Practice vocabulary for writing literature reviews: 'previous work shows', 'in contrast to', citing sources, synthesising prior research, and positioning your contribution.
0 / 10 completed
1 / 10
'_____ work shows that transformer models outperform RNNs on long-range dependencies.' Which phrase correctly introduces a finding from prior research in a literature review?
'Previous work shows' is the standard phrase for attributing a finding to prior research without naming a specific author. It signals you are synthesising the field rather than quoting one paper. Variants: 'Prior work demonstrates', 'Earlier studies establish', 'Existing research confirms'.
2 / 10
'In _____ to Smith et al. (2021), who report 92% accuracy, our method achieves 95%.' Which phrase signals a contrast between your result and prior work?
'In contrast to' signals a direct opposition or difference — your result differs meaningfully from the cited work. 'In addition to' would mean you are building on it, not contradicting it. 'In comparison to' is also acceptable but slightly weaker than 'in contrast to' for emphasising a difference.
3 / 10
'Several studies have investigated caching strategies [3], [7], [12].' In this IEEE-style citation, what do the numbers in brackets represent?
IEEE style uses numbered references in square brackets that map to a numbered bibliography list. This differs from APA style, which uses author-date in-text citations (Smith, 2021). In a literature review, grouping citations [3], [7], [12] after a claim means all three sources support that claim.
4 / 10
'While X et al. propose a gradient-based solution, _____ approaches such as greedy search remain dominant in practice.' Which word best fills the blank to contrast two types of solutions?
'Alternative approaches' signals that the second type is a different strategy to the same problem — not similar, but a competing option. Literature reviews frequently contrast 'gradient-based vs. heuristic', 'supervised vs. unsupervised', or 'centralised vs. distributed' approaches using this framing.
5 / 10
'To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has examined real-time inference latency under edge-device constraints.' What does this phrase accomplish in a literature review?
'To the best of our knowledge' is a standard novelty hedge — it asserts the authors believe the gap is real while acknowledging they cannot guarantee exhaustive coverage of all prior work. It is expected in literature reviews when claiming a gap. Without this hedge, a claim of absolute novelty could be a factual error if an obscure prior paper exists.
6 / 10
During a code review of Alex's PR for the new authentication service, Sarah comments: 'This section seems to be handling user session management based on your research in [Johnson & Lee, 2022]. Could you elaborate on how this aligns with their proposed key exchange algorithm?' Which phrasing best reflects a constructive question seeking clarification within a technical literature review context?
This question tests understanding of *how* to appropriately engage with cited literature. The correct option demonstrates a focused request for explanation linking the code back to a specific research paper – crucial for demonstrating comprehension and identifying potential gaps in implementation. Options A & B are overly dismissive or simply ask for a citation, while Option C is too vague.
7 / 10
You're drafting the description for a pull request introducing a new caching layer in your API. You want to clearly position this work relative to existing literature. Which sentence is MOST effective?
The best option highlights the *relationship* between your work and prior research – demonstrating how it builds upon existing knowledge. Using phrases like 'improves' or simply stating something 'similar' doesn't sufficiently contextualize the contribution. Option A is too terse, while B offers a more nuanced description of the connection.
8 / 10
During a standup meeting, David says: 'I've been reviewing recent papers on distributed consensus algorithms [1], [5], [9]. It seems that Byzantine Fault Tolerance remains a significant challenge in highly distributed systems.' Which of the following best captures David's summary of his literature review findings?
This question assesses the ability to distill complex research findings into a concise statement. The correct option directly states the core challenge identified in the literature – reflecting a focused summary rather than simply listing the sources or offering vague observations. Options A & C are too informal; Option D is an admission of lack of understanding.
9 / 10
You're writing a Slack message to your team regarding the use of a new deep learning framework for image recognition. You want to acknowledge existing work but also highlight the novel aspects of your approach. Which sentence is most appropriate?
This tests the ability to frame work in terms of building upon previous research. The correct option acknowledges prior work (Hinton et al.) while clearly articulating the *novel contribution*—the optimization for a specific dataset. Options A & B are too simplistic; Option D is irrelevant and unfocused.
10 / 10
In your literature review of reinforcement learning algorithms, you note that 'many researchers have explored the use of reward shaping to accelerate learning [Smith, 2018]'. What does this phrase primarily accomplish within a technical literature review?
This question tests understanding of *function* within a literature review. Phrases like this often summarize established techniques or approaches – highlighting what others have done rather than diving into the specifics of a single study. Option A would require an explanation; Option C focuses on details, and Option D makes an unsupported claim.
What will I practice in "Writing Literature Reviews in Technical English"?
This is a Research English exercise set. It walks through 10 scenario-based multiple-choice questions built around real usage of research english terminology that IT professionals encounter on the job.
Is this exercise free to use?
Yes. Every exercise on CoderSlingo, including this one, is free to complete with no account, sign-up, or paywall.
How many questions are in this exercise?
This set contains 10 questions. Each one shows immediate feedback and a detailed explanation after you answer, so you learn the correct usage right away rather than waiting for a final score.
Do I need prior experience to complete this exercise?
No prior experience is required. Each question includes a full explanation covering the reasoning behind the correct answer, so the exercise itself teaches the research english vocabulary as you go.
Can I retry the exercise if I get questions wrong?
Yes — use the "Try again" button on the results screen to reset your answers and go through all the questions again. There is no limit on attempts.
Is my progress saved?
Your answers and score for the current session are tracked in the browser as you go. No account or login is needed, and there is nothing to install.
What if I don't understand a term used in a question?
Read the explanation shown after you answer each question — it breaks down the correct term in plain English with a real-world example. You can also check the site Glossary for quick definitions.
How is this different from reading a blog article on the topic?
Exercises like this one are interactive drills that test and reinforce specific vocabulary through multiple-choice questions, while blog articles explain concepts in prose. Practising here after reading builds active recall, not just passive recognition.
Where can I find more Research English exercises?
See the Research English exercises hub for the full set of related pages, or browse all exercise categories from the main Exercises index.
Can I use this exercise to prepare for a technical interview?
Yes — research english vocabulary comes up often in technical discussions and interviews. Pair this exercise with our dedicated Interview Preparation section for role-specific practice.