic 8earch (remier database. The author states that the utility of social learning in knowledge ac uisition is well3proven. 8he claims that with the advent of social media and Ceb +., technologies beginning to abound, teachers must not assume that social settings inherently leading to social learning. 8he describes one class where fifth3graders were given a website to blog book reviews, but, despite the best efforts of the instructor, the blog turned into a more superficial chat room than an educational tool. >ew technologies will continue to drive social interactions in new and uni ue ways. The author does a good job of emphasi<ing that instructors and trainers must understand this technology and how to properly use it instead of assuming the technology and inherent social interactions will do the work for them. $therwise, they risk creating negative learning environments and e)periences that will erode the many cognitive benefits of social learning. .ordes, .. %+,,-&. .hanging your role models/ 8ocial learning and the Dngel curve. The Journal of $ocio% Econo&ics, 3'%2&, -:63-2:. doi/1,.1,12Bj.socec.+,,-.,2.,1+ 7n Dngel curve is an economic tool designed to indicate how consumers purchase of a particular item changes with differences in their total resources %i.e. income& despite a fi)ed price for the good or service in uestion. Dmpirical e)amination has produced differently shaped Dngel curves in studying different cultures and this phenomenon has been a point of in uiry for economists. .ordes proposes social learning as a key factor that could lead to these potential variances. The author creates assumptions based on social learning centered on the notion that as an individuals income increases, he will inevitably join different social circles where new role models and norms will be accepted and e)pected. These new models will influence how he uses his purchasing power and will thus influence demand on the macroeconomic level. .ordes applies these assumptions to various types of cultures including a conservative society, an open collectivist society, an open individualistic society, and others to produce Dngel curves for these generic societies. By comparing the results of his mathematical modeling to real3world e)amples, .ordes shows that empirical studies bear out the results of his theoretical model. The author points to e)amples in trans3 !imalaya India and post3unification Eermany, and discusses generically those countries whose religion is detrimental to the adoption of modern, western consumption principles. These e)amples add depth and credence to .ordes study. Its one thing to propose a theory supported by hypothetical assumptions of human behavior9 its uite different entirely to offer real3world situations that support the conclusions drawn. 8ocial learning is noted for its impact in the classroom, but what the reader sees with this study is its much larger impact. This study could certainly benefit from further empirical investigations over a wide range of populations and cultures to verify its validity. >onetheless, one recogni<es that social learning doesnt start and stop in the classroom9 it can have effects far beyond the end of the session. Training professionals would be wise to think about social factors outside the classroom when developing their programs. ?ohnson, @. 5., = @evine, 7. !. %+,,A&. Virtual worlds/ Inherently immersive, highly social learning spaces. Theory (nto )ractice, *7%+&, 121316,. doi/1,.1,A,B,,0,:A0,A,1--+;-6 7s humankind continues to move forward into the Information 7ge, the concept of social interaction will be much different than in the past. In this article, the authors discuss the uni ue opportunities provided by

virtual environments to aid in that learning process. >umerous possibilities are discussed F from re3 enacting a famous trial of the past %e.g. The 8copes G"onkey TrialH& to performing actions that may be too e)pensive or time3consuming to allow an entire class to perform real3time. The virtual worlds also provide the singular capability to be slightly modified repeatedly, essentially providing an infinite number of scenarios in which students can interact and see the resultant outcomes. The benefits of social interaction are clearly stated and interacting within more heterogeneous groups also aids to increase learning. Virtual worlds allow people to interact with others from a multitude of cultures that would be almost impossible to simulate in real life and also encourage social interaction from individuals who may be reluctant to participate in a face3to3face environment. The authors effectively argue that the collaborative learning and instructional capabilities of virtual worlds must be utili<ed as education moves into the future in order to ma)imi<e the learning available to students. The study is hindered somewhat by its lack of empirical evidence, but not greatly. It relies on previous studies for the foundation of its argument that social learning concepts aid human learning and knowledge retention, which is a valid techni ue. But, it doesnt point out any negative aspects of virtual worlds or provide e)perimental results indicating that virtual worlds are as effective as or more effective than face3to3face learning. True, there is social interaction through virtual worlds and there are numerous opportunities that they provide, but it leaves many uestions unanswered and potential detriments arent discussed. In sum, the authors present a compelling case for virtual worlds and what they add to human learning potential through social learning, but the case could be made stronger through e)amples or scientific research. ?ones, V. 8., !olland, 7. ?. 7., = $ldmeadow, C. %+,,A&. Inductive teaching method F an alternate method for small group learning. +edical Teacher, 30%A&, +023+0-. doi/1,.1,A,B,10+1:-,A,++:-+60 The authors conducted a study involving :+ medical residents separated into small groups of 23A individuals. Dach group had four, one3hour long small3group sessions. Two were traditional instructor3 facilitated sessions F the directed method F and two were conducted using the inductive method. In the latter, any student could ask a uestion on any topic and the classmates were given 1: minutes to answer the uestion and discuss the topic with the instructor providing feedback only if the class was straying off3 topic or if the answer provided was incorrect. 7t the end of the four sessions the students were asked to rate the two courses in eight separate areas. 5eedback was obtained from 0- of the :+ participants. 5ive of the eight areas tested generated statistically significant differences. The directed method was more useful for covering larger amounts of content in the specified one3hour time period, but the inductive method generated greater interest, better information retention, higher inspiration to learn more, and correlated information better with what students already knew. Based on what is known about human learning, one sees that the inductive method scored higher in areas associated with deeper, more permanent learning. Its notable that both methods were rated highly F on a scale of 13:, no median score was lower than 0 F so the small group aspect itself is conducive to learning. 7lso, while an e)ceptionally high response rate was received, the sample si<e was small and limited in its scope. The participants came from different backgrounds, but all were fourth3year medical students, which indicates a degree of commonality in intellectual interest and educational background. 7 wider scope encompassing more subjects from a wider array of educational fields would give greater credibility and applicability to the studys results. !owever, the e)periment does prove that, as social learning theory would suggest, greater interaction and more active participation with others creates a deeper level of learning and understanding. @ane, !. B., = 7llen, 8. 7. %+,1,&. The vocabulary3rich classroom/ "odeling sophisticated word use to promote word consciousness and vocabulary growth. The ,eading Teacher, 3%:&, ;2+3;6,. doi/1,.1:-AB4T.2;.:.+ The authors present two case studies in which teachers of elementary school children successfully use modeling to enhance the vocabulary of their pupils. In both of these instances the teachers encouraged and properly modeled the use of and meaning for advanced vocabulary words and implemented their use in ways that were intriguing and memorable for the children. There wasnt a passive list of words with

dictionary definitions that the children were e)pected to memori<e. The authors laud the performance of these teachers and provide methods for other teachers to ma)imi<e opportunities to make their classrooms Gvocabulary rich.H "odeling and receiving feedback %i.e. praising the student for proper use of the new word& are key components of social learning theory. The teachers use of the advanced words and encouragement of the students to do the same led to the students developing an advanced vocabulary for their age. The authors correlate this fact with the premise that overall vocabulary directly correlates to reading comprehension and school achievement. 7 major weakness of this study is that it relies heavily on the anecdotal evidence of the two case studies vice providing empirical data. Theres no analysis of the background behind these situations that could have made them uni ue such as the students socioeconomic status, cultural background, support at home, or the schools history in terms of educational achievement. This makes it difficult to say for certain if the methods supplied by the authors would be effective across a full spectrum of classrooms and educational settings. >onetheless, it does provide strong support for the social learning theory concepts of modeling and receiving feedback. >abi, 4. @., = .lark, 8. %+,,A&. D)ploring the limits of social cognitive theory/ Chy negatively reinforced behaviors on TV may be modeled anyway. Journal of Co&&unication, 5'%;&, 0,630+6. doi/1,.1111Bj.102,3 +022.+,,A.,,;-+.) 8ocial learning theory %called social cognitive theory in this study& posits that actions that produce positive reinforcement will be modeled, imitated, and committed to memory or action while negatively reinforced behaviors will be disregarded. !owever, the authors of this study provide one of the biggest limitations to this purely rational, black3and3white view. In this study, 0,, college females watched edited segments of a popular TV show that showed one3night stands involving the main character. The episodes were edited so that varying amounts of negative reinforcement were provided in the aftermath of the one3night stand. The authors found that, contrary to what social learning theory would predict, negative reinforcement had no impact on an individuals likelihood to model that behavior in the future. In fact, among participants who had never had a one3night stand, their perceived likelihood of having a one3night stand actually increased after viewing the negative reinforcement. This study does have its limitations. "ost notably, there were no severe and lasting negative repercussions %i.e. an 8T* or unwanted pregnancy& and there was no assessment of whether the participants actually did have one3night stands after the viewing, only the participants own self3perception of how likely they were to have one in the future. >onetheless, the study does provide support to the ideas of schema in society F that is, there can be underlying assumptions in the general populous that lead us to disregard negative repercussions of certain behavior. In this case, the schema being that people never e)pect serious negative conse uences for the main character in a TV show. Thus, while this study isnt perfect, its results can be useful in that trainers must attempt to determine any underlying schema that may outweigh the positive or negative reinforcement a student gets from observing others model a behavior or interacting with and collaborating with their peers. (alincsar, 7. 8., = !errenkohl, @. 4. %+,,+&. *esigning collaborative learning conte)ts. Theory (nto )ractice, *1%1&, +23;+. doi/1,.1+,6Bs1:0;,0+1tip01,1I: The authors review years of research on two methods of collaborative learning to determine their successfulness as techni ues to build on. Both methods, reciprocal teaching %4T& and cognitive tools and intellectual roles %.TI4&, demonstrate that creating collaborative forums for students greatly aids learning and also transitions the levels of in uiry from the superficial to the more conceptual levels. Two of the most important aspects of these programs in terms of facilitating the learning were Gthe support of interactive patternsH and Gthe process of creating a shared social conte)t.H The former was established in that the students helped to drive the learning process9 the teacher didnt mandate what items would be discussed nor constrain thought. $n the contrary, the students helped to establish what would be discussed and what points made them think and reflect on deeper levels. The second aspect is that everyone had to be committed to a shared social environment. $ver time, the rules and norms of these GsocietiesH were

established and each individual began to understand their role and ability to contribute to the process. The authors found that these tools, when used correctly, produced a shared responsibility and desire to learn that increased overall performance and knowledge on a deeper level. 8chneider, 5., 5ry, (., @edermann, T., = 4ist, 8. %+,,-&. 8ocial learning processes in 8wiss soil protection F the J5rom 5armer F To 5armer project. -u&an Ecology, 37%0&, 06:30A-. doi/ 1,.1,,6Bs1,60:3,,-3-+2+31 8oil conservation has become a major issue throughout Duropean agricultural circles and some Duropean countries have implemented soil conservation re uirements. !owever, in 8wit<erland these laws were not standardi<ed, not well3enforced, and not e)plicitly abided by local farmers. There was an air of distrust and lack of respect between the farmers, e)perts, and scientists, which the authors attempted to change through Gcritical thinking, interactions and dialogue with othersH %p. 062&. The authors were successful in bringing the different groups together using social learning techni ues and helped to improve the overall soil conservation effort in 8wit<erland. Through their study they found improved collaboration, mutual understanding and trust, a broader understanding of the issue, and a change in agendas among many other improvements as well. 7lthough the social learning techni ues werent successful 1,,K of the time and nearly always re uired time to take effect, the authors did suggest methods that they believe their study indicates help augment learning in social conte)ts. The four main characteristics that helped facilitate social learning were/ collaboration beyond traditional political tensions, an atmosphere of trust, communication and interaction beyond the knowledge systems to which the actors belong, and possibilities for creating and sharing tacit and e)plicit knowledge. The implications of this study are important because it was applied and tested in a real3world setting. 7lthough it is a case study and theres no guarantee that its results would be similar across differing cultures or time periods, there are still valuable lessons and techni ues to be gained from this study. In an area where previous attempts had failed to create progress or trust, social learning processes helped make headway and improve the situation in 8wit<erland. .ertainly theres no guarantee of repeated success elsewhere in the world, but there are valuable insights that one can use as a starting point for future collaborations between governments and civilians. 8ocial learning techni ues again have a real world impact and solve issues where traditional methods of instruction and mandating were unable. 8ommerville, ?. 7., = !ammond, 7. ?. %+,,6&. Treating anothers actions as ones own/ .hildrens memory of and learning from joint activity. .e/elop&ental )sychology, *3%0&, 1,,;31,1A. doi/1,.1,;6B,,1+3 120-.0;.0.1,,; (ast studies have shown that children working in collaborative settings tend to overemphasi<e the amount of work they contributed to the group once the process is complete F the GI did itH bias %p. 1,,0&. The authors conducted two separate e)periments, the first involving +0 children and the second involving 0+ children, to determine how or if the GI did itH bias impacted learning. Chat they found was that children who worked in a highly collaborative environment as opposed to a low collaborative environment were more likely to overemphasi<e their importance, but also showed greater recall, learning, and internali<ation both immediately after the project and over time. Chile a study of this nature may be somewhat more difficult to conduct on adults who are less likely to overstate their input, it does provide some valuable social learning implications. The suggestion is that the GI did itH bias is a reflection of internali<ation within the children9 they visuali<e themselves completing the re uired task even if someone else is actually doing the work. The idea of internali<ation is crucial to human learning and this study indicates that internali<ation is more likely to occur in highly collaborative environments than less collaborative ones, regardless of the actual amount of work an individual puts forth. By visuali<ing and mentally modeling the behaviors of others in the group, each member internali<es that action or knowledge and incorporates it into their own knowledge base. The study does a good job of attempting to get a valid cross3section of society. In both e)periments, the majority of participants were white, but there were blacks, !ispanics, and other ethnicities involved as well. Thus, despite the small sample si<e, the results are somewhat applicable to

larger society based on the heterogeneous nature of the subjects. !owever, one factor that should be noted is that in both cases 2:3A,K of both male and female parents reported having at least an undergraduate college education. .learly, this isnt representative of the Lnited 8tates on the whole. The parents were not the subjects of the study, but obviously there are numerous differences in income, educational background, emphasi<ed values, etc. when comparing families with college3educated parents and the average 7merican household. These socioeconomic factors could impact how children perceive learning or how inclined they may be to internali<e and learn new information. The GI did itH bias is an intriguing concept and should lead to further research in the future about how humans learn in social conte)ts, but including larger samples from more varied backgrounds could provide even greater detail into the nature vs. nurture aspect of social learning. 8ulsky, @. "., = #line, T. ?. B. %+,,6&. Lnderstanding frame3of3reference training success/ 7 social learning theory perspective. (nternational Journal of Training and .e/elop&ent, 11%+&, 1+131;1. doi/1,.1111Bj.102A3+01-.+,,6.,,+6;.) 8ulsky and #line conducted an e)periment to determine the impact of various techni ues on frame3of3 reference %5$4& training. The ultimate purpose of 5$4 training is to enable individuals to rate others performances as accurately as possible based on re uired standards. The authors hypothesi<ed that the more aspects of social learning theory were implemented the more accurate the ratings would be, the higher the learning would be, and the more positively the trainees would react to the training. They created five groups F an information3only group %I>5$& given only a lecture on performance appraisal, an information and modeling group %"$*& given the same brief and incorporating modeling of proper ratings and procedures, a third group which added role3playing to the lecture and modeling %4$@D&, a fourth group that received all the previous elements as well as receiving feedback on their rating success during the role3 playing session %5L@@&, and, finally, a control group given no guidance. The results indicated that the authors hypotheses were partially correct. They did find the e)pected increases in capability, learning, and trainee reaction. !owever, these increases were only between the I>5$ and control groups and the other three groups. There was no significant difference between the "$*, 4$@D, and 5L@@ groups even though social learning theory suggests there should be %i.e. the measured areas should increase as role3 playing and feedback are added to the modeling behavior&. The authors point out several flaws in their study F the time provided to observe prior to rating was shorter than typically found in real3world situations, the sample si<e was only 2: people and all were college psychology students instead of being from diverse backgrounds, and the laboratory setting was not as conducive for this study as the field setting would have been. In the end, they conclude that the inclusion of social learning aspects did increase trainee performance, but whether the lack of difference between the "$*, 4$@D, and 5L@@ groups was due to a fallacy in social learning theory or an overall lack of comple)ity with the study itself re uires further in uiry. Casik, B. %+,,A&. Chen fewer is more/ 8mall groups in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35%2&, :1:3:+1. doi/1,.1,,6Bs1,20;3,,A3,+0:30 8mall group learning, and the emotional, cognitive, and social benefits it can have for small children, is an under3utili<ed aspect of early childhood education. "any times, early childhood instructors will opt for either Gwhole groupH %i.e. large group& learning or, if possible, individual instruction. Casik discusses why small group instruction provides a better overall learning e)perience than either of these options. 7lthough, she provides no empirical evidence herself, Casik relies heavily on previous studies and references them throughout her article. 8he initially goes into detail on seven guidelines for effectively setting up small groups in early childhood settings. 5rom there, she outlines ways in which this training approach is more effective and produces higher uality results in terms of intellectual development than either individual or whole group learning. 8he draws strongly on the notions of feedback, especially from the instructor, and modeling, mostly in the form of learning from the words and actions of others in the group. Both of these

ideas are key cogs in the theory of social learning and, whether intentionally or not, Casik lends some credibility to the theory. Chile this article is valuable, future research could test the seven guidelines set forth by Casik and testing their validity in actual classroom settings. The author does provide support for social learning, but its more theoretical and would benefit from e)perimental support. Cilliamson, 4. 7., "elt<off, 7. >., = ?aswal, V. #. %+,1,&. @earning the rules/ $bservation and imitation of a sorting strategy by ;23month3old children. .e/elop&ental )sychology, * %1&, :632:. doi/1,.1,;6Ba,,1606; 7n important aspect of social learning theory is that one of the primary means of learning for humans is through observation and imitation. $ne person watches another present new information, either on a procedural or cognitive level, and then interprets that presentation and applies it to their life, thereby increasing their overall knowledge base. In this study, the authors conducted two separate e)periments using ;3year3old children to determine the validity of this hypothesis. In the first e)periment, twenty3four children were presented eight objects, which could be sorted into two groups of four based on various features. The goal was to have the children sort the objects on the basis of color. In the second e)periment, involving thirty3si) subjects, the authors presented only four objects, all identical in appearance, but which could easily be sorted into groups of two based on the sounds they made. The multiple e)periments were used to test the ability to sort both visible %color& and invisible %sound& properties. In both e)periments, the authors created one group that watched an adult model the proper sorting behavior. The adult would pick the item up from the table and sort them into one of two bowls based on the desired characteristic. They also included a control group in which no sorting was conducted and a third group in which the objects were pre3sorted into the bowls according to the appropriate property, but did not include any modeling of the actual sorting behavior. The results of both e)periments indicated that children who observed an adult model the appropriate action were significantly more likely to sort the objects properly F even moreso than the group of children to whom the objects were presented already sorted. The key information resulting from this study is that it suggests that children can not only imitate a physical action, but Gcan also learn a rule or strategy through the observation of anothers behaviorH %p. 20&. The impact of social interaction and imitation to human learning is again validated through e)perimental research. Ma<edjian, 7., = #olkhorst, B. B. %+,,6&. Implementing small3group activities in large lecture classes. College Teaching, 55%0&, 120312-. doi/1,.;+,,B.T.!.::.0.120312The authors conducted a brief study in which a large lecture3style college course consisting of 1,, students was broken down into three groups based on the type of community in which they grew up. The students were then asked a series of uestions to determine their reaction to the study. $verall, the results were that the students felt more involved in the class, enjoyed the interaction with their peers in the classroom, and, whether consciously or not, were intellectually challenged and stimulated by the small3group, active learning approach. Ma<edjian and #olkhorst tie the positive effects of this small3group study to previous studies that indicate using active learning and small3group techni ues increases motivation, modeling behavior, and feedback, which in turn leads to greater information retention and better performance on measures of this new knowledge. 7s in previous studies, the authors find evidence that small3group work, and the social learning implications that accompany it, decreases the anonymity a student may feel in a large3group setting and increases the motivation of the student. $ne limitation of this study is that the authors didnt seek any evidence of a results3oriented impact9 however, they successfully make the connection between their study and this potential impact through a thorough literature review of previous similar studies.