Nigerian departments almost all ask for Chapter Two in three parts: a conceptual review, a theoretical framework, and an empirical review, closing with a summary of literature and a gap statement. Students learn the three names and then write the same paragraph three times. This page shows what each part actually sounds like on the page, and what makes it different from the other two.
The procedure — how to search, how to keep a search log, how to build a synthesis table before writing — is in our step-by-step guide to Chapter Two. This page assumes you have done the reading and are staring at a blank page.
The one-line difference between the three
| Part | The question it answers | What a paragraph does | Failure mode |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conceptual review | What do the terms in my title mean, and which meaning am I using? | Reviews competing definitions, then adopts one and says why | A string of dictionary definitions with no adoption |
| Theoretical framework | Which theory explains why my variables should be related at all? | States the theory’s mechanism, then maps it onto your variables | Naming a theory and never using it again |
| Empirical review | What have other researchers found, and what does that leave open? | Reports a study’s design, setting and finding, then says what it does not settle | Summary after summary, chronological, with no argument |
How to read the passages below
They are shapes, not claims. No finding, figure or definition is attributed to any real researcher, because a fabricated attribution in Chapter Two is the fault that ends projects. Author placeholders appear as [Author, year] and numbers as [figure]. Fill them from sources you have opened. Everything else — the sentence order, the connectives, the moves — is what you should copy.
Conceptual review: a written passage
The running example is an education study of continuous assessment and instructional practice.
2.1.2 Continuous assessment
Continuous assessment has been defined in at least three distinguishable ways in the literature. [Author, year] treats it as a mechanism of measurement, a systematic and cumulative record of a learner’s performance across a period of instruction. [Author, year] treats it instead as a mechanism of feedback, in which the record has value only insofar as it changes what the teacher does next. A third strand, represented by [Author, year], treats it administratively, as the component of a terminal grade contributed by work done before the examination.
These are not three descriptions of one thing. They imply different tests of whether continuous assessment is working. Under the measurement view, a school with complete, accurate records is succeeding. Under the feedback view, that same school may be failing entirely, because completeness says nothing about use. Under the administrative view, the question does not arise, since the only requirement is that the component exists and is weighted correctly.
This study adopts the feedback conception, following [Author, year], because the problem it addresses is not whether records exist in the schools studied but whether they inform teaching. Continuous assessment is therefore operationalised in this study as the systematic collection of learner performance data together with its use in subsequent instructional decisions, and a school keeping complete records that are never consulted is treated, for the purposes of this study, as not practising continuous assessment in the sense examined here.
The moves, in order. Three competing definitions, each attributed. One paragraph showing the definitions are not interchangeable, by naming a consequence of each. Then adoption, with a reason tied to your own problem, and an operational statement that Chapter Three can act on. That last sentence is what converts a conceptual review from decoration into something load-bearing.
Do this for every major concept in your title. Two or three concepts is usually the whole conceptual review, written properly. Twelve one-paragraph definitions is padding, and it reads as padding.
Theoretical framework: a written passage
2.2.1 Theoretical framework
This study is anchored on [named theory], propounded by [Author, year]. The theory holds that [state the mechanism in one sentence: what causes what, and through what intervening process]. Its central claim is that [the specific proposition you will use], and it was developed in the context of [the setting or problem the theory was built to explain].
The theory is relevant to the present study in three respects. First, it identifies [construct] as the proximate determinant of [outcome], which is precisely the relationship this study examines. Second, it predicts that where [condition] is absent, [construct] will not translate into [outcome] — which supplies the study’s second specific objective. Third, it locates the explanation at the level of [individual, organisational or system level], which is the level at which this study collects its data.
The theory has also been criticised. [Author, year] argues that it underweights [factor], and [Author, year] notes that its empirical support derives largely from [setting unlike yours]. The present study addresses the second of these directly, by testing the predicted relationship in a Nigerian public secondary setting. It does not attempt to resolve the first, and the limitation is acknowledged in Chapter Five.
The moves, in order. Name the theory and its author. State the mechanism, not a slogan. Then three explicit relevance links, each tied to a named element of your own study — and notice that the second one produces an objective. Then criticism, honestly, with a statement of which criticism your study engages and which it does not.
The test of a theoretical framework is simple: if you deleted the theory, would anything in Chapters Three, Four or Five change? If not, the theory is not anchoring anything. A panel asks this in the form “why this theory and not another one?”, and the answer is the three relevance links. Our worked treatment of the theoretical framework of an education project goes further into which theories Nigerian education panels expect.
Empirical review: a written passage
The commonest empirical review in Nigerian projects is a list: this author did this, that author did that, in date order. It is unreadable and it establishes nothing. The alternative is to organise by what the studies disagree about, and to write each study in four beats: design, setting, finding, and what it leaves open.
2.3.2 Assessment practice and instructional decisions
Empirical work on this relationship divides on whether the constraint is knowledge or conditions.
The knowledge strand is represented by [Author, year], who surveyed
[figure]secondary school teachers in [setting] using a structured questionnaire, and found that[figure]per cent could not correctly describe the procedure for computing a continuous assessment score. The study concludes that training is the appropriate intervention. Its instrument, however, measured stated knowledge rather than observed practice, so it cannot distinguish a teacher who does not know the procedure from one who knows it and does not have time to apply it.[Author, year] reached a similar conclusion in [setting] with a larger sample,
[figure]teachers across[figure]schools, and reported an association between in-service training attendance and self-reported assessment practice. Because both the independent and the dependent measure were self-reported in the same instrument, the association is open to common-method variance, which the authors acknowledge.The conditions strand takes a different view. [Author, year] conducted
[figure]interviews with teachers in [setting] and found that the obstacles teachers themselves named were class size, the volume of administrative returns, and the absence of any point in the timetable at which a record could be acted upon. Knowledge was not raised as an obstacle by any respondent. The study is qualitative and its sample purposive, so it establishes what teachers report rather than how common each obstacle is.Two things follow for the present study. The two strands have not been tested against each other in a single Nigerian sample using a measure of practice rather than of self-report. And no study in either strand distinguishes teachers who keep records from teachers who use them, which is the distinction this study’s conceptual position makes central.
The moves, in order. An organising sentence that states the disagreement. Then, per study: design and sample size, setting, finding, and the sentence beginning “however” or “because” that says what the design cannot settle. That last sentence per study is the whole difference between a review and a list — and every one of them is a candidate gap.
Then a closing paragraph that turns the pattern into your own opening. Notice it does not say “no research has been done”, which is almost never true and always attacked. It says what has not been done in combination: two strands never tested against each other, and a distinction never drawn.
Summary of literature and gap statement
Most Nigerian formats close Chapter Two with a section titled “Summary of Literature Reviewed” or “Gap in Literature”. It is short and it does exactly two things.
2.4 Summary of literature reviewed and gap in knowledge
The literature reviewed establishes three things. Continuous assessment is conceptualised in the Nigerian literature predominantly as measurement, with the feedback conception represented but less developed [Author, year; Author, year]. [Named theory] predicts that assessment data affects instruction only where the conditions for acting on it exist [Author, year]. And empirical studies have measured teachers’ assessment knowledge and self-reported practice, in both cases finding shortfalls [Author, year; Author, year].
Three gaps remain. The knowledge and conditions explanations have not been tested against each other in one sample. Practice has been measured by self-report rather than by an instrument that separates record-keeping from record-use. And no reviewed study was carried out in [named LGA], whose staffing profile differs from the settings studied in [respect]. The present study addresses the first two directly and the third by virtue of its setting.
Two paragraphs. The first has no new sources in it; everything cited has already appeared. The second states gaps in descending order of importance and says, in one clause, which of them your study actually closes. A gap statement that claims to close all three is less credible than one that closes two and says so.
Six faults that get Chapter Two returned
- Definitions with no adoption. Five definitions of a term and no sentence saying which one the study uses. Add the adoption sentence and the operational consequence.
- A theory that never returns. Named in 2.2 and absent from Chapters Three to Five. Either use it or replace it with one you will use.
- Chronological listing. Studies in date order with no organising argument. Reorganise by what the studies disagree about.
- No “however” sentences. Every study reported approvingly, so no gap can emerge. Each study needs the sentence saying what its design cannot settle.
- “No research has been done on this topic.” Almost never true, and it invites the panel to name one. Say what has not been done in combination, or in your setting, or with your measure.
- Citations that cannot be opened. Every reference must be one you have read. Never let a chatbot supply them; fabricated references are common and are checked. Our guide to reporting verbs before you let AI near a literature review covers where the damage actually happens.
What to do next
Take one concept, write the conceptual passage in full using the moves above, and show it to your supervisor before you write the other two. Getting the shape approved once is faster than writing thirty pages and rebuilding them. Then check that the gap you stated matches the one in your statement of the problem and that your objectives address it. If your supervisor has already returned the chapter, what supervisor corrections on Chapter Two usually mean decodes the marginal notes.
Chapter Two is long, repetitive and citation-dense, which is exactly the combination that eats a semester. Tesify holds your structure and your sources together while you write, keeps each citation attached to the sentence that needs it, and builds the reference list as you go — 100% written by you, alongside 9,000+ students and 15,000+ chapters.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between conceptual and empirical review?
The conceptual review is about meaning: which definition of each key term the study adopts, and why. The empirical review is about findings: what other researchers measured, in what setting, and what their designs leave unsettled. The same source can appear in both, doing a different job each time.
Do I need both a theoretical and a conceptual framework?
Ask your department. Many Nigerian departments ask for a theoretical framework only; some ask for a conceptual framework diagram in addition, showing your variables and the arrows between them. Where both are required, the theory explains why the arrows exist and the diagram shows which ones you will test.
How many theories should I use?
One, anchored properly, beats three named in passing. Use a second only if it explains a part of your model the first cannot, and say explicitly which part each theory covers.
How long should Chapter Two be?
Longer than Chapter One and usually the longest chapter apart from Chapter Four. Your department’s guideline governs; the quality test is whether every section makes a move rather than a summary.
How recent must empirical studies be?
Recent enough that a panel does not ask what has changed. A common working rule is that the bulk of empirical sources fall within the last ten years, with older work included where it is foundational. Theory has no such limit.
Can I cite other students’ projects?
Sparingly, and only where you have read the project itself. An unpublished project is weaker evidence than a peer-reviewed article and should not carry a central claim. Cite it as an unpublished project with its department and institution.
What if my topic has almost no Nigerian studies?
That is usually the gap, not a problem. Review the international work on the same relationship, then state precisely what does not transfer to the Nigerian setting and why. Saying “no Nigerian study exists” without showing what you searched is the version panels attack.
Should the gap statement repeat citations?
It should cite only sources already reviewed in the chapter. A new source appearing for the first time in the summary means the review itself was incomplete.
Can I write Chapter Two before Chapter Three?
Yes, and you normally should, because the gap you establish determines the design you choose. What you must not do is finish Chapter Two and then design a study that answers a different question.
How many sources does Chapter Two need?
Your department may state a number; where it does not, the test is coverage rather than count. Every concept in your title reviewed, one theory anchored, and enough empirical studies that the disagreement you organise around is visible — that is usually twenty-five to forty sources for an undergraduate project.