A literature review that summarizes each source in turn and never states what the sources collectively leave unanswered reads as an annotated bibliography. Committees notice, and the comment that follows is usually some version of "so what?"
The structure is the problem. Organizing by author, or by year, makes the review a sequence of reports. Organizing by question or construct makes it an argument, because each section has to say what the studies together establish, where they disagree, and what remains unknown.
To restructure an existing review: (1) list your constructs or sub-questions; (2) move every source under the construct it informs most; (3) write a topic sentence for each section that states the claim the sources support; and (4) end each section with a sentence on what remains unknown. Sources that fit nowhere may belong in a footnote or not at all.
The closing sentence of each section does the most work. It names the gap, and the gap is what your study is built to address. If the last paragraph of the review does not connect to your research question, a reader cannot see why the study needs to exist.
Two cautions apply. A review organized by construct can hide how old or how narrow the underlying evidence is, so keep the year, sample, and design visible in the sentences that carry the claim. And a gap should be an unanswered question, not merely a topic no one has studied; an absence of research is weak justification unless there is reason to expect the topic matters.
Cite peer-reviewed studies and, for theory, dissertations and theses in your area, rather than letting one prominent source carry a whole section.
This is practitioner guidance drawn from coaching, not a research finding.
I coach Ed.D. and Ph.D. students in education through the dissertation. Details and pricing: cevallos.org/dissertation-thesis-coaching