what is a review in education

On The Site

Harvard educational review.

Edited by Maya Alkateb-Chami, Jane Choi, Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith, Ron Grady, Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson, Pennie M. Gregory, Jennifer Ha, Woohee Kim, Catherine E. Pitcher, Elizabeth Salinas, Caroline Tucker, Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah

Individuals

Institutions.

• Read the journal here

Journal Information

• ISSN: 0017-8055
• eISSN: 1943-5045
• Keywords: scholarly journal, education research
• First Issue: 1930
• Frequency: Quarterly

Description

The Harvard Educational Review (HER) is a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. The Editorial Board aims to publish pieces from interdisciplinary and wide-ranging fields that advance our understanding of educational theory, equity, and practice. HER encourages submissions from established and emerging scholars, as well as from practitioners working in the field of education. Since its founding in 1930, HER has been central to elevating pieces and debates that tackle various dimensions of educational justice, with circulation to researchers, policymakers, teachers, and administrators.

Our Editorial Board is composed entirely of doctoral students from the Harvard Graduate School of Education who review all manuscripts considered for publication. For more information on the current Editorial Board, please see here.

A subscription to the Review includes access to the full-text electronic archives at our Subscribers-Only-Website .

Editorial Board

2023-2024 Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board Members

Maya Alkateb-Chami Development and Partnerships Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Maya Alkateb-Chami is a PhD student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the role of schooling in fostering just futures—specifically in relation to language of instruction policies in multilingual contexts and with a focus on epistemic injustice. Prior to starting doctoral studies, she was the Managing Director of Columbia University’s Human Rights Institute, where she supported and co-led a team of lawyers working to advance human rights through research, education, and advocacy. Prior to that, she was the Executive Director of Jusoor, a nonprofit organization that helps conflict-affected Syrian youth and children pursue their education in four countries. Alkateb-Chami is a Fulbright Scholar and UNESCO cultural heritage expert. She holds an MEd in Language and Literacy from Harvard University; an MSc in Education from Indiana University, Bloomington; and a BA in Political Science from Damascus University, and her research on arts-based youth empowerment won the annual Master’s Thesis Award of the U.S. Society for Education Through Art.

Jane Choi Editor, 2023-2025

Jane Choi is a second-year PhD student in Sociology with broad interests in culture, education, and inequality. Her research examines intra-racial and interracial boundaries in US educational contexts. She has researched legacy and first-generation students at Ivy League colleges, families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and parents of pre-K and kindergarten-age children in the New York City School District. Previously, Jane worked as a Research Assistant in the Family Well-Being and Children’s Development policy area at MDRC and received a BA in Sociology from Columbia University.

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith Content Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith is a fourth-year Education PhD student in the Human Development, Learning and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. A former public middle and high school mathematics teacher and department chair, she is interested in understanding the mechanisms that contribute to disparities in secondary mathematics education, particularly how teacher beliefs and biases intersect with the social-psychological processes and pedagogical choices involved in math teaching. Jeannette holds an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education where she studied as an Urban Scholar and a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.

Ron Grady Editor, 2023-2025

Ron Grady is a second-year doctoral student in the Human Development, Learning, and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His central curiosities involve the social worlds and peer cultures of young children, wondering how lived experience is both constructed within and revealed throughout play, the creation of art and narrative, and through interaction with/production of visual artifacts such as photography and film. Ron also works extensively with educators interested in developing and deepening practices rooted in reflection on, inquiry into, and translation of the social, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of their classroom ecosystems. Prior to his doctoral studies, Ron worked as a preschool teacher in New Orleans. He holds a MS in Early Childhood Education from the Erikson Institute and a BA in Psychology with Honors in Education from Stanford University.

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson Editor, 2023-2024

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson is a first year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership(EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her ultimate quest is to position all students as drivers of their destiny. Phoebe is passionate about early learning and literacy. She is committed to ensuring that districts and school leaders, have the necessary tools to create equitable learning organizations that facilitate the academic and social well-being of all students. Phoebe is particularly interested in the intersection of homeless students and literacy. Prior to her doctoral studies, Phoebe was a Special Education Instructional Specialist. Supporting a portfolio of more than thirty schools, she facilitated the rollout of New York City’s Special Education Reform. Phoebe also served as an elementary school principal. She holds a BS in Inclusive Education from Syracuse University, and an MS in Curriculum and Instruction from Pace University.

Pennie M. Gregory Editor, 2023-2024

Pennie M. Gregory is a second-year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership (EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Pennie was born in Incheon, South Korea and raised in Gary, Indiana. She has decades of experience leading efforts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities first as a special education teacher and then as a school district special education administrator. Prior to her doctoral studies, Pennie helped to create Indiana’s first Aspiring Special Education Leadership Institute (ASELI) and served as its Director. She was also the Capacity Events Director for MelanatED Leaders, an organization created to support educational leaders of color in Indianapolis. Pennie has a unique perspective, having worked with members of the school community, with advocacy organizations, and supporting state special education leaders. Pennie holds an EdM in Education Leadership from Marian University.

Jennifer Ha Editor, 2023-2025

Jen Ha is a second-year PhD student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research explores how high school students learn to write personal narratives for school applications, scholarships, and professional opportunities amidst changing landscapes in college access and admissions. Prior to doctoral studies, Jen served as the Coordinator of Public Humanities at Bard Graduate Center and worked in several roles organizing academic enrichment opportunities and supporting postsecondary planning for students in New Haven and New York City. Jen holds a BA in Humanities from Yale University, where she was an Education Studies Scholar.

Woohee Kim Editor, 2023-2025

Woohee Kim is a PhD student studying youth activists’ civic and pedagogical practices. She is a scholar-activist dedicated to creating spaces for pedagogies of resistance and transformative possibilities. Shaped by her activism and research across South Korea, the US, and the UK, Woohee seeks to interrogate how educational spaces are shaped as cultural and political sites and reshaped by activists as sites of struggle. She hopes to continue exploring the intersections of education, knowledge, power, and resistance.

Catherine E. Pitcher Editor, 2023-2025

Catherine is a second-year doctoral student at Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Culture, Institutions, and Society program. She has over 10 years of experience in education in the US in roles that range from special education teacher to instructional coach to department head to educational game designer. She started working in Palestine in 2017, first teaching, and then designing and implementing educational programming. Currently, she is working on research to understand how Palestinian youth think about and build their futures and continues to lead programming in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. She holds an EdM from Harvard in International Education Policy.

Elizabeth Salinas Editor, 2023-2025

Elizabeth Salinas is a doctoral student in the Education Policy and Program Evaluation concentration at HGSE. She is interested in the intersection of higher education and the social safety net and hopes to examine policies that address basic needs insecurity among college students. Before her doctoral studies, Liz was a research director at a public policy consulting firm. There, she supported government, education, and philanthropy leaders by conducting and translating research into clear and actionable information. Previously, Liz served as a high school physics teacher in her hometown in Texas and as a STEM outreach program director at her alma mater. She currently sits on the Board of Directors at Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America, a nonprofit organization working to diversify the leadership pipeline in the United States. Liz holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in higher education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Caroline Tucker Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Caroline Tucker is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the history and organizational dynamics of women’s colleges as women gained entry into the professions and coeducation took root in the United States. She is also a research assistant for the Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Initiative’s Subcommittee on Curriculum and the editorial assistant for Into Practice, the pedagogy newsletter distributed by Harvard University’s Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning. Prior to her doctoral studies, Caroline served as an American politics and English teaching fellow in London and worked in college advising. Caroline holds a BA in History from Princeton University, an MA in the Social Sciences from the University of Chicago, and an EdM in Higher Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah (Kickapoo, Sac & Fox) is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Their research explores how settler colonialism is addressed in K-12 history and social studies classrooms in the United States. Prior to their doctoral studies, Kemeyawi taught middle and high school English and history for eleven years in Boston and New York City. They hold an MS in Middle Childhood Education from Hunter College and an AB in Social Studies from Harvard University.

Submission Information

Click here to view submission guidelines .

Contact Information

Click here to view contact information for the editorial board and customer service .

Subscriber Support

Individual subscriptions must have an individual name in the given address for shipment. Individual copies are not for multiple readers or libraries. Individual accounts come with a personal username and password for access to online archives. Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail.

Institutional rates apply to libraries and organizations with multiple readers. Institutions receive digital access to content on Meridian from IP addresses via theIPregistry.org (by sending HER your PSI Org ID).

Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail. If you have questions about using theIPregistry.org you may find the answers in their FAQs. Otherwise please let us know at [email protected] .

How to Subscribe

To order online via credit card, please use the subscribe button at the top of this page.

To order by phone, please call 888-437-1437.

Checks can be mailed to Harvard Educational Review C/O Fulco, 30 Broad Street, Suite 6, Denville, NJ 07834. (Please include reference to your subscriber number if you are renewing. Institutions must include their PSI Org ID or follow up with this information via email to [email protected] .)

Permissions

Click here to view permissions information.

Article Submission FAQ

Submissions, question: “what manuscripts are a good fit for her ”.

Answer: As a generalist scholarly journal, HER publishes on a wide range of topics within the field of education and related disciplines. We receive many articles that deserve publication, but due to the restrictions of print publication, we are only able to publish very few in the journal. The originality and import of the findings, as well as the accessibility of a piece to HER’s interdisciplinary, international audience which includes education practitioners, are key criteria in determining if an article will be selected for publication.

We strongly recommend that prospective authors review the current and past issues of HER to see the types of articles we have published recently. If you are unsure whether your manuscript is a good fit, please reach out to the Content Editor at [email protected] .

Question: “What makes HER a developmental journal?”

Answer: Supporting the development of high-quality education research is a key tenet of HER’s mission. HER promotes this development through offering comprehensive feedback to authors. All manuscripts that pass the first stage of our review process (see below) receive detailed feedback. For accepted manuscripts, HER also has a unique feedback process called casting whereby two editors carefully read a manuscript and offer overarching suggestions to strengthen and clarify the argument.

Question: “What is a Voices piece and how does it differ from an essay?”

Answer: Voices pieces are first-person reflections about an education-related topic rather than empirical or theoretical essays. Our strongest pieces have often come from educators and policy makers who draw on their personal experiences in the education field. Although they may not present data or generate theory, Voices pieces should still advance a cogent argument, drawing on appropriate literature to support any claims asserted. For examples of Voices pieces, please see Alvarez et al. (2021) and Snow (2021).

Question: “Does HER accept Book Note or book review submissions?”

Answer: No, all Book Notes are written internally by members of the Editorial Board.

Question: “If I want to submit a book for review consideration, who do I contact?”

Answer: Please send details about your book to the Content Editor at [email protected].

Manuscript Formatting

Question: “the submission guidelines state that manuscripts should be a maximum of 9,000 words – including abstract, appendices, and references. is this applicable only for research articles, or should the word count limit be followed for other manuscripts, such as essays”.

Answer: The 9,000-word limit is the same for all categories of manuscripts.

Question: “We are trying to figure out the best way to mask our names in the references. Is it OK if we do not cite any of our references in the reference list? Our names have been removed in the in-text citations. We just cite Author (date).”

Answer: Any references that identify the author/s in the text must be masked or made anonymous (e.g., instead of citing “Field & Bloom, 2007,” cite “Author/s, 2007”). For the reference list, place the citations alphabetically as “Author/s. (2007)” You can also indicate that details are omitted for blind review. Articles can also be blinded effectively by use of the third person in the manuscript. For example, rather than “in an earlier article, we showed that” substitute something like “as has been shown in Field & Bloom, 2007.” In this case, there is no need to mask the reference in the list. Please do not submit a title page as part of your manuscript. We will capture the contact information and any author statement about the fit and scope of the work in the submission form. Finally, please save the uploaded manuscript as the title of the manuscript and do not include the author/s name/s.

Invitations

Question: “can i be invited to submit a manuscript how”.

Answer: If you think your manuscript is a strong fit for HER, we welcome a request for invitation. Invited manuscripts receive one round of feedback from Editors before the piece enters the formal review process. To submit information about your manuscript, please complete the Invitation Request Form . Please provide as many details as possible. The decision to invite a manuscript largely depends on the capacity of current Board members and on how closely the proposed manuscript reflects HER publication scope and criteria. Once you submit the form, We hope to update you in about 2–3 weeks, and will let you know whether there are Editors who are available to invite the manuscript.

Review Timeline

Question: “who reviews manuscripts”.

Answer: All manuscripts are reviewed by the Editorial Board composed of doctoral students at Harvard University.

Question: “What is the HER evaluation process as a student-run journal?”

Answer: HER does not utilize the traditional external peer review process and instead has an internal, two-stage review procedure.

Upon submission, every manuscript receives a preliminary assessment by the Content Editor to confirm that the formatting requirements have been carefully followed in preparation of the manuscript, and that the manuscript is in accord with the scope and aim of the journal. The manuscript then formally enters the review process.

In the first stage of review, all manuscripts are read by a minimum of two Editorial Board members. During the second stage of review, manuscripts are read by the full Editorial Board at a weekly meeting.

Question: “How long after submission can I expect a decision on my manuscript?”

Answer: It usually takes 6 to 10 weeks for a manuscript to complete the first stage of review and an additional 12 weeks for a manuscript to complete the second stage. Due to time constraints and the large volume of manuscripts received, HER only provides detailed comments on manuscripts that complete the second stage of review.

Question: “How soon are accepted pieces published?”

Answer: The date of publication depends entirely on how many manuscripts are already in the queue for an issue. Typically, however, it takes about 6 months post-acceptance for a piece to be published.

Submission Process

Question: “how do i submit a manuscript for publication in her”.

Answer: Manuscripts are submitted through HER’s Submittable platform, accessible here. All first-time submitters must create an account to access the platform. You can find details on our submission guidelines on our Submissions page.

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

• Open Access
• First Online: 22 November 2019

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Mark Newman 6 &
• David Gough 6  

88k Accesses

152 Citations

2 Altmetric

This chapter explores the processes of reviewing literature as a research method. The logic of the family of research approaches called systematic review is analysed and the variation in techniques used in the different approaches explored using examples from existing reviews. The key distinctions between aggregative and configurative approaches are illustrated and the chapter signposts further reading on key issues in the systematic review process.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

The Role of Meta-analysis in Educational Research

1 what are systematic reviews.

A literature review is a scholarly paper which provides an overview of current knowledge about a topic. It will typically include substantive findings, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic (Hart 2018 , p. xiii). Traditionally in education ‘reviewing the literature’ and ‘doing research’ have been viewed as distinct activities. Consider the standard format of research proposals, which usually have some kind of ‘review’ of existing knowledge presented distinctly from the methods of the proposed new primary research. However, both reviews and research are undertaken in order to find things out. Reviews to find out what is already known from pre-existing research about a phenomena, subject or topic; new primary research to provide answers to questions about which existing research does not provide clear and/or complete answers.

When we use the term research in an academic sense it is widely accepted that we mean a process of asking questions and generating knowledge to answer these questions using rigorous accountable methods. As we have noted, reviews also share the same purposes of generating knowledge but historically we have not paid as much attention to the methods used for reviewing existing literature as we have to the methods used for primary research. Literature reviews can be used for making claims about what we know and do not know about a phenomenon and also about what new research we need to undertake to address questions that are unanswered. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that ‘how’ we conduct a review of research is important.

The increased focus on the use of research evidence to inform policy and practice decision-making in Evidence Informed Education (Hargreaves 1996 ; Nelson and Campbell 2017 ) has increased the attention given to contextual and methodological limitations of research evidence provided by single studies. Reviews of research may help address these concerns when carried on in a systematic, rigorous and transparent manner. Thus, again emphasizing the importance of ‘how’ reviews are completed.

The logic of systematic reviews is that reviews are a form of research and thus can be improved by using appropriate and explicit methods. As the methods of systematic review have been applied to different types of research questions, there has been an increasing plurality of types of systematic review. Thus, the term ‘systematic review’ is used in this chapter to refer to a family of research approaches that are a form of secondary level analysis (secondary research) that brings together the findings of primary research to answer a research question. Systematic reviews can therefore be defined as “a review of existing research using explicit, accountable rigorous research methods” (Gough et al. 2017 , p. 4).

2 Variation in Review Methods

Reviews can address a diverse range of research questions. Consequently, as with primary research, there are many different approaches and methods that can be applied. The choices should be dictated by the review questions. These are shaped by reviewers’ assumptions about the meaning of a particular research question, the approach and methods that are best used to investigate it. Attempts to classify review approaches and methods risk making hard distinctions between methods and thereby to distract from the common defining logics that these approaches often share. A useful broad distinction is between reviews that follow a broadly configurative synthesis logic and reviews that follow a broadly aggregative synthesis logic (Sandelowski et al. 2012 ). However, it is important to keep in mind that most reviews have elements of both (Gough et al. 2012 ).

Reviews that follow a broadly configurative synthesis logic approach usually investigate research questions about meaning and interpretation to explore and develop theory. They tend to use exploratory and iterative review methods that emerge throughout the process of the review. Studies included in the review are likely to have investigated the phenomena of interest using methods such as interviews and observations, with data in the form of text. Reviewers are usually interested in purposive variety in the identification and selection of studies. Study quality is typically considered in terms of authenticity. Synthesis consists of the deliberative configuring of data by reviewers into patterns to create a richer conceptual understanding of a phenomenon. For example, meta ethnography (Noblit and Hare 1988 ) uses ethnographic data analysis methods to explore and integrate the findings of previous ethnographies in order to create higher-level conceptual explanations of phenomena. There are many other review approaches that follow a broadly configurative logic (for an overview see Barnett-Page and Thomas 2009 ); reflecting the variety of methods used in primary research in this tradition.

Reviews that follow a broadly aggregative synthesis logic usually investigate research questions about impacts and effects. For example, systematic reviews that seek to measure the impact of an educational intervention test the hypothesis that an intervention has the impact that has been predicted. Reviews following an aggregative synthesis logic do not tend to develop theory directly; though they can contribute by testing, exploring and refining theory. Reviews following an aggregative synthesis logic tend to specify their methods in advance (a priori) and then apply them without any deviation from a protocol. Reviewers are usually concerned to identify the comprehensive set of studies that address the research question. Studies included in the review will usually seek to determine whether there is a quantitative difference in outcome between groups receiving and not receiving an intervention. Study quality assessment in reviews following an aggregative synthesis logic focusses on the minimisation of bias and thus selection pays particular attention to homogeneity between studies. Synthesis aggregates, i.e. counts and adds together, the outcomes from individual studies using, for example, statistical meta-analysis to provide a pooled summary of effect.

3 The Systematic Review Process

Different types of systematic review are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. The majority of systematic review types share a common set of processes. These processes can be divided into distinct but interconnected stages as illustrated in Fig.  1 . Systematic reviews need to specify a research question and the methods that will be used to investigate the question. This is often written as a ‘protocol’ prior to undertaking the review. Writing a protocol or plan of the methods at the beginning of a review can be a very useful activity. It helps the review team to gain a shared understanding of the scope of the review and the methods that they will use to answer the review’s questions. Different types of systematic reviews will have more or less developed protocols. For example, for systematic reviews investigating research questions about the impact of educational interventions it is argued that a detailed protocol should be fully specified prior to the commencement of the review to reduce the possibility of reviewer bias (Torgerson 2003 , p. 26). For other types of systematic review, in which the research question is more exploratory, the protocol may be more flexible and/or developmental in nature.

The systematic review process

3.1 Systematic Review Questions and the Conceptual Framework

The review question gives each review its particular structure and drives key decisions about what types of studies to include; where to look for them; how to assess their quality; and how to combine their findings. Although a research question may appear to be simple, it will include many assumptions. Whether implicit or explicit, these assumptions will include: epistemological frameworks about knowledge and how we obtain it, theoretical frameworks, whether tentative or firm, about the phenomenon that is the focus of study.

Taken together, these produce a conceptual framework that shapes the research questions, choices about appropriate systematic review approach and methods. The conceptual framework may be viewed as a working hypothesis that can be developed, refined or confirmed during the course of the research. Its purpose is to explain the key issues to be studied, the constructs or variables, and the presumed relationships between them. The framework is a research tool intended to assist a researcher to develop awareness and understanding of the phenomena under scrutiny and to communicate this (Smyth 2004 ).

A review to investigate the impact of an educational intervention will have a conceptual framework that includes a hypothesis about a causal link between; who the review is about (the people), what the review is about (an intervention and what it is being compared with), and the possible consequences of intervention on the educational outcomes of these people. Such a review would follow a broadly aggregative synthesis logic. This is the shape of reviews of educational interventions carried out for the What Works Clearing House in the USA Footnote 1 and the Education Endowment Foundation in England. Footnote 2

A review to investigate meaning or understanding of a phenomenon for the purpose of building or further developing theory will still have some prior assumptions. Thus, an initial conceptual framework will contain theoretical ideas about how the phenomena of interest can be understood and some ideas justifying why a particular population and/or context is of specific interest or relevance. Such a review is likely to follow a broadly configurative logic.

3.2 Selection Criteria

Reviewers have to make decisions about which research studies to include in their review. In order to do this systematically and transparently they develop rules about which studies can be selected into the review. Selection criteria (sometimes referred to as inclusion or exclusion criteria) create restrictions on the review. All reviews, whether systematic or not, limit in some way the studies that are considered by the review. Systematic reviews simply make these restrictions transparent and therefore consistent across studies. These selection criteria are shaped by the review question and conceptual framework. For example, a review question about the impact of homework on educational attainment would have selection criteria specifying who had to do the homework; the characteristics of the homework and the outcomes that needed to be measured. Other commonly used selection criteria include study participant characteristics; the country where the study has taken place and the language in which the study is reported. The type of research method(s) may also be used as a selection criterion but this can be controversial given the lack of consensus in education research (Newman 2008 ), and the inconsistent terminology used to describe education research methods.

3.3 Developing the Search Strategy

The search strategy is the plan for how relevant research studies will be identified. The review question and conceptual framework shape the selection criteria. The selection criteria specify the studies to be included in a review and thus are a key driver of the search strategy. A key consideration will be whether the search aims to be exhaustive i.e. aims to try and find all the primary research that has addressed the review question. Where reviews address questions about effectiveness or impact of educational interventions the issue of publication bias is a concern. Publication bias is the phenomena whereby smaller and/or studies with negative findings are less likely to be published and/or be harder to find. We may therefore inadvertently overestimate the positive effects of an educational intervention because we do not find studies with negative or smaller effects (Chow and Eckholm 2018 ). Where the review question is not of this type then a more specific or purposive search strategy, that may or may not evolve as the review progresses, may be appropriate. This is similar to sampling approaches in primary research. In primary research studies using aggregative approaches, such as quasi-experiments, analysis is based on the study of complete or representative samples. In primary research studies using configurative approaches, such as ethnography, analysis is based on examining a range of instances of the phenomena in similar or different contexts.

The search strategy will detail the sources to be searched and the way in which the sources will be searched. A list of search source types is given in Box 1 below. An exhaustive search strategy would usually include all of these sources using multiple bibliographic databases. Bibliographic databases usually index academic journals and thus are an important potential source. However, in most fields, including education, relevant research is published in a range of journals which may be indexed in different bibliographic databases and thus it may be important to search multiple bibliographic databases. Furthermore, some research is published in books and an increasing amount of research is not published in academic journals or at least may not be published there first. Thus, it is important to also consider how you will find relevant research in other sources including ‘unpublished’ or ‘grey’ literature. The Internet is a valuable resource for this purpose and should be included as a source in any search strategy.

Box 1: Search Sources

The World Wide Web/Internet

Google, Specialist Websites, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic

Bibliographic Databases

Subject specific e.g. Education—ERIC: Education Resources Information Centre

Generic e.g. ASSIA: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts

Handsearching of specialist journals or books

Contacts with Experts

Citation Checking

New, federated search engines are being developed, which search multiple sources at the same time, eliminating duplicates automatically (Tsafnat et al. 2013 ). Technologies, including text mining, are being used to help develop search strategies, by suggesting topics and terms on which to search—terms that reviewers may not have thought of using. Searching is also being aided by technology through the increased use (and automation) of ‘citation chasing’, where papers that cite, or are cited by, a relevant study are checked in case they too are relevant.

A search strategy will identify the search terms that will be used to search the bibliographic databases. Bibliographic databases usually index records according to their topic using ‘keywords’ or ‘controlled terms’ (categories used by the database to classify papers). A comprehensive search strategy usually involves searching both a freetext search using keywords determined by the reviewers and controlled terms. An example of a bibliographic database search is given in Box 2. This search was used in a review that aimed to find studies that investigated the impact of Youth Work on positive youth outcomes (Dickson et al. 2013 ). The search is built using terms for the population of interest (Youth), the intervention of interest (Youth Work) and the outcomes of Interest (Positive Development). It used both keywords and controlled terms, ‘wildcards’ (the *sign in this database) and the Boolean operators ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ to combine terms. This example illustrates the potential complexity of bibliographic database search strings, which will usually require a process of iterative development to finalise.

Box 2: Search string example To identify studies that address the question What is the empirical research evidence on the impact of youth work on the lives of children and young people aged 10-24 years?: CSA ERIC Database

((TI = (adolescen* or (“young man*”) or (“young men”)) or TI = ((“young woman*”) or (“young women”) or (Young adult*”)) or TI = ((“young person*”) or (“young people*”) or teen*) or AB = (adolescen* or (“young man*”) or (“young men”)) or AB = ((“young woman*”) or (“young women”) or (Young adult*”)) or AB = ((“young person*”) or (“young people*”) or teen*)) or (DE = (“youth” or “adolescents” or “early adolescents” or “late adolescents” or “preadolescents”))) and(((TI = ((“positive youth development “) or (“youth development”) or (“youth program*”)) or TI = ((“youth club*”) or (“youth work”) or (“youth opportunit*”)) or TI = ((“extended school*”) or (“civic engagement”) or (“positive peer culture”)) or TI = ((“informal learning”) or multicomponent or (“multi-component “)) or TI = ((“multi component”) or multidimensional or (“multi-dimensional “)) or TI = ((“multi dimensional”) or empower* or asset*) or TI = (thriv* or (“positive development”) or resilienc*) or TI = ((“positive activity”) or (“positive activities”) or experiential) or TI = ((“community based”) or “community-based”)) or(AB = ((“positive youth development “) or (“youth development”) or (“youth program*”)) or AB = ((“youth club*”) or (“youth work”) or (“youth opportunit*”)) or AB = ((“extended school*”) or (“civic engagement”) or (“positive peer culture”)) or AB = ((“informal learning”) or multicomponent or (“multi-component “)) or AB = ((“multi component”) or multidimensional or (“multi-dimensional “)) or AB = ((“multi dimensional”) or empower* or asset*) or AB = (thriv* or (“positive development”) or resilienc*) or AB = ((“positive activity”) or (“positive activities”) or experiential) or AB = ((“community based”) or “community-based”))) or (DE=”community education”))

Detailed guidance for finding effectiveness studies is available from the Campbell Collaboration (Kugley et al. 2015 ). Guidance for finding a broader range of studies has been produced by the EPPI-Centre (Brunton et al. 2017a ).

3.4 The Study Selection Process

Studies identified by the search are subject to a process of checking (sometimes referred to as screening) to ensure they meet the selection criteria. This is usually done in two stages whereby titles and abstracts are checked first to determine whether the study is likely to be relevant and then a full copy of the paper is acquired to complete the screening exercise. The process of finding studies is not efficient. Searching bibliographic databases, for example, leads to many irrelevant studies being found which then have to be checked manually one by one to find the few relevant studies. There is increasing use of specialised software to support and in some cases, automate the selection process. Text mining, for example, can assist in selecting studies for a review (Brunton et al. 2017b ). A typical text mining or machine learning process might involve humans undertaking some screening, the results of which are used to train the computer software to learn the difference between included and excluded studies and thus be able to indicate which of the remaining studies are more likely to be relevant. Such automated support may result in some errors in selection, but this may be less than the human error in manual selection (O’Mara-Eves et al. 2015 ).

3.5 Coding Studies

Once relevant studies have been selected, reviewers need to systematically identify and record the information from the study that will be used to answer the review question. This information includes the characteristics of the studies, including details of the participants and contexts. The coding describes: (i) details of the studies to enable mapping of what research has been undertaken; (ii) how the research was undertaken to allow assessment of the quality and relevance of the studies in addressing the review question; (iii) the results of each study so that these can be synthesised to answer the review question.

The information is usually coded into a data collection system using some kind of technology that facilitates information storage and analysis (Brunton et al. 2017b ) such as the EPPI-Centre’s bespoke systematic review software EPPI Reviewer. Footnote 3 Decisions about which information to record will be made by the review team based on the review question and conceptual framework. For example, a systematic review about the relationship between school size and student outcomes collected data from the primary studies about each schools funding, students, teachers and school organisational structure as well as about the research methods used in the study (Newman et al. 2006 ). The information coded about the methods used in the research will vary depending on the type of research included and the approach that will be used to assess the quality and relevance of the studies (see the next section for further discussion of this point).

Similarly, the information recorded as ‘results’ of the individual studies will vary depending on the type of research that has been included and the approach to synthesis that will be used. Studies investigating the impact of educational interventions using statistical meta-analysis as a synthesis technique will require all of the data necessary to calculate effect sizes to be recorded from each study (see the section on synthesis below for further detail on this point). However, even in this type of study there will be multiple data that can be considered to be ‘results’ and so which data needs to be recorded from studies will need to be carefully specified so that recording is consistent across studies

3.6 Appraising the Quality of Studies

Methods are reinvented every time they are used to accommodate the real world of research practice (Sandelowski et al. 2012 ). The researcher undertaking a primary research study has attempted to design and execute a study that addresses the research question as rigorously as possible within the parameters of their resources, understanding, and context. Given the complexity of this task, the contested views about research methods and the inconsistency of research terminology, reviewers will need to make their own judgements about the quality of the any individual piece of research included in their review. From this perspective, it is evident that using a simple criteria, such as ‘published in a peer reviewed journal’ as a sole indicator of quality, is not likely to be an adequate basis for considering the quality and relevance of a study for a particular systematic review.

In the context of systematic reviews this assessment of quality is often referred to as Critical Appraisal (Petticrew and Roberts 2005 ). There is considerable variation in what is done during critical appraisal: which dimensions of study design and methods are considered; the particular issues that are considered under each dimension; the criteria used to make judgements about these issues and the cut off points used for these criteria (Oancea and Furlong 2007 ). There is also variation in whether the quality assessment judgement is used for excluding studies or weighting them in analysis and when in the process judgements are made.

There are broadly three elements that are considered in critical appraisal: the appropriateness of the study design in the context of the review question, the quality of the execution of the study methods and the study’s relevance to the review question (Gough 2007 ). Distinguishing study design from execution recognises that whilst a particular design may be viewed as more appropriate for a study it also needs to be well executed to achieve the rigour or trustworthiness attributed to the design. Study relevance is achieved by the review selection criteria but assessing the degree of relevance recognises that some studies may be less relevant than others due to differences in, for example, the characteristics of the settings or the ways that variables are measured.

The assessment of study quality is a contested and much debated issue in all research fields. Many published scales are available for assessing study quality. Each incorporates criteria relevant to the research design being evaluated. Quality scales for studies investigating the impact of interventions using (quasi) experimental research designs tend to emphasis establishing descriptive causality through minimising the effects of bias (for detailed discussion of issues associated with assessing study quality in this tradition see Waddington et al. 2017 ). Quality scales for appraising qualitative research tend to focus on the extent to which the study is authentic in reflecting on the meaning of the data (for detailed discussion of the issues associated with assessing study quality in this tradition see Carroll and Booth 2015 ).

3.7 Synthesis

A synthesis is more than a list of findings from the included studies. It is an attempt to integrate the information from the individual studies to produce a ‘better’ answer to the review question than is provided by the individual studies. Each stage of the review contributes toward the synthesis and so decisions made in earlier stages of the review shape the possibilities for synthesis. All types of synthesis involve some kind of data transformation that is achieved through common analytic steps: searching for patterns in data; Checking the quality of the synthesis; Integrating data to answer the review question (Thomas et al. 2012 ). The techniques used to achieve these vary for different types of synthesis and may appear more or less evident as distinct steps.

Statistical meta-analysis is an aggregative synthesis approach in which the outcome results from individual studies are transformed into a standardized, scale free, common metric and combined to produce a single pooled weighted estimate of effect size and direction. There are a number of different metrics of effect size, selection of which is principally determined by the structure of outcome data in the primary studies as either continuous or dichotomous. Outcome data with a dichotomous structure can be transformed into Odds Ratios (OR), Absolute Risk Ratios (ARR) or Relative Risk Ratios (RRR) (for detailed discussion of dichotomous outcome effect sizes see Altman 1991 ). More commonly seen in education research, outcome data with a continuous structure can be translated into Standardised Mean Differences (SMD) (Fitz-Gibbon 1984 ). At its most straightforward effect size calculation is simple arithmetic. However given the variety of analysis methods used and the inconsistency of reporting in primary studies it is also possible to calculate effect sizes using more complex transformation formulae (for detailed instructions on calculating effect sizes from a wide variety of data presentations see Lipsey and Wilson 2000 ).

The combination of individual effect sizes uses statistical procedures in which weighting is given to the effect sizes from the individual studies based on different assumptions about the causes of variance and this requires the use of statistical software. Statistical measures of heterogeneity produced as part of the meta-analysis are used to both explore patterns in the data and to assess the quality of the synthesis (Thomas et al. 2017a ).

In configurative synthesis the different kinds of text about individual studies and their results are meshed and linked to produce patterns in the data, explore different configurations of the data and to produce new synthetic accounts of the phenomena under investigation. The results from the individual studies are translated into and across each other, searching for areas of commonality and refutation. The specific techniques used are derived from the techniques used in primary research in this tradition. They include reading and re-reading, descriptive and analytical coding, the development of themes, constant comparison, negative case analysis and iteration with theory (Thomas et al. 2017b ).

4 Variation in Review Structures

All research requires time and resources and systematic reviews are no exception. There is always concern to use resources as efficiently as possible. For these reasons there is a continuing interest in how reviews can be carried out more quickly using fewer resources. A key issue is the basis for considering a review to be systematic. Any definitions are clearly open to interpretation. Any review can be argued to be insufficiently rigorous and explicit in method in any part of the review process. To assist reviewers in being rigorous, reporting standards and appraisal tools are being developed to assess what is required in different types of review (Lockwood and Geum Oh 2017 ) but these are also the subject of debate and disagreement.

In addition to the term ‘systematic review’ other terms are used to denote the outputs of systematic review processes. Some use the term ‘scoping review’ for a quick review that does not follow a fully systematic process. This term is also used by others (for example, Arksey and O’Malley 2005 ) to denote ‘systematic maps’ that describe the nature of a research field rather than synthesise findings. A ‘quick review’ type of scoping review may also be used as preliminary work to inform a fuller systematic review. Another term used is ‘rapid evidence assessment’. This term is usually used when systematic review needs to be undertaken quickly and in order to do this the methods of review are employed in a more minimal than usual way. For example, by more limited searching. Where such ‘shortcuts’ are taken there may be some loss of rigour, breadth and/or depth (Abrami et al. 2010 ; Thomas et al. 2013 ).

Another development has seen the emergence of the concept of ‘living reviews’, which do not have a fixed end point but are updated as new relevant primary studies are produced. Many review teams hope that their review will be updated over time, but what is different about living reviews is that it is built into the system from the start as an on-going developmental process. This means that the distribution of review effort is quite different to a standard systematic review, being a continuous lower-level effort spread over a longer time period, rather than the shorter bursts of intensive effort that characterise a review with periodic updates (Elliott et al. 2014 ).

4.1 Systematic Maps and Syntheses

One potentially useful aspect of reviewing the literature systematically is that it is possible to gain an understanding of the breadth, purpose and extent of research activity about a phenomenon. Reviewers can be more informed about how research on the phenomenon has been constructed and focused. This type of reviewing is known as ‘mapping’ (see for example, Peersman 1996 ; Gough et al. 2003 ). The aspects of the studies that are described in a map will depend on what is of most interest to those undertaking the review. This might include information such as topic focus, conceptual approach, method, aims, authors, location and context. The boundaries and purposes of a map are determined by decisions made regarding the breadth and depth of the review, which are informed by and reflected in the review question and selection criteria.

Maps can also be a useful stage in a systematic review where study findings are synthesised as well. Most synthesis reviews implicitly or explicitly include some sort of map in that they describe the nature of the relevant studies that they have identified. An explicit map is likely to be more detailed and can be used to inform the synthesis stage of a review. It can provide more information on the individual and grouped studies and thus also provide insights to help inform choices about the focus and strategy to be used in a subsequent synthesis.

4.2 Mixed Methods, Mixed Research Synthesis Reviews

Where studies included in a review consist of more than one type of study design, there may also be different types of data. These different types of studies and data can be analysed together in an integrated design or segregated and analysed separately (Sandelowski et al. 2012 ). In a segregated design, two or more separate sub-reviews are undertaken simultaneously to address different aspects of the same review question and are then compared with one another.

Such ‘mixed methods’ and ‘multiple component’ reviews are usually necessary when there are multiple layers of review question or when one study design alone would be insufficient to answer the question(s) adequately. The reviews are usually required, to have both breadth and depth. In doing so they can investigate a greater extent of the research problem than would be the case in a more focussed single method review. As they are major undertakings, containing what would normally be considered the work of multiple systematic reviews, they are demanding of time and resources and cannot be conducted quickly.

4.3 Reviews of Reviews

Systematic reviews of primary research are secondary levels of research analysis. A review of reviews (sometimes called ‘overviews’ or ‘umbrella’ reviews) is a tertiary level of analysis. It is a systematic map and/or synthesis of previous reviews. The ‘data’ for reviews of reviews are previous reviews rather than primary research studies (see for example Newman et al. ( 2018 ). Some review of reviews use previous reviews to combine both primary research data and synthesis data. It is also possible to have hybrid review models consisting of a review of reviews and then new systematic reviews of primary studies to fill in gaps in coverage where there is not an existing review (Caird et al. 2015 ). Reviews of reviews can be an efficient method for examining previous research. However, this approach is still comparatively novel and questions remain about the appropriate methodology. For example, care is required when assessing the way in which the source systematic reviews identified and selected data for inclusion, assessed study quality and to assess the overlap between the individual reviews (Aromataris et al. 2015 ).

5 Other Types of Research Based Review Structures

This chapter so far has presented a process or method that is shared by many different approaches within the family of systematic review approaches, notwithstanding differences in review question and types of study that are included as evidence. This is a helpful heuristic device for designing and reading systematic reviews. However, it is the case that there are some review approaches that also claim to use a research based review approach but that do not claim to be systematic reviews and or do not conform with the description of processes that we have given above at all or in part at least.

5.1 Realist Synthesis Reviews

Realist synthesis is a member of the theory-based school of evaluation (Pawson 2002 ). This means that it is underpinned by a ‘generative’ understanding of causation, which holds that, to infer a causal outcome/relationship between an intervention (e.g. a training programme) and an outcome (O) of interest (e.g. unemployment), one needs to understand the underlying mechanisms (M) that connect them and the context (C) in which the relationship occurs (e.g. the characteristics of both the subjects and the programme locality). The interest of this approach (and also of other theory driven reviews) is not simply which interventions work, but which mechanisms work in which context. Rather than identifying replications of the same intervention, the reviews adopt an investigative stance and identify different contexts within which the same underlying mechanism is operating.

Realist synthesis is concerned with hypothesising, testing and refining such context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Based on the premise that programmes work in limited circumstances, the discovery of these conditions becomes the main task of realist synthesis. The overall intention is to first create an abstract model (based on the CMO configurations) of how and why programmes work and then to test this empirically against the research evidence. Thus, the unit of analysis in a realist synthesis is the programme mechanism, and this mechanism is the basis of the search. This means that a realist synthesis aims to identify different situations in which the same programme mechanism has been attempted. Integrative Reviewing, which is aligned to the Critical Realist tradition, follows a similar approach and methods (Jones-Devitt et al. 2017 ).

5.2 Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS)

Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) (Dixon-Woods et al. 2006 ) takes a position that there is an explicit role for the ‘authorial’ (reviewer’s) voice in the review. The approach is derived from a distinctive tradition within qualitative enquiry and draws on some of the tenets of grounded theory in order to support explicitly the process of theory generation. In practice, this is operationalised in its inductive approach to searching and to developing the review question as part of the review process, its rejection of a ‘staged’ approach to reviewing and embracing the concept of theoretical sampling in order to select studies for inclusion. When assessing the quality of studies CIS prioritises relevance and theoretical contribution over research methods. In particular, a critical approach to reading the literature is fundamental in terms of contextualising findings within an analysis of the research traditions or theoretical assumptions of the studies included.

5.3 Meta-Narrative Reviews

Meta-narrative reviews, like critical interpretative synthesis, place centre-stage the importance of understanding the literature critically and understanding differences between research studies as possibly being due to differences between their underlying research traditions (Greenhalgh et al. 2005 ). This means that each piece of research is located (and, when appropriate, aggregated) within its own research tradition and the development of knowledge is traced (configured) through time and across paradigms. Rather than the individual study, the ‘unit of analysis’ is the unfolding ‘storyline’ of a research tradition over time’ (Greenhalgh et al. 2005 ).

6 Conclusions

This chapter has briefly described the methods, application and different perspectives in the family of systematic review approaches. We have emphasized the many ways in which systematic reviews can vary. This variation links to different research aims and review questions. But also to the different assumptions made by reviewers. These assumptions derive from different understandings of research paradigms and methods and from the personal, political perspectives they bring to their research practice. Although there are a variety of possible types of systematic reviews, a distinction in the extent that reviews follow an aggregative or configuring synthesis logic is useful for understanding variations in review approaches and methods. It can help clarify the ways in which reviews vary in the nature of their questions, concepts, procedures, inference and impact. Systematic review approaches continue to evolve alongside critical debate about the merits of various review approaches (systematic or otherwise). So there are many ways in which educational researchers can use and engage with systematic review methods to increase knowledge and understanding in the field of education.

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit

https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=2914

Abrami, P. C. Borokhovski, E. Bernard, R. M. Wade, CA. Tamim, R. Persson, T. Bethel, E. C. Hanz, K. & Surkes, M. A. (2010). Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence. Evidence & Policy , 6 (3), 371–389.

Google Scholar  

Altman, D.G. (1991) Practical statistics for medical research . London: Chapman and Hall.

Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 (1), 19–32,

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromataris, E. Fernandez, R. Godfrey, C. Holly, C. Khalil, H. Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13 .

Barnett-Page, E. & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9 (59), https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 .

Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., Caird, J. & Thomas, J. (2017a). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd edition, pp. 93–132). London: Sage.

Brunton, J., Graziosi, S., & Thomas, J. (2017b). Tools and techniques for information management. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd edition, pp. 154–180), London: Sage.

Carroll, C. & Booth, A. (2015). Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: Is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Research Synthesis Methods 6 (2), 149–154.

Caird, J. Sutcliffe, K. Kwan, I. Dickson, K. & Thomas, J. (2015). Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evidence & Policy, 11 (1), 81–97.

Chow, J. & Eckholm, E. (2018). Do published studies yield larger effect sizes than unpublished studies in education and special education? A meta-review. Educational Psychology Review 30 (3), 727–744.

Dickson, K., Vigurs, C. & Newman, M. (2013). Youth work a systematic map of the literature . Dublin: Dept of Government Affairs.

Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwa, S., Annandale, E. Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley R., & Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6:35 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 .

Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavergames, C. & Gruen, R. L. (2014). Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Medicine, 11 (2): e1001603. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603 .

Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1984) Meta-analysis: an explication. British Educational Research Journal , 10 (2), 135–144.

Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education , 22 (2), 213–228.

Gough, D., Thomas, J. & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1( 28).

Gough, D., Kiwan, D., Sutcliffe, K., Simpson, D. & Houghton, N. (2003). A systematic map and synthesis review of the effectiveness of personal development planning for improving student learning. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (2017). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd edition, pp. 1–18). London: Sage.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O. & Peacock, R. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 61 (2), 417–430.

Hargreaves, D. (1996). Teaching as a research based profession: possibilities and prospects . Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture. Retrieved from https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=2082 .

Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: releasing the research imagination . London. SAGE.

Jones-Devitt, S. Austen, L. & Parkin H. J. (2017). Integrative reviewing for exploring complex phenomena. Social Research Update . Issue 66.

Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Klint Jørgensen, A. M., Hammerstrøm, K., & Sathe, N. (2015). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews . Campbell Method Guides 2016:1 ( http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/images/Campbell_Methods_Guides_Information_Retrieval.pdf ).

Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D. B. (2000). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lockwood, C. & Geum Oh, E. (2017). Systematic reviews: guidelines, tools and checklists for authors. Nursing & Health Sciences, 19, 273–277.

Nelson, J. & Campbell, C. (2017). Evidence-informed practice in education: meanings and applications. Educational Research, 59 (2), 127–135.

Newman, M., Garrett, Z., Elbourne, D., Bradley, S., Nodenc, P., Taylor, J. & West, A. (2006). Does secondary school size make a difference? A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 1 (1), 41–60.

Newman, M. (2008). High quality randomized experimental research evidence: Necessary but not sufficient for effective education policy. Psychology of Education Review, 32 (2), 14–16.

Newman, M., Reeves, S. & Fletcher, S. (2018). A critical analysis of evidence about the impacts of faculty development in systematic reviews: a systematic rapid evidence assessment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 38 (2), 137–144.

Noblit, G. W. & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Oancea, A. & Furlong, J. (2007). Expressions of excellence and the assessment of applied and practice‐based research. Research Papers in Education 22 .

O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015). Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews 4 (1): 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 .

Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: the promise of “Realist Synthesis”. Evaluation, 8 (3), 340–358.

Peersman, G. (1996). A descriptive mapping of health promotion studies in young people, EPPI Research Report. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2005). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide . London: Wiley.

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J. & Crandell, J. L. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6 (4), 317–331.

Smyth, R. (2004). Exploring the usefulness of a conceptual framework as a research tool: A researcher’s reflections. Issues in Educational Research, 14 .

Thomas, J., Harden, A. & Newman, M. (2012). Synthesis: combining results systematically and appropriately. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 66–82). London: Sage.

Thomas, J., Newman, M. & Oliver, S. (2013). Rapid evidence assessments of research to inform social policy: taking stock and moving forward. Evidence and Policy, 9 (1), 5–27.

Thomas, J., O’Mara-Eves, A., Kneale, D. & Shemilt, I. (2017a). Synthesis methods for combining and configuring quantitative data. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (2nd edition, pp. 211–250). London: Sage.

Thomas, J., O’Mara-Eves, A., Harden, A. & Newman, M. (2017b). Synthesis methods for combining and configuring textual or mixed methods data. In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd edition, pp. 181–211), London: Sage.

Tsafnat, G., Dunn, A. G., Glasziou, P. & Coiera, E. (2013). The automation of systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 345 (7891), doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f139 .

Torgerson, C. (2003). Systematic reviews . London. Continuum.

Waddington, H., Aloe, A. M., Becker, B. J., Djimeu, E. W., Hombrados, J. G., Tugwell, P., Wells, G. & Reeves, B. (2017). Quasi-experimental study designs series—paper 6: risk of bias assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89 , 43–52.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Education, University College London, England, UK

Mark Newman & David Gough

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Newman .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oldenburg, Germany

Olaf Zawacki-Richter

Essen, Germany

Michael Kerres

Svenja Bedenlier

Melissa Bond

Katja Buntins

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Newman, M., Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. In: Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K. (eds) Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1

Published : 22 November 2019

Publisher Name : Springer VS, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-27601-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-27602-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Literature Reviews

Introduction, what is a literature review.

• Literature Reviews for Thesis or Dissertation
• Stand-alone and Systemic Reviews
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Texts on Conducting a Literature Review
• Identifying the Research Topic
• The Persuasive Argument
• Searching the Literature
• Creating a Synthesis
• Critiquing the Literature
• Building the Case for the Literature Review Document
• Presenting the Literature Review

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Higher Education Research
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mixed Methods Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Politics of Education
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Educational Research Approaches: A Comparison
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• History of Education in Europe
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Literature Reviews by Lawrence A. Machi , Brenda T. McEvoy LAST REVIEWED: 27 October 2016 LAST MODIFIED: 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0169

Literature reviews play a foundational role in the development and execution of a research project. They provide access to the academic conversation surrounding the topic of the proposed study. By engaging in this scholarly exercise, the researcher is able to learn and to share knowledge about the topic. The literature review acts as the springboard for new research, in that it lays out a logically argued case, founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about the topic. The case produced provides the justification for the research question or problem of a proposed study, and the methodological scheme best suited to conduct the research. It can also be a research project in itself, arguing policy or practice implementation, based on a comprehensive analysis of the research in a field. The term literature review can refer to the output or the product of a review. It can also refer to the process of Conducting a Literature Review . Novice researchers, when attempting their first research projects, tend to ask two questions: What is a Literature Review? How do you do one? While this annotated bibliography is neither definitive nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject, it is designed to provide a beginning researcher, who is pursuing an academic degree, an entry point for answering the two previous questions. The article is divided into two parts. The first four sections of the article provide a general overview of the topic. They address definitions, types, purposes, and processes for doing a literature review. The second part presents the process and procedures for doing a literature review. Arranged in a sequential fashion, the remaining eight sections provide references addressing each step of the literature review process. References included in this article were selected based on their ability to assist the beginning researcher. Additionally, the authors attempted to include texts from various disciplines in social science to present various points of view on the subject.

Novice researchers often have a misguided perception of how to do a literature review and what the document should contain. Literature reviews are not narrative annotated bibliographies nor book reports (see Bruce 1994 ). Their form, function, and outcomes vary, due to how they depend on the research question, the standards and criteria of the academic discipline, and the orthodoxies of the research community charged with the research. The term literature review can refer to the process of doing a review as well as the product resulting from conducting a review. The product resulting from reviewing the literature is the concern of this section. Literature reviews for research studies at the master’s and doctoral levels have various definitions. Machi and McEvoy 2016 presents a general definition of a literature review. Lambert 2012 defines a literature review as a critical analysis of what is known about the study topic, the themes related to it, and the various perspectives expressed regarding the topic. Fink 2010 defines a literature review as a systematic review of existing body of data that identifies, evaluates, and synthesizes for explicit presentation. Jesson, et al. 2011 defines the literature review as a critical description and appraisal of a topic. Hart 1998 sees the literature review as producing two products: the presentation of information, ideas, data, and evidence to express viewpoints on the nature of the topic, as well as how it is to be investigated. When considering literature reviews beyond the novice level, Ridley 2012 defines and differentiates the systematic review from literature reviews associated with primary research conducted in academic degree programs of study, including stand-alone literature reviews. Cooper 1998 states the product of literature review is dependent on the research study’s goal and focus, and defines synthesis reviews as literature reviews that seek to summarize and draw conclusions from past empirical research to determine what issues have yet to be resolved. Theoretical reviews compare and contrast the predictive ability of theories that explain the phenomenon, arguing which theory holds the most validity in describing the nature of that phenomenon. Grant and Booth 2009 identified fourteen types of reviews used in both degree granting and advanced research projects, describing their attributes and methodologies.

Bruce, Christine Susan. 1994. Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education 19.2: 217–229.

DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382057

A phenomenological analysis was conducted with forty-one neophyte research scholars. The responses to the questions, “What do you mean when you use the words literature review?” and “What is the meaning of a literature review for your research?” identified six concepts. The results conclude that doing a literature review is a problem area for students.

Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing research . Vol. 2. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

The introductory chapter of this text provides a cogent explanation of Cooper’s understanding of literature reviews. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive discussion of the synthesis review. Chapter 5 discusses meta-analysis and depth.

Fink, Arlene. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper . 3d ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

The first chapter of this text (pp. 1–16) provides a short but clear discussion of what a literature review is in reference to its application to a broad range of social sciences disciplines and their related professions.

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26.2: 91–108. Print.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

This article reports a scoping review that was conducted using the “Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis” (SALSA) framework. Fourteen literature review types and associated methodology make up the resulting typology. Each type is described by its key characteristics and analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . London: SAGE.

Chapter 1 of this text explains Hart’s definition of a literature review. Additionally, it describes the roles of the literature review, the skills of a literature reviewer, and the research context for a literature review. Of note is Hart’s discussion of the literature review requirements for master’s degree and doctoral degree work.

Jesson, Jill, Lydia Matheson, and Fiona M. Lacey. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 1: “Preliminaries” provides definitions of traditional and systematic reviews. It discusses the differences between them. Chapter 5 is dedicated to explaining the traditional review, while Chapter 7 explains the systematic review. Chapter 8 provides a detailed description of meta-analysis.

Lambert, Mike. 2012. A beginner’s guide to doing your education research project . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 6 (pp. 79–100) presents a thumbnail sketch for doing a literature review.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2016. The literature review: Six steps to success . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The introduction of this text differentiates between a simple and an advanced review and concisely defines a literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2012. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . 2d ed. Sage Study Skills. London: SAGE.

In the introductory chapter, Ridley reviews many definitions of the literature review, literature reviews at the master’s and doctoral level, and placement of literature reviews within the thesis or dissertation document. She also defines and differentiates literature reviews produced for degree-affiliated research from the more advanced systematic review projects.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Achievement
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Adolescence
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Black Women in Academia
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• English as an International Language for Academic Publishi...
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Achievement
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School Culture
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Context of Education
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [81.177.182.136]
• 81.177.182.136

• Resources Home
• All Publications
• Digital Resources
• The BERA Podcast
• Research Intelligence
• BERA Journals
• Ethics and guidance
• BERA Blog Home
• About the blog
• Blog special issues
• Blog series
• Submission policy
• Opportunities Home
• Awards and Funding
• Communities Home
• Special Interest Groups
• Early Career Researcher Network
• Events Home
• BERA Conference 2024
• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Past Conferences
• BERA Membership

Review of Education

Review of Education is an international peer reviewed journal for the publication of major and substantial articles of interest to researchers in education. It is a growing focal point for the publication of educational research from throughout the world.

The journal is interdisciplinary in approach, and publishes major studies and in-depth reviews that are significant, substantial, wide-ranging and insightful, and have a genuinely international reach and orientation. The journal specialises in publishing substantial papers (8,000–20,000 words) of the highest quality from across the field of education. In particular, the journal publishes:

• Reports of major studies , including detailed discussion of interim and final findings of major research projects. A substantial part of each article should put the study into the context of its field. The design and methodology should also be explained and any limitations discussed.
• Substantial research syntheses , integrating critically results from qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method empirical studies. Such syntheses may include systematic reviews of studies relevant to particular research questions, thematic narrative reviews, and quantitative meta-analyses.
• Original state-of-the-art reviews  that assess the state of knowledge in a field of education research. Thematic, historical, conceptual or theoretical reviews of cutting-edge fields of research and reviews that connect creatively different fields of research are especially welcome.

In 2022 Review of Education received its first Impact Factor, standing at 2.4. Its  Journal Citation Indicator is  0 .35 and its Citescore is 2.3.

Click here for author guidelines, including instructions on how to submit. When you are ready to submit your article, please do so through this page . 

Members should click on the ‘read this journal online’ button in the top-left corner of this page to use their free access to RoE .

To request permission to reproduce material from RoE (or BERJ , BJET or Curriculum Journal ) please contact our publisher, Wiley, via this page of their site.

Review of Education Editors’ Choice Award 2023

The Review of Education Editors’ Choice Award recognises the highest quality and most impactful articles published in the journal. The winning paper for the 2023 volume is:

• Manley, H., Tu, E.-N., Reardon, T., & Creswell, C. (2023). The relationship between teachers’ day-to-day classroom management practices and anxiety in primary school children: A systematic review. Review of Education , 11 , e3385. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rev3.3385

The editors say: ‘The article contributes synthesis of existing evidence on association between children’s level of anxiety and teachers’ classroom management practices. We selected this paper on the basis of its clarity in presenting the review design and synthesis of results from selected studies. The article has an excellent level of readability and we think classroom practitioners and school leaders may find it very useful for their understanding and improvement goals.’

More related content

Books 28 Aug 2024

Publication 4 Nov 2024

Books 21 Aug 2024

Reports 10 Jun 2024

News 1 Jul 2024

News 25 Jun 2024

News 21 Jun 2024

News 28 May 2024

Department of

Department of Education

Oxford review of education.

The Oxford Review of Education is one of the UK’s leading international education journals. It was founded in 1974 in the Department of Education, and published its first issue in 1975.

To mark the 50th anniversary of the ORE, the Editors selected 50 articles to represent the quality and breadth of publications in the journal over the decades. From January 2024 they are freely available for a limited period here .

We celebrated with a seminar on 10th June 2024 at the Department of Education. Arathi Sriprakash, Professor of Sociology and Education, gave a thought-provoking talk: ‘Sociodigital futures of education: reparations, sovereignty, care, and democratisation’. Her co-authored paper is available on the journal’s website . The abstract is below.

As EdTech industries grow in reach and power it is imperative to motivate conditions for ethical challenge and contestation. In this talk I explore how the lenses of reparations, sovereignty, care and democratisation offer vital resources for envisaging alternative sociodigital futures of education. These ideas can disrupt dominant EdTech modalities, urging new agendas for research, redesign and regulation in relation to EdTech, and surfacing different kinds of relationships and priorities for education/social justice.

Each year the Oxford Review of Education awards a prize to the PGCE student with the highest scoring Professional Development Programme assignment. We are delighted to announce that Kieran Lavis won the award in 2023 with his assignment entitled Preparing Students for a Digital World: A Critical Exploration of Digital Inclusion in Secondary Schools in England. Dr Velda Elliott presented the award at the PGCE end-of-year celebration party at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Congratulations to Kieran and we wish him every success in his next steps. He will be continuing his research on issues of digital inclusion next year when he commences the MSc in Learning and Teaching at Oxford University. This year’s winner will be announced in June 2024.

Velda Elliott and Kieran Lavis

————————————————————————————————————-

The Oxford Review of Education aims to publish important new work on educational topics of general interest in a form that is accessible to a broad educational readership. The Editors welcome articles reporting significant new research as well as contributions of a more analytic or reflective kind, which may draw on the full range of disciplines relevant to education.

The journal normally produces two Special Issues each year. These enable the editors and guest editors to explore relevant themes in depth and to maintain a cross-disciplinary outlook which has characterised the journal since its beginnings. The Editors welcome proposals for future special issues. Please contact the Editorial Office ( [email protected] ) for guidance on how to submit a proposal. The Editors are willing to provide feedback and support in developing a proposal; all proposals are discussed by the Editorial Board which has responsibility for planning Special Issues. Recently published Special Issues and Thematic Issues include:

• Socio-economic inequality and education (2024)
• Pedagogy and Indigenous knowing and learning (2023)
• Global challenges and new directions in early years intervention research (2023)
• Making worlds in research on higher education: Different pathways to the international and global (2022)
• The spaces and places of schooling: historical perspectives (2021)
• Teacher education research, policy and practice: future directions (2021)
• The problem of dyslexia: historical perspectives (2020)
• Higher education and the labour market (2020)
• The educational progress and outcomes of children in care (2019)
• Learning Cities: towards a new research agenda (2019)
• The consequences of metrics in education: gaming, malpractice and cheating (2018)
• Inequalities and the curriculum (2018)

The Editorial Board meets regularly. It is made up of members from the University of Oxford Department of Education and other relevant departments and from research fields relevant to education. It also has an International Advisory Board of members from different regions of the world and with various areas of expertise in the field of education or interdisciplinary research and practice.

Academic Editors: Jo-Anne Baird, Velda Elliott and Steve Strand Managing Editor: Joanne Hazell Editorial office: Email [email protected] Telephone: +44 (0)1865 284407 X (formerly Twitter): @OxfordRevEd

The Oxford Review of Education publishes six issues a year – please visit the journal homepage to see all the issues. Contents of Special Issues, Thematic Issues and links to articles are listed below.

Volume 50 Number 2 - Thematic Issue on Socio-economic inequality and education

Editorial: Socio-economic inequality and education Steve Strand

Improving but not equalising opportunity: the objective and effect of regulating fair access to higher education in England, and their implications for understanding higher education policy Chris Millward

Can earmarked admission places help address the perceived rural disadvantage in higher education access? Evidence from Romania Emilia Titan, Adrian Otoiu, Dorel Paraschiv & Daniela Manea

The cumulative impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on educational attainment during austerity: a comparative cross-cohort approach Neil Kaye

Direct and indirect influences of familial socioeconomic status on students’ science achievement Cheng Yong Tan

Inside mathematics learning inequality: an analysis of Young Lives Survey data, India Aquib Parvez

Serving their communities? The under-admission of children with disabilities and ‘special educational needs’ to ‘faith’ primary schools in England Tammy Campbell

The perceived quality, fairness of and corruption in education in Europe Bram Spruyt, Filip Van Droogenbroeck & Leandros Kavadias

Understanding how institutional dynamics can contribute to educational inequality in Nordic cities Eli Smeplass, Anna Cecilia Rapp & Anabel Corral-Granados

Volume 50 Number 1 - Anniversary Issue

Foreword to the fiftieth volume Jo-Anne Baird, Victoria Elliott and Steve Strand

Track prejudice in Belgian secondary schools: examining the influence of social-psychological and structural school features Lorenz Dekeyser, Mieke Van Houtte, Charlotte Maene & Peter Stevens

Is a more selective exit exam related to shadow education use? An analysis of two cohorts of final-year secondary school students in the Netherlands Daury Jansen, Louise Elffers, Suzanne Jak & Monique L. L. Volman

Using GIS to analyse early years provision in Northern Ireland – adding another year of segregated education? Stephen Roulston & Sally Cook

Predictors and mediators of pressure/tension in university students’ distance learning during the Covid-19 pandemic: A self-determination theory perspective Elif Manuoğlu & Elis Güngör

The complexity of student-led research: from terminology to practice in a case study of three countries Daria Khanolainen, Victoria Cooper, David Messer & Elena Revyakina

Identifying a research agenda for postgraduate taught education in the UK: lessons from a machine learning facilitated systematic scoping review Gale Macleod, Marshall Dozier, Rosa Marvell, Gerri Matthews-Smith, Malcolm R. Macleod & Jing Liao

Perceptions of key education actors towards PISA: the case of Scotland Mobarak Hossain

Anxiety and performance during tests: the roles of coping and updating Luis Rojas-Torres, Luis A. Furlan, Vanessa Smith-Castro & Guaner Rojas-Rojas

Volume 49 Number 4, August 2023 - Special Issue - Pedagogy and Indigenous knowing and learning

Special Issue: Pedagogy and Indigenous knowing and learning

Guest Editors: Elizabeth Ann Rahman and Thandeka Cochrane

Editorial: Pedagogy and Indigenous knowing and learning Elizabeth Ann Rahman & Thandeka Cochrane

Indigenous heritage as an educational resource in primary education A. José Farrujia de la Rosa, Patricio Sebastián Henríquez Ritchie & Tania Elizabet Zavala Martínez

Gesturing towards decolonial teaching praxis and unlearning colonial methods: teaching reflections in the struggle to decolonise research methodologies Amber Murrey, Nokuthula Hlabangane, Steve Puttick & Christopher Francis Frattina della Frattina

The power of stories: oral storytelling, schooling and onto-epistemologies in rural Malawi Thandeka Cochrane

Tessellation, shamanism, and being alive to things Ricardo Nemirovsky & Don Duprez

Territorial learning and childcare practices: exploring relations between territory and care in the intercultural training of Indigenous educators in Brazil Ana Maria R. Gomes & Érica Dumont-Pena

Formabiap’s Indigenous educative community, Peru: a biosocial pedagogy Elizabeth Ann Rahman, Françoise Barbira Freedman, Fernando Antonio García Rivera & Meredith Castro Rios

Pedagogies for the future: ethnographic reflections on two Latin American learning journeys Laura Rival

Volume 49 Number 1, February 2023 - Special Issue - Global challenges and new directions in early years intervention research

Special Issue: Global challenges and new directions in early years intervention research

Guest Editor: Sonali Nag

Editorial: Teaching and learning: what matters for intervention Sonali Nag

The role of teachers’ implicit social goals in pedagogical reforms in Tanzania Matthew C. H. Jukes, Nkanileka L. Mgonda, Jovina L. Tibenda & Yasmin Sitabkhan

Scaling up early language intervention in educational settings: First steps matter Mirela C. C. Ramacciotti, Helena Sousa, Heloisa G. Silveira, Charles Hulme, Margaret J. Snowling, Dianne F. Newbury & Marina L. Puglisi

Embracing diglossia in early literacy education in Arabic: A pilot intervention study with kindergarten children Elinor Saiegh-Haddad

Measuring indicators of Sustainable Development Goal Target 4.2.1: factor structure of a direct assessment tool in four Asian countries Ben Richards, Nirmala Rao & Stephanie W. Y. Chan

A slippery slope: early learning and equity in rural India Yiran Vicky Zhao, Suman Bhattacharjea & Benjamin Alcott

Challenges facing interventions to promote equity in the early years: exploring the ‘impact’, legacy and lessons learned from a national evaluation of Children’s Centres in England Pamela Sammons, Kathy Sylva, James Hall, Maria Evangelou & Rebecca Smees

Volume 48 Number 4, August 2022 - Special Issue - Making worlds in research on higher education: Different pathways to the international and global

Special Issue: Making worlds in research on higher education: Different pathways to the international and global

Guest Editor: Simon Marginson

Editorial: Research on international and global higher education: Six different perspectives Simon Marginson

The state and ‘field’ of comparative higher education Ariane de Gayardon

International development higher education: Looking from the past, looking to the future Maia Chankseliani

Decolonial perspectives on global higher education: Disassembling data infrastructures, reassembling the field David Mills

What is global higher education? Simon Marginson

Partial, hierarchical and stratified space? Understanding ‘the international’ in studies of international student mobility Rachel Brooks and Johanna Waters

Rethinking the ‘global’ in global higher education studies: From the lens of the Chinese idea of tianxia Lili Yang and Lin Tian

Volume 47 Number 5, October 2021 - Special Issue - The spaces and places of schooling: historical perspectives

Special Issue: The spaces and places of schooling: historical perspectives

Guest Editors: Catherine Burke and William Whyte

Editorial: The spaces and places of schooling: historical perspectives Catherine Burke and William Whyte

The four pillars: the architecture of the government school in Australia 1835-1885 Julie Willis

The pedagogy of latrines. A kaleidoscopic look at the history of school bathrooms in Argentina, 1880-1930 Inés Dussel

Mary and David Medd’s work: domesticity in postwar British school design (1949–72) Paula Lacomba Montes and Alejandro Campos Uribe

Towards a new model of school design in Portugal (1964-1974): Rationalisation, standardisation, economic constraints and control devices Alexandra Alegre and Teresa Heitor

Standardisation and architectural ideas for school buildings in Soviet Lithuania Edita Riaubienė and Liutauras Nekrošius

Open-plan schooling and everyday utopias: Australia and Denmark in the 1970s Julie McLeod and Lisa Rosén Rasmussen

Untangling the sociomateriality of the classroom: biographies of school spaces (c. 1960–2014) Frederik Herman and Jo Tondeur

On silent feet: the library and the child Kate Spencer-Bennett and Ian Grosvenor

Volume 47 Number 1, February 2021 - Special Issue - Teacher education research, policy and practice: future directions

Special Issue: Teacher education research, policy and practice: future directions

Guest Editors: Diane Mayer and Alis Oancea

Teacher education research, policy and practice: finding future research directions es Diane Mayer and Alis Oancea

Rethinking teacher education: The trouble with accountability Marilyn Cochran-Smith

Comparative research on teachers and teacher education: global perspectives to inform UNESCO’s SDG 4 agenda Maria Teresa Tatto

The quest for better teaching Jennifer M. Gore

The reform of initial teacher education in Wales: from vision to reality John Furlong, Jeremy Griffiths, Cecilia Hannigan-Davies, Alma Harris & Michelle Jones

Assessing the value of SCOTENS as a cross-border professional learning network in Ireland using the Wenger–Trayner value-creation framework Linda Clarke, Conor Galvin, Maria Campbell, Pamela Cowan, Kathy Hall, Geraldine Magennis, Teresa O’Doherty, Noel Purdy & Lesley Abbott

Research capacity-building in teacher education Alis Oancea, Nigel Fancourt, James Robson, Ian Thompson, Ann Childs & Nuzha Nuseibeh

The connections and disconnections between teacher education policy and research: reframing evidence Diane Mayer

Volume 46 Number 4, August 2020 - Special Issue - The problem of dyslexia: historical perspectives

Special Issue: The problem of dyslexia: historical perspectives

Guest Editors: Philip Kirby, Kate Nation, Margaret Snowling & William Whyte

Editorial: The problem of dyslexia: historical perspectives Philip Kirby, Kate Nation, Margaret Snowling & William Whyte

Section 1: Dyslexia diagnosed

Class and classification: the London Word Blind Centre for Dyslexic children, 1962–1972 William Whyte

The Isle of Wight studies: the scope and scale of reading difficulties Barbara Maughan, Michael Rutter & William Yule

Section 2: Dyslexia defined

A Pioneer in Context: T R Miles and the Bangor Dyslexia Unit R. J. W. Evans

The American experience: towards a 21st century definition of dyslexia Bennett A. Shaywitz & Sally E. Shaywitz

Section 2: Dyslexia debated

Dyslexia debated, then and now: a historical perspective on the dyslexia debate Philip Kirby

The dyslexia debate: life without the label Simon J. Gibbs & Julian G. Elliott

Defining and understanding dyslexia: past, present and future Margaret J. Snowling, Charles Hulme & Kate Nation

Volume 46 Number 1, February 2020 - Special Issue - Higher education and the labour market

Special Issue: Higher education and the labour market

Guest Editors: Hugh Lauder and Ken Mayhew

Editorial: Higher education and the labour market: an introduction Hugh Lauder and Ken Mayhew

Educational expansion and overeducation of young graduates: A comparative analysis of 30 European countries Judith Delaney, Seamus McGuinness, Konstantinos Pouliakas and Paul Redmond

The return on a college degree: the US experience Peter Cappelli

Educational expansion in the Netherlands: better chances for all? Jim Allen and Barbara Belfi

Higher education massification and the changing graduate labour market in the Spanish retail banking industry: a case study Ghia Osseiran

Dual study programmes in Germany: blurring the boundaries between higher education and vocational training? Hubert Ertl

Corporate recruitment practices and the hierarchy of graduate employability in India Sahara Sadik and Phillip Brown

Mixed signals: cognitive skills, qualifications and earnings in an international comparative perspective Robin Shields and Andres Sandoval Hernandez

The gender gap in graduate job quality in Europe – a comparative analysis across economic sectors and countries Predrag Lažetić

Volume 45 Number 6, December 2019 - Anniversary Issue

This is an anniversary issue to mark 45 years of the journal.

Editorial Ingrid Lunt and Alis Oancea

Obituary: Harry Judge, 1928-2019 David Phillips

How language teachers address the crisis of praxis in educational research Sardar M. Anwaruddin

The role of schools and education in countering violent extremism (CVE): applying lessons from Western countries to Australian CVE policy Shandon Harris-Hogan, Kate Barrelle & Debra Smith

Beginning teacher agency in the enactment of fundamental British values: a multi-method case study Philip Bamber, Andrea Bullivant, Alison Clark & David Lundie

Family income effects on mathematics achievement: their relative magnitude and causal pathways Gary N. Marks & Artur Pokropek

A Deweyan positive education: psychology with philosophy Kylie Trask-Kerr, John Quay & Gavin R. Slemp

Do government schools improve learning for poor students? Evidence from rural Pakistan Monazza Aslam, Rabea Malik, Shenila Rawal, Pauline Rose & Anna Vignoles

Volume 45 Number 4, August 2019 - Special Issue - The educational progress and outcomes of children in care

Special Issue: The educational progress and outcomes of children in care

Guest Editors: Judy Sebba and Nikki Luke

The educational progress and outcomes of children in care: editorial Judy Sebba and Nikki Luke

Children in care or in need: educational progress at home and in care Ian Sinclair, Nikki Luke and David Berridge

Longitudinal analyses of educational outcomes for youth transitioning out of care in the U.S: trends and influential factors Nathanael Okpych and Mark Courtney

Working towards better education for children in care: longitudinal analysis of the educational outcomes of a cohort of children in care in Australia Elizabeth Fernandez

Exploring the Letterbox Club programme’s impact on foster children’s literacy: potent intervention or general support? Hilma Forsman

Effects of the TutorBright tutoring programme on the reading and mathematics skills of children in foster care: a randomised controlled trial Andrea J. Hickey and Robert J. Flynn

The role of the Virtual School in supporting improved educational outcomes for children in care Judy Sebba and David Berridge

Conceptualising educational provision for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in England Eleanor Ott and Aoife O’Higgins

Changing lives: improving care leaver access to higher education Jacqueline Z. Wilson, Andrew Harvey and Philip Mendes

Volume 45 Number 2, April 2019 - Special Issue - Learning Cites: Towards a new research agenda

Special Issue: Learning Cities: Towards a new research agenda

Guest Editor: Keri Facer

Editorial: Towards a research agenda for the ‘actually existing’ Learning City Keri Facer and Magdalena Buchczyk

Understanding Learning Cities as discursive, material and affective infrastructures Keri Facer and Magdalena Buchczyk

Universities: in, of and beyond their cities John Brennan and Allan Cochrane

Investigating agentive urban learning: an assembly of situated experiences for sustainable futures Andrew Morrison, Ola Erstad, Gunnar Liestøl, Nicholas Pinfold, Bruce Snaddon, Peter Hemmersam and Andrea Grant-Broom

Learning to be a smart citizen Helen Manchester and Gillian Cope

(Un)learning the city through crisis: lessons from Cape Town Enora Robin, Clémentine Chazal, Michele Acuto and Rocio Carrero

The non-formal arts learning sector, youth provision and paradox in the learning city Stuart Poyntz, Rebecca Coles, Heather Fitzsimmons-Frey, Alysha Bains, Julian Sefton-Green and Michael Hoechsmann

Lifewide Learning in the City: Novel big data approaches to exploring learning with large-scale surveys, GPS & social media Catherine Lido, Kate Reid and Mike Osborne

Volume 44 Number 5, October 2018 - Special Issue - The consequences of metrics in education: gaming, malpractice and cheating

Special Issue: The consequences of metrics in education: gaming, malpractice and cheating

Guest Editors: Victoria Elliott and Jo-Anne Baird

Editorial: Metrics in education – control and corruption Jo-Anne Baird and Victoria Elliott

Playing the system: incentives to ‘game’ and educational ethics in school examination entry policies in England Jenni Ingram, Victoria Elliott, Caroline Morin, Ashmita Randhawa and Carol Brown

Teachers’ experience of and attitudes toward activities to maximise qualification results in England Michelle Meadows and Beth Black

The invention, gaming, and persistence of the hensachi (‘standardised rank score’) in Japanese education Roger Goodman and Chinami Oka

Playing the game of IQ testing in England and Denmark in the 1930s–1960s—a socio-material perspective Frederik Forrai Ørskov and Christian Ydesen

Plagiarism in doctoral theses as ‘occupational risk’ of government ministers? The debate on good academic practice in German doctoral education in the light of high-profile plagiarism cases Hubert Ertl

Trends in exclusion rates for students with special educational needs within PISA Bernadetta Brzyska

The consequences of metrics for social justice: tensions, pending issues, and questions María Teresa Flórez Petour, Tamara Rozas Assael, Jacqueline Gysling Caselli and José Miguel Olave Astorga

Volume 44 Number 1, February 2018 - Special Issue - Inequalities and the curriculum

Special Issue: Inequalities and the curriculum

Guest Editors: Alice Sullivan, Morag Henderson, Jake Anders, Vanessa Moulton

Editorial: Inequalities and the curriculum Alice Sullivan, Morag Henderson, Jake Anders & Vanessa Moulton

Philosophical debates on curriculum, inequalities and social justice Richard Pring

Young people’s views on choice and fairness through their experiences of curriculum as examination specifications at GCSE Rhian Barrance & Jannette Elwood

Working at a different level? Curriculum differentiation in Irish lower secondary education Emer Smyth

Inequalities in school leavers’ labour market outcomes: do school subject choices matter? Cristina Iannelli & Adriana Duta

The role of schools in explaining individuals’ subject choices at age 14 Jake Anders, Morag Henderson, Vanessa Moulton & Alice Sullivan

Does what you study at age 14–16 matter for educational transitions post-16? Vanessa Moulton, Alice Sullivan, Morag Henderson & Jake Anders

The relationship between A-level subject choice and league table score of university attended: the ‘facilitating’, the ‘less suitable’, and the counter-intuitive Catherine Dilnot

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Review of Educational Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The Review of Educational Research ( RER , quarterly, begun in 1931; approximately 640 pp./volume year) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.

The Review of Educational Research publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research, and all analyses should be incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented. The following types of manuscripts fall within the journal’s purview:

Integrative reviews pull together the existing work on an educational topic and work to understand trends in that body of scholarship. In such a review, the author describes how the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how research methods and theories have shaped the outcomes of scholarship, and what the strengths and weaknesses of the literature are. Meta-analyses are of particular interest when they are accompanied by an interpretive framework that takes the article beyond the reporting of effect sizes and the bibliographic outcome of a computer search.

Theoretical reviews should explore how theory shapes research. To the extent that research is cited and interpreted, it is in the service of the specification, explication, and illumination of a theory. Theoretical reviews and integrative reviews have many similarities, but the former are primarily about how a theory is employed to frame research and our understandings, and refer to the research as it relates to the theory.

Methodological reviews are descriptions of research design, methods, and procedures that can be employed in literature reviews or research in general. The articles should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of methodological tools and explore how methods constrain or open up opportunities for learning about educational problems. They should be written in a style that is accessible to researchers in education rather than methodologists.

Historical reviews provide analyses that situate literature in historical contexts. Within these reviews, explanations for educational phenomena are framed within the historical forces that shape language and understanding.

Commissioned reviews and thematic issues. The editors may commission and solicit authors to review areas of literature. In all other respects, commissioned reviews are subject to the same review process as submitted reviews. The editors also encourage readers to propose thematic topics for special issues and, as potential guest editors, to submit plans for such issues.

In addition to review articles, RER will occasionally publish notes and responses which are short pieces of no more than 1,200 words on any topic that would be of use to reviewers of research. Typically, they point out shortcomings and differences in interpretation in RER articles and policy.

The standards and criteria for review articles in RER are the following:

1. Quality of the Literature. Standards used to determine quality of literature in education vary greatly. Any review needs to take into account the quality of the literature and its impact on findings. Authors should attempt to review all relevant literature on a topic (e.g., international literature, cross-disciplinary work, etc.).

2. Quality of Analysis. The review should go beyond description to include analysis and critiques of theories, methods, and conclusions represented in the literature. This analysis should also examine the issue of access—which perspectives are included or excluded in a body of work? Finally, the analysis should be reflexive—how does the scholars’ framework constrain what can be known in this review?

3. Significance of the Topic. The review should seek to inform and/or illuminate questions important to the field of education. While these questions may be broad-based, they should have implications for the educational problems and issues affecting our national and global societies.

4. Impact of the Article. The review should be seen as an important contribution and tool for the many different educators dealing with the educational problems and issues confronting society.

5. Advancement of the Field. The review should validate or inform the knowledge of researchers and guide and improve the quality of their research and scholarship.

6. Style. The review must be well written and conform to style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Authors should avoid the use of unexplained jargon and parochialism.

7. Balance and Fairness. The review should be careful not to misrepresent the positions taken by others, or be disrespectful of contrary positions.

8. Purpose. Any review should be accessible to the broad readership of RER. The purpose of any article should be to connect the particular problem addressed by the researcher(s) to a larger context of education.

We also encourage all authors interested in submitting a manuscript to RER to read our Editorial Vision for more information on our publication aims.

• Academic Search - Premier
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Elite
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Elite
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Premier
• EBSCO: Professional Development Collection
• EBSCO: Sales & Marketing Source
• EBSCOhost: Current Abstracts
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
• Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F)
• Higher Education Abstracts
• MasterFILE Select - EBSCO
• ProQuest Education Journals
• Social SciSearch
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Teacher Reference Center
• Wilson Education Index/Abstracts

1. Publication Standards 2. Submission Preparation Checklist 3. How to Get Help With the Quality of English in Your Submission 4. Copyright Information 5. For authors who use figures or other materials for which they do not own copyright 6. Right of Reply 7. Sage Choice and Open Access

The Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes comprehensive reviews of literature related to education and does not publish new empirical work, except in the context of meta-analytic reviews of an area. Please check the journal’s Aims and Scope to see if your manuscript is appropriate to submit to RER.

All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the editorial team at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rer . For questions or inquiries about manuscripts, email us at [email protected] . Manuscripts may not be submitted via e-mail.

Publication Standards

Researchers who intend to submit studies for publication should consult the Standards for Research Conduct adopted by the AERA Council. We also recommend consulting (a) the Guidelines for Reviewers , which outline the criteria under which manuscripts are reviewed for publication by AERA and (b) recent previous editions of the journal. Individuals submitting systematic reviews or meta-analyses should also consult The PRISMA Statement ( http://www.prisma-statement.org ) as well the article on “Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology” in American Psychologist, 63 , 839 – 851 (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839).

Submission Preparation Checklist

When you upload your initial submission, upload (1) a separate title page that is not anonymized. Please format the title page as described by the 7th edition of the APA Manual and (2) the main manuscript, which includes an ANONYMIZED title page, an abstract with keywords at the bottom, and the rest of the document including tables and figures, and finally (c) Author Bios.

Please ensure that your manuscript complies with the “ RER Formatting Requirements and Common Formatting Errors ” (see PDF on the RER website). If your submission does not meet these requirements, it will be returned to you.

Additionally, your submission should meet the following guidelines:

1. The submission has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; or an explanation has been provided in the Cover Letter. Authors should indicate in the Author Note on the separate title page if sections of the manuscript have been published in other venues.

2. THE MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, EVEN ON THE ANONYMIZED TITLE PAGE. Please anonymize any work of limited circulation (e.g., in press papers, manuscripts under submission) that would point to the author, both in the body of the manuscript and the reference list. More information on anonymizing is described subsequently. Please double check that the author’s name has been removed from the document’s Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu (select “File,” “Properties,” “Summary,” and remove the author’s name; select “OK” to save).

3. The text conforms to APA style (currently the 7th ed.). Consult the guidelines spelled out under “Manuscript Style, Length, and Format” on this webpage and in the RER Formatting Requirements PDF included on our website.

4. The submission must be in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx), which will be converted into a PDF file. Please do not upload PDF files, or they will be returned to you.

5. All URL addresses and DOIs in the manuscript (e.g., http://www.aera.net ) should be activated and ready to click.

6. An abstract of 150 words maximum is included (both separately and on the second page of the main document after the ANONYMIZED title page). Please also include three to five keywords—the terms that researchers will use to find your article in indexes and databases.

Manuscript Style, Length, and Format

The style guide for the Review of Educational Research and all AERA journals is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed., 2020. The manual is available for purchase here . Guidelines are also available on the APA website .

Manuscripts should NOT exceed 65 pages (or 15,000 words), including tables, figures, appendices, notes, and references, but excluding anonymized title page, abstract, and any supplementary files. Pages should be numbered consecutively in the top right-hand corner, with a fully capitalized running head in the top-left corner. All manuscripts should begin with the anonymized title page (p.1). Manuscripts should be typed for 8½” x 11” paper, in upper and lower case, with 1-inch margins on all sides. Manuscripts should be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font. Manuscripts that exceed 65 pages may be returned without review.

All text, from the title page to the end of the manuscript should be double-spaced , including the abstract, block quotations, bulleted text, and the reference list. Single-spacing is allowed in tables when it is useful in making the table clearer. Do not leave blank lines after paragraphs or before sub-headings. However, if a heading or subheading is the last line on a page, use a page break to move it to the top of the next page. The Abstract, Introduction (beginning with the title), the References, and all tables and figures begin on new pages.

Please use the five subheadings as appropriate based on the 7th edition of the APA style manual. In addition to being on the title page, the title should also be placed at the beginning of the Introduction (in lieu of the word, “Introduction,” which should not appear) and the title at the beginning of the Introduction should be a Level 1 heading.

Tables and figures are to be placed after the references—all tables precede all figures—and should not be included in the body of the text. Each figure and table should begin on a separate page. Do NOT use the “Place Table 5 here” or “Place Figure 1 here” convention. The tables and figures will be placed nearest to where they are mentioned as appropriate when copyediting is done.

Figures and tables should present data to the reader in a clear and unambiguous manner, and should be referred to in the text. If the illustration/table/figure and text are redundant, eliminate the illustration or reduce the amount of detail provided in text. The use of lines in tables is limited (please consult the APA style manual for formatting guidelines ). Figure captions should be placed at the bottom of the figure. One high-quality electronic version of each figure must be submitted with the manuscript. Tables will be typeset. Note that any figures and tables uploaded separately from the main manuscript will still count toward the total 65-page limit.

Italics can be used for emphasis or contrast in special situations but should be used sparingly. Ideally, sentence structure should be used for these issues. All words to be set in italics (e.g., book titles, journal names) should be typed in italics. There should be no underlined text . Abbreviations and acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are mentioned unless they are found as entries in their abbreviated form in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , 11th ed., 2003 (e.g., “IQ” can be used without being spelled out). Mathematical symbols and symbols for vectors should be clearly formatted in italics and boldface, respectively.

You can use the footnote or endnote feature of Microsoft Word. However, notes are only for explanations or amplifications of textual material that cannot be incorporated into the regular text; they are not for reference information. Moreover, notes are distracting to readers and expensive to produce and should be used sparingly and avoided whenever possible.

The reference list should contain only references that are cited in the text. Its accuracy and completeness are the responsibility of the authors. Reference each publicly available dataset with its title, author, date, and a persistent Web identifier such as a digital object identifier (doi), a handle, or a uniform resource name (URN). If necessary, this last element may be replaced by a web address. Additionally, any references that were included in the analysis but not cited in-text in the main manuscript can be included in a separate reference list that is uploaded as a Supplementary File for Review (this may assist in meeting the page limit).

Authors should anonymize their manuscripts for review . Anonymizing does not mean removing all self-citations. Authors should only anonymize citations of limited circulation (e.g., forthcoming, in press, unpublished) that point to the author. Publications already in the extant literature (e.g., books, book chapters, journal articles) should be cited normally, but authors should include self-citations judiciously . When anonymizing, please use “Author” or “Authors” as in the examples below and place this alphabetically in the reference list and not where the author’s actual name would typically appear.

For examples of common types of references, consult the APA 7th edition manual, or visit the webpage here: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references

How to Get Help with the Quality of English in Your Submission

Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using the services of a professional English-language editing company. We highlight some of these companies at  https://languageservices.sagepub.com/en/ .

Please be aware that Sage has no affiliation with these companies and makes no endorsement of them. An author's use of these services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the particular company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.

Copyright Information Accepted authors will be asked to  assign copyright  to AERA, in return for which AERA grants several rights to authors.

Permission to reproduce your own published material

No written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from this journal, or to make photocopies for classroom use. Authors are granted permission, without fee, to photocopy their own material or make printouts from the final pdf of their article. Copies must include a full and accurate bibliographic citation and the following credit line: “Copyright [year] by the American Educational Research Association; reproduced with permission from the publisher.” Written permission must be obtained to reproduce or reprint material in circumstances other than those just described. Please review Sage Publishing’s  Journal Permissions  for further information on policies and fees.

Permission to submit material for which you do not own copyright

Authors who wish to use material, such as figures or tables, for which they do not own the copyright must obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher) and submit it along with their manuscript. However, no written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from an AERA journal.

Copyright transfer agreements for accepted works with more than one author

This journal uses a transfer of copyright agreement that requires just one author (the corresponding author) to sign on behalf of all authors. Please identify the corresponding author for your work when submitting your manuscript for review. The corresponding author will be responsible for the following:

1. Ensuring that all authors are identified on the copyright agreement, and notifying the editorial office of any changes in the authorship.

2. Securing written permission (by letter or e-mail) from each co-author to sign the copyright agreement on the co-author’s behalf.

3. Warranting and indemnifying the journal owner and publisher on behalf of all co-authors. Although such instances are very rare, you should be aware that in the event that a co-author has included content in his or her portion of the article that infringes the copyright of another or is otherwise in violation of any other warranty listed in the agreement, you will be the sole author indemnifying the publisher and the editor of the journal against such violation.

Please contact the publications office at  AERA  if you have questions or if you prefer to use a copyright agreement for all coauthors to sign.

Right of Reply

The right of reply policy encourages comments on recently published articles in AERA publications. They are, of course, subject to the same editorial review and decision process as articles. If the comment is accepted for publication, the editor shall inform the author of the original article. If the author submits a reply to the comment, the reply is also subject to editorial review and decision. The editor may allot a specific amount of journal space for the comment (ordinarily about 1,500 words) and for the reply (ordinarily about 750 words). The reply may appear in the same issue as the comment or in a later issue (Council, June 1980).

If an article is accepted for publication in an AERA journal that, in the judgment of the editor, has as its main theme or thrust a critique of a specific piece of work or a specific line of work associated with an individual or program of research, then the individual or representative of the research program whose work is critiqued should be notified in advance about the upcoming publication and given the opportunity to reply, ideally in the same issue. The author of the original article should also be notified. Normal guidelines for length and review of the reply and publication of a rejoinder by the original article’s author(s) should be followed. Articles in the format “an open letter to …” may constitute prototypical exemplars of the category defined here, but other formats may well be used, and would be included under the qualifications for response prescribed here (Council, January 2002).

Sage Choice and Open Access

If you or your funder wish your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in Sage Choice, subject to payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let Sage know directly if you are choosing Sage Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit  Sage Choice . For more information on open access options and compliance at Sage, including self author archiving deposits (green open access) visit  Sage Publishing Policies  on our Journal Author Gateway.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

• Library databases
• Library website

Education Literature Review: Education Literature Review

What does this guide cover.

Writing the literature review is a long, complex process that requires you to use many different tools, resources, and skills.

This page provides links to the guides, tutorials, and webinars that can help you with all aspects of completing your literature review.

The Basic Process

These resources provide overviews of the entire literature review process. Start here if you are new to the literature review process.

• Literature Reviews Overview : Writing Center
• How to do a Literature Review : Library
• Video: Common Errors Made When Conducting a Lit Review (YouTube)  

The Role of the Literature Review

Your literature review gives your readers an understanding of the evolution of scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

• survey the scholarly landscape
• provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts
• possibly provide some historical background

Review the literature in two ways:

• Section 1: reviews the literature for the Problem
• Section 3: reviews the literature for the Project

The literature review is NOT an annotated bibliography. Nor should it simply summarize the articles you've read. Literature reviews are organized thematically and demonstrate synthesis of the literature.

For more information, view the Library's short video on searching by themes:

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

Search for Literature

The iterative process of research:

• Find an article.
• Read the article and build new searches using keywords and names from the article.
• Mine the bibliography for other works.
• Use “cited by” searches to find more recent works that reference the article.
• Repeat steps 2-4 with the new articles you find.

These are the main skills and resources you will need in order to effectively search for literature on your topic:

• Subject Research: Education by Jon Allinder Last Updated Aug 7, 2023 5319 views this year
• Keyword Searching: Finding Articles on Your Topic by Lynn VanLeer Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 25753 views this year
• Google Scholar by Jon Allinder Last Updated Aug 16, 2023 16560 views this year
• Quick Answer: How do I find books and articles that cite an article I already have?
• Quick Answer: How do I find a measurement, test, survey or instrument?

Video: Education Databases and Doctoral Research Resources

(6 min 04 sec) Recorded April 2019 Transcript 

Staying Organized

The literature review requires organizing a variety of information. The following resources will help you develop the organizational systems you'll need to be successful.

• Organize your research
• Citation Management Software

You can make your search log as simple or complex as you would like.  It can be a table in a word document or an excel spread sheet.  Here are two examples.  The word document is a basic table where you can keep track of databases, search terms, limiters, results and comments.  The Excel sheet is more complex and has additional sheets for notes, Google Scholar log; Journal Log, and Questions to ask the Librarian.  

• Search Log Example Sample search log in Excel
• Search Log Example Sample search log set up as a table in a word document.
• Literature Review Matrix with color coding Sample template for organizing and synthesizing your research

Writing the Literature Review

The following resources created by the Writing Center and the Academic Skills Center support the writing process for the dissertation/project study. 

• Critical Reading
• What is Synthesis 
• Walden Templates
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden EdD (Doctor of Education) studies?
• Quick Answer: How do I find Walden PhD dissertations?

Beyond the Literature Review

The literature review isn't the only portion of a dissertation/project study that requires searching. The following resources can help you identify and utilize a theory, methodology, measurement instruments, or statistics.

• Education Theory by Jon Allinder Last Updated May 17, 2024 646 views this year
• Tests & Measures in Education by Kimberly Burton Last Updated Nov 18, 2021 51 views this year
• Education Statistics by Jon Allinder Last Updated Feb 22, 2022 63 views this year
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services

Books and Articles about the Lit Review

The following articles and books outline the purpose of the literature review and offer advice for successfully completing one.

• Chen, D. T. V., Wang, Y. M., & Lee, W. C. (2016). Challenges confronting beginning researchers in conducting literature reviews. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2015.1030335 Proposes a framework to conceptualize four types of challenges students face: linguistic, methodological, conceptual, and ontological.
• Randolph, J.J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14(13), 1-13. Provides advice for writing a quantitative or qualitative literature review, by a Walden faculty member.
• Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606 This article presents the integrative review of literature as a distinctive form of research that uses existing literature to create new knowledge.
• Wee, B. V., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper?. Transport Reviews, 36(2), 278-288. http://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456 Discusses how to write a literature review with a focus on adding value rather and suggests structural and contextual aspects found in outstanding literature reviews.
• Winchester, C. L., & Salji, M. (2016). Writing a literature review. Journal of Clinical Urology, 9(5), 308-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415816650133 Reviews the use of different document types to add structure and enrich your literature review and the skill sets needed in writing the literature review.
• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971 Examines different types of literature reviews and the steps necessary to produce a systematic review in educational research.

• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Library Search
• View Library Account
• The Claremont Colleges Library
• Research Guides
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Getting Started With Research
• Finding Scholarly Articles
• Finding Books & Papers
• Finding Education Data & Testing Resources

What is a Literature Review?

Basics of a literature review, types of literature reviews.

• Citing Your Information (Attribution)

A Literature Review is a systematic and comprehensive analysis of books, scholarly articles and other sources relevant to a specific topic providing a base of knowledge on a topic. Literature reviews are designed to identify and critique the existing literature on a topic to justify your research by exposing gaps in current research .  This investigation should provide a description, summary, and critical evaluation of works related to the research problem and should also add to the overall knowledge of the topic as well as demonstrating how your research will fit within a larger field of study.  A literature review should offer critical analysis of the current research on a topic and that analysis should direct your research objective. This should not be confused with a book review or an annotated bibliography both research tools but very different in purpose and scope.  A Literature Review can be a stand alone element or part of a larger end product, know your assignment.  Key to a good Literature Review is to document your process. For more information see:

Planning a Literature Review .

There are many different ways to organize your references in a literature review, but most reviews contain certain basic elements.

• Objective of the literature review - Clearly describe the purpose of the paper and state your objectives in completing the literature review.
•   Overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration – Give an overview of your research topic and what prompted it.
• Categorization of sources – Grouping your research either historic, chronologically or thematically
• Organization of Subtopics – Subtopics should be grouped and presented in a logical order starting with the most prominent or significant and moving to the least significant
• Discussion – Provide analysis of both the uniqueness of each source and its similarities with other source
• Conclusion   - Summary of your analysis and evaluation of the reviewed works and how it is related to its parent discipline, scientific endeavor or profession

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

• << Previous: Finding Education Data & Testing Resources
• Next: Citing Your Information (Attribution) >>
• : Jun 17, 2024 4:11 PM
• URL: https://libguides.libraries.claremont.edu/education

Five Stages of Instructional Review: A Guide for Reviewing Graduate Student Instruction

Good teachers continually learn and develop. Review of teaching, which combines the examination of course materials with in-class observations and collegial discussion, helps prompt this learning among instructors. Ideally, these interactions and conversations can create opportunities for both parties participating in the review process to reflect on and adapt their teaching practices in order to become better teachers and increase student learning.

Graduate students have varying levels of prior teaching experience and may have different objectives for instructional review. The collaborative nature of this model allows for a conversation to arrive at a shared understanding of the purpose for the review. The review may be formative in nature and used to improve the instructor’s teaching, or summative and used as an artifact for a teaching portfolio. The review process is an opportunity for symbiotic learning between the instructor and observer to reflect on teaching methods, share instructional strategies, and dialogue about teaching. 

Stage 1 :   Purpose of the Review

Stage 2 :   Pre-observation Meeting

Stage 3 :   The Review

Stage 4 :   Post-observation Meeting

Stage 5 :   Reflection

STAGE 1: PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Prior to the teaching review, determine the purpose of the teaching review and identify any deliverables that may emerge from the review (e.g., letter for teaching portfolio, recommendation for a teaching award, etc.).

Use the following descriptions of two potential purposes for teaching review to shape your goals:

1.   Formative peer review of teaching  to help instructors enhance teaching and learning in their courses . 

Formative peer review gives instructors opportunities to consider, modify, and reexamine their teaching with the support of their colleagues by using a shared understanding of good teaching. Frequent formative peer review naturally provides an ongoing process that can contribute meaningfully to summative peer review by demonstrating a trajectory of improvement in teaching over time.

2.   S ummative peer review of teaching  to  evaluate and assess .

Summative review uses the same understanding of good teaching as a way to evaluate and assess teaching effectiveness for a variety of purposes.  These include making decisions about honors such as teaching awards and providing documentation for evaluation summaries that can be included in graduate students’ teaching portfolios .

STAGE 2: PRE-OBSERVATION MEETING

Arrange a meeting with the graduate student instructor you are observing prior to the review in order to learn more about the instructors’ goals and expectations. 

Pre-observation is a three-part process consisting of 1) coming to a shared understanding of the purpose of the review, 2) closely examining the course materials an instructor has organized to support student learning, and 3) engaging in purposeful conversation with the instructor about class expectations and context; these will provide necessary background for the observation.

Helpful tips:

a. Agree upon a few areas of focus for observation: There are many aspects of teaching that one can receive feedback on.  Narrowing the focus to 2 or 3 areas (i.e.,student engagement, discussion question variety; see Observation Guide for more ideas) can help the graduate student instructor create a manageable plan of action.

b. Reflect on your own development as a teacher. What mentoring strategies were most helpful to your growth as a teacher? What support did you wish you had? Consider these past experiences and how your current role positions you to evaluate and assess others’ teaching. Also consider: what areas do you have for growth in your own teaching and what might you learn from this experience?

Hear what Professor Sean Theriault learned in his own teaching mentoring:

c. Look together at some resources on teaching excellence to develop a shared understanding of what is effective teaching and learning for this graduate student instructor’s classroom/students.

Classroom Observation Rubric

Teaching Behaviors Inventory

d. The following questions can help shape the conversation:

• Would you prefer for the observation to be recorded and/or for me to be present in-person?
• If in person, would you prefer for me to be there the entire class period, or is there a portion that would be most helpful to observe?
• What do you consider the ideal outcome for student learning in this course?
• How do you want students to engage with the learning during his class?
• What do you see as the student’s role and responsibility in doing that?
• What strategies/methods will you use to help students reach your goals?
• How will you know if your students achieve the desired goal?
• Is there anything I should I know about the context of the class? Where does it fit in the course?
• Is there anything I should know about the students so I can understand what is going on in class?
• How are students expected to prepare for this class?
• What do you want students to take-away from the course?
• What do you want to happen in this lesson? How does that fit in the broader course outcomes?
• Any specific areas of interest, questions, or concerns about student learning you’d like me to focus on?
• How would you like to introduce me to the class, if at all?
• What have you learned from previous observations? What would you like to learn from this observation experience?

STAGE 3: THE REVIEW

The review is a focused and purposeful inquiry into observable individual and group behaviors in a specific class to help both instructor and observer “see” teaching and learning from a different perspective. Commit to being present for at least one class period in order for the instructor to get in a rhythm and display typical teaching behaviors. As the observer, you have an opportunity to learn and gather strategies that you can try in your own classroom.

The following tools can help you (1) collect and organize data throughout the observation, (2) create detailed field notes that you have the opportunity to share with the instructor being observed, and (3) construct a valuable reflective summary for the instructor.

CTL Observation Guide

Field Notes Template

STAGE 4: POST-OBSERVATION MEETING

The post-observation is a follow-up meeting of the observer and instructor to bring impressions from the materials' review and the observation together in a mutual conversation about teaching and learning.

Begin the meeting by returning to the areas of focus to 2 or 3 areas selected in the Pre-Observation Meeting, and allow the conversation to be driven by the instructor’s reflection on the observed lesson relative to the areas of focus. Thus, if “student engagement” was a pre-identified area of focus, you could ask the instructor “in what ways did you know your students were engaged during the lesson?” Build on the instructor’s reflections, keep the conversation specific and concentrated to a few areas of focus. 

Here are some resources on giving and receiving constructive feedback that can enhance the post-observation process:

University of Calgary, Formative Feedback (p. 13)

Michigan State University, Characteristics of Constructive Feedback

STAGE 5: REFLECTION

A reflective summary is a brief, written analysis by the observer of what was learned about teaching and student learning.  Promptly after the review and post-observation meeting, while the experience is still fresh, use notes and data collected throughout the review process to draft a summary that can assist the instructor reflecting upon their teaching. Provide concrete examples from the instructor’s class session to help the instructor get a clear understanding of your takeaways.

Some questions to consider include:

What are the instructor’s areas of strength? 

What are some areas where the instructor can grow in their teaching practice?

What have you learned about your own teaching as a result of the observation?

It may be helpful to refer back to the categories delineated in the observation form and rubric to articulate the instructors’ areas of strength and possibilities for development/refinement.

 Resources

Teaching Observation Guide

Classroom Observation Field Notes

Focus on Formative Feedback (University of Calgary)

Characteristics of Constructive Feedback (Michigan State University)

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Learning objectives.

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify the purpose of the literature review in  the research process
• Distinguish between different types of literature reviews

1.1 What is a Literature Review?

Pick up nearly any book on research methods and you will find a description of a literature review.  At a basic level, the term implies a survey of factual or nonfiction books, articles, and other documents published on a particular subject.  Definitions may be similar across the disciplines, with new types and definitions continuing to emerge.  Generally speaking, a literature review is a:

• “comprehensive background of the literature within the interested topic area…” ( O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015, p. 31 ).
• “critical component of the research process that provides an in-depth analysis of recently published research findings in specifically identified areas of interest.” ( House, 2018, p. 109 ).
• “written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study” ( Machi & McEvoy,  2012, p. 4 ).

As a foundation for knowledge advancement in every discipline, it is an important element of any research project.  At the graduate or doctoral level, the literature review is an essential feature of thesis and dissertation, as well as grant proposal writing.  That is to say, “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research…A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.” ( Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3 ).  It is by this means, that a researcher demonstrates familiarity with a body of knowledge and thereby establishes credibility with a reader.  An advanced-level literature review shows how prior research is linked to a new project, summarizing and synthesizing what is known while identifying gaps in the knowledge base, facilitating theory development, closing areas where enough research already exists, and uncovering areas where more research is needed. ( Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xiii )

A graduate-level literature review is a compilation of the most significant previously published research on your topic. Unlike an annotated bibliography or a research paper you may have written as an undergraduate, your literature review will outline, evaluate and synthesize relevant research and relate those sources to your own thesis or research question. It is much more than a summary of all the related literature.

It is a type of writing that demonstrate the importance of your research by defining the main ideas and the relationship between them. A good literature review lays the foundation for the importance of your stated problem and research question.

Literature reviews:

• define a concept
• map the research terrain or scope
• systemize relationships between concepts
• identify gaps in the literature ( Rocco & Plathotnik, 2009, p. 128 )

The purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that your research question  is meaningful. Additionally, you may review the literature of different disciplines to find deeper meaning and understanding of your topic. It is especially important to consider other disciplines when you do not find much on your topic in one discipline. You will need to search the cognate literature before claiming there is “little previous research” on your topic.

Well developed literature reviews involve numerous steps and activities. The literature review is an iterative process because you will do at least two of them: a preliminary search to learn what has been published in your area and whether there is sufficient support in the literature for moving ahead with your subject. After this first exploration, you will conduct a deeper dive into the literature to learn everything you can about the topic and its related issues.

Literature Review Tutorial

1.2 Literature Review Basics

An effective literature review must:

• Methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic
• Provide a firm foundation to a topic or research area
• Provide a firm foundation for the selection of a research methodology
• Demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge of advances the research field’s knowledge base. ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

All literature reviews, whether they are qualitative, quantitative or both, will at some point:

• Introduce the topic and define its key terms
• Establish the importance of the topic
• Provide an overview of the amount of available literature and its types (for example: theoretical, statistical, speculative)
• Identify gaps in the literature
• Point out consistent finding across studies
• Arrive at a synthesis that organizes what is known about a topic
• Discusses possible implications and directions for future research

1.3 Types of Literature Reviews

There are many different types of literature reviews, however there are some shared characteristics or features.  Remember a comprehensive literature review is, at its most fundamental level, an original work based on an extensive critical examination and synthesis of the relevant literature on a topic. As a study of the research on a particular topic, it is arranged by key themes or findings, which may lead up to or link to the  research question.  In some cases, the research question will drive the type of literature review that is undertaken.

The following section includes brief descriptions of the terms used to describe different literature review types with examples of each.   The included citations are open access, Creative Commons licensed or copyright-restricted.

1.3.1 Types of Review

1.3.1.1 conceptual.

Guided by an understanding of basic issues rather than a research methodology. You are looking for key factors, concepts or variables and the presumed relationship between them. The goal of the conceptual literature review is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to your study or topic and outline a relationship between them. You will include relevant theory and empirical research.

Examples of a Conceptual Review:

• Education : The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review. ( Dohn, 2010 ).
• Education : Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. ( Amundsen & Wilson, 2012 ).

1.3.1.2 Empirical

An empirical literature review collects, creates, arranges, and analyzes numeric data reflecting the frequency of themes, topics, authors and/or methods found in existing literature. Empirical literature reviews present their summaries in quantifiable terms using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Examples of an Empirical Review:

• Nursing : False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: An empirical review. ( Imberger, Thorlund, Gluud, & Wettersley, 2016 ).
• Education : Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review ( Mwakyusa & Mwalyagile, 2016 ).

1.3.1.3 Exploratory

Unlike a synoptic literature review, the purpose here is to provide a broad approach to the topic area. The aim is breadth rather than depth and to get a general feel for the size of the topic area. A graduate student might do an exploratory review of the literature before beginning a synoptic, or more comprehensive one.

Examples of an Exploratory Review:

• Education : University research management: An exploratory literature review. ( Schuetzenmeister, 2010 ).
• Education : An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. ( Rosario & Widmeyer, 2009 ).

1.3.1.4 Focused

A type of literature review limited to a single aspect of previous research, such as methodology. A focused literature review generally will describe the implications of choosing a particular element of past research, such as methodology in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Examples of a Focused Review:

• Nursing : Clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A focused literature review. ( Khunti, Davies, & Khunti, 2015 ).
• Education : Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature. ( Stainton, 1992 ).

1.3.1.5 Integrative

Critiques past research and draws overall conclusions from the body of literature at a specified point in time. Reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way. Most integrative reviews are intended to address mature topics or  emerging topics. May require the author to adopt a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about a topic.  For more description of integrative reviews, see Whittemore & Knafl (2005).

Examples of an Integrative Review:

• Nursing : Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: An integrative review. ( Franklin,  Bernhardt, Lopez, Long-Middleton, & Davis, 2015 ).
• Education : Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review. ( Brock & Ryan, 2016 ).

1.3.1.6 Meta-analysis

A subset of a  systematic review, that takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures to pool together data. Integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding, draw conclusions, and detect patterns and relationships. Gather data from many different, independent studies that look at the same research question and assess similar outcome measures. Data is combined and re-analyzed, providing a greater statistical power than any single study alone. It’s important to note that not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis but a meta-analysis can’t exist without a systematic review of the literature.

Examples of a Meta-Analysis:

• Education : Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. ( Capar & Tarim, 2015 ).
• Nursing : A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students. ( Lee, Lee, Gong, Bae, & Choi, 2016 ).
• Education : Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. ( Weinburgh, 1995 ).

1.3.1.7 Narrative/Traditional

An overview of research on a particular topic that critiques and summarizes a body of literature. Typically broad in focus. Relevant past research is selected and synthesized into a coherent discussion. Methodologies, findings and limits of the existing body of knowledge are discussed in narrative form. Sometimes also referred to as a traditional literature review. Requires a sufficiently focused research question. The process may be subject to bias that supports the researcher’s own work.

Examples of a Narrative/Traditional Review:

• Nursing : Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. ( Morris, King, Turner, & Payne, 2015 ).
• Education : Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. ( Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997 ).
• Education : Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. ( Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014 ).
• Nursing : Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: A narrative review, implications, and directions for future research. ( Williams & Skinner, 2003 ).

1.3.1.8 Realist

Aspecific type of literature review that is theory-driven and interpretative and is intended to explain the outcomes of a complex intervention program(s).

Examples of a Realist Review:

• Nursing : Lean thinking in healthcare: A realist review of the literature. ( Mazzacato, Savage, Brommels, 2010 ).
• Education : Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. ( Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen, & Dolmans, 2017 ).

1.3.1.9 Scoping

Tend to be non-systematic and focus on breadth of coverage conducted on a topic rather than depth. Utilize a wide range of materials; may not evaluate the quality of the studies as much as count the number. One means of understanding existing literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research; preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research on topic. May include research in progress.

Examples of a Scoping Review:

• Nursing : Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: A scoping review. ( Khanassov, Pluye, Descoteaux, Haggerty,  Russell, Gunn, & Levesque, 2016 ).
• Education : Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review. ( Vanstone, Hibbert, Kinsella, McKenzie, Pitman, & Lingard, 2013 ).
• Nursing : A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. ( Ridde, & Morestin, 2011 ).

1.3.1.10 Synoptic

Unlike an exploratory review, the purpose is to provide a concise but accurate overview of all material that appears to be relevant to a chosen topic. Both content and methodological material is included. The review should aim to be both descriptive and evaluative. Summarizes previous studies while also showing how the body of literature could be extended and improved in terms of content and method by identifying gaps.

Examples of a Synoptic Review:

• Education : Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review. ( Ghaicha, 2016 ).
• Education : School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future. ( Cuttance, 1981 ).

1.3.1.11 Systematic Review

A rigorous review that follows a strict methodology designed with a presupposed selection of literature reviewed.  Undertaken to clarify the state of existing research, the evidence, and possible implications that can be drawn from that.  Using comprehensive and exhaustive searching of the published and unpublished literature, searching various databases, reports, and grey literature.  Transparent and reproducible in reporting details of time frame, search and methods to minimize bias.  Must include a team of at least 2-3 and includes the critical appraisal of the literature.  For more description of systematic reviews, including links to protocols, checklists, workflow processes, and structure see “ A Young Researcher’s Guide to a Systematic Review “.

Examples of a Systematic Review:

• Education : The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review ( Hartmann, Braae, Pedersen, & Khalid, 2017 )
• Nursing : Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality. ( Pimpin, Wu, Haskelberg, Del Gobbo, & Mozaffarian, 2016 ).
• Education : The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. ( Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003 ).
• Nursing : Using computers to self-manage type 2 diabetes. ( Pal, Eastwood, Michie, Farmer, Barnard, Peacock, Wood, Inniss, & Murray, 2013 ).

1.3.1.12 Umbrella/Overview of Reviews

Compiles evidence from multiple systematic reviews into one document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address those interventions and their effects. Often used in recommendations for practice.

Examples of an Umbrella/Overview Review:

• Education : Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review. ( Fragknos, 2016 ).
• Nursing : Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. ( Seida, Ospina, Karkhaneh, Hartling, Smith, & Clark, 2009 ).

For a brief discussion see “ Not all literature reviews are the same ” (Thomson, 2013).

1.4 Why do a Literature Review?

The purpose of the literature review is the same regardless of the topic or research method. It tests your own research question against what is already known about the subject.

1.4.1 First – It’s part of the whole. Omission of a literature review chapter or section in a graduate-level project represents a serious void or absence of critical element in the research process.

The outcome of your review is expected to demonstrate that you:

• can systematically explore the research in your topic area
• can read and critically analyze the literature in your discipline and then use it appropriately to advance your own work
• have sufficient knowledge in the topic to undertake further investigation

1.4.2 Second – It’s good for you!

• You improve your skills as a researcher
• You become familiar with the discourse of your discipline and learn how to be a scholar in your field
• You learn through writing your ideas and finding your voice in your subject area
• You define, redefine and clarify your research question for yourself in the process

1.4.3 Third – It’s good for your reader. Your reader expects you to have done the hard work of gathering, evaluating and synthesizes the literature.  When you do a literature review you:

• Set the context for the topic and present its significance
• Identify what’s important to know about your topic – including individual material, prior research, publications, organizations and authors.
• Demonstrate relationships among prior research
• Establish limitations of existing knowledge
• Analyze trends in the topic’s treatment and gaps in the literature

1.4.4 Why do a literature review?

• To locate gaps in the literature of your discipline
• To avoid reinventing the wheel
• To carry on where others have already been
• To identify other people working in the same field
• To increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
• To find the seminal works in your field
• To provide intellectual context for your own work
• To acknowledge opposing viewpoints
• To put your work in perspective
• To demonstrate you can discover and retrieve previous work in the area

1.5 Common Literature Review Errors

Graduate-level literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic.  As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews are a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing.  We will explore these topics more in the next chapters.  Some things to keep in mind as you begin your own research and writing are ways to avoid the most common errors seen in the first attempt at a literature review.  For a quick review of some of the pitfalls and challenges a new researcher faces when he/she begins work, see “ Get Ready: Academic Writing, General Pitfalls and (oh yes) Getting Started! ”.

As you begin your own graduate-level literature review, try to avoid these common mistakes:

• Accepts another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
• Contrary findings and alternative interpretations are not considered or mentioned
• Findings are not clearly related to one’s own study, or findings are too general
• Insufficient time allowed to define best search strategies and writing
• Isolated statistical results are simply reported rather than synthesizing the results
• Problems with selecting and using most relevant keywords, subject headings and descriptors
• Relies too heavily on secondary sources
• Search methods are not recorded or reported for transparency
• Summarizes rather than synthesizes articles

In conclusion, the purpose of a literature review is three-fold:

• to survey the current state of knowledge or evidence in the area of inquiry,
• to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and
• to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area.

A literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases, often working with a trained librarian or information expert. Keywords can be combined using the Boolean operators, “and”, “or” and sometimes “not”  to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a list of articles is generated from the keyword and subject heading search, the researcher must then manually browse through each title and abstract, to determine the suitability of that article before a full-text article is obtained for the research question.

Literature reviews should be reasonably complete, and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology or research design. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables, and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix.

A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.

The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions and may provide evidence to inform policy or decision-making. ( Bhattacherjee, 2012 ).

Read Abstract 1.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of literature review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Nursing : To describe evidence of international literature on the safe care of the hospitalised child after the World Alliance for Patient Safety and list contributions of the general theoretical framework of patient safety for paediatric nursing.

An integrative literature review between 2004 and 2015 using the databases PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library, and the descriptors Safety or Patient safety, Hospitalised child, Paediatric nursing, and Nursing care.

Thirty-two articles were analysed, most of which were from North American, with a descriptive approach. The quality of the recorded information in the medical records, the use of checklists, and the training of health workers contribute to safe care in paediatric nursing and improve the medication process and partnerships with parents.

General information available on patient safety should be incorporated in paediatric nursing care. ( Wegner, Silva, Peres, Bandeira, Frantz, Botene, & Predebon, 2017 ).

Read Abstract 2.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of lit review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Education : The focus of this paper centers around timing associated with early childhood education programs and interventions using meta-analytic methods. At any given assessment age, a child’s current age equals starting age, plus duration of program, plus years since program ended. Variability in assessment ages across the studies should enable everyone to identify the separate effects of all three time-related components. The project is a meta-analysis of evaluation studies of early childhood education programs conducted in the United States and its territories between 1960 and 2007. The population of interest is children enrolled in early childhood education programs between the ages of 0 and 5 and their control-group counterparts. Since the data come from a meta-analysis, the population for this study is drawn from many different studies with diverse samples. Given the preliminary nature of their analysis, the authors cannot offer conclusions at this point. ( Duncan, Leak, Li, Magnuson, Schindler, & Yoshikawa, 2011 ).

Test Yourself

See Answer Key for the correct responses.

The purpose of a graduate-level literature review is to summarize in as many words as possible everything that is known about my topic.

A literature review is significant because in the process of doing one, the researcher learns to read and critically assess the literature of a discipline and then uses it appropriately to advance his/her own research.

Read the following abstract and choose the correct type of literature review it represents.

Nursing: E-cigarette use has become increasingly popular, especially among the young. Its long-term influence upon health is unknown. Aim of this review has been to present the current state of knowledge about the impact of e-cigarette use on health, with an emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe. During the preparation of this narrative review, the literature on e-cigarettes available within the network PubMed was retrieved and examined. In the final review, 64 research papers were included. We specifically assessed the construction and operation of the e-cigarette as well as the chemical composition of the e-liquid; the impact that vapor arising from the use of e-cigarette explored in experimental models in vitro; and short-term effects of use of e-cigarettes on users’ health. Among the substances inhaled by the e-smoker, there are several harmful products, such as: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acroleine, propanal, nicotine, acetone, o-methyl-benzaldehyde, carcinogenic nitrosamines. Results from experimental animal studies indicate the negative impact of e-cigarette exposure on test models, such as ascytotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammation, airway hyper reactivity, airway remodeling, mucin production, apoptosis, and emphysematous changes. The short-term impact of e-cigarettes on human health has been studied mostly in experimental setting. Available evidence shows that the use of e-cigarettes may result in acute lung function responses (e.g., increase in impedance, peripheral airway flow resistance) and induce oxidative stress. Based on the current available evidence, e-cigarette use is associated with harmful biologic responses, although it may be less harmful than traditional cigarettes. (J ankowski, Brożek, Lawson, Skoczyński, & Zejda, 2017 ).

• Meta-analysis
• Exploratory

Education: In this review, Mary Vorsino writes that she is interested in keeping the potential influences of women pragmatists of Dewey’s day in mind while presenting modern feminist re readings of Dewey. She wishes to construct a narrowly-focused and succinct literature review of thinkers who have donned a feminist lens to analyze Dewey’s approaches to education, learning, and democracy and to employ Dewey’s works in theorizing on gender and education and on gender in society. This article first explores Dewey as both an ally and a problematic figure in feminist literature and then investigates the broader sphere of feminist pragmatism and two central themes within it: (1) valuing diversity, and diverse experiences; and (2) problematizing fixed truths. ( Vorsino, 2015 ).

Image Attributions

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students Copyright © by Linda Frederiksen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Education Review

About the Journal

Welcome! Education Review (ISSN: 1094-5296) publishes reviews of recent books in English, Spanish, and Portuguese spanning a wide range of education scholarship and practice across the globe. We also publish autobiographical essays highlighting the acquired wisdom and pedagogical legacies of esteemed educational researchers.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The journal will be selective regarding new requests to review English titles for the next few months as we restructure our journal offerings.

Announcements

Nova legados pedagógicos / new pedagogical legacies, current issue, review of do your lessons love your students creative education for social change, review of the student: a short history, review of school moms: parent activism, partisan politics and the battle for public education, review of teach truth to power: how to engage in education policy, review of black male success in higher education: how the mathematical brotherhood empowers a collegiate community to thrive, review of culturally and socially responsible assessment: theory, research, and practice, pequenos grandes livros, resenha do livro a ilusão fecunda: a luta por educação nos movimentos populares.

• PDF (Português (Brasil))

Pedagogical Legacies

Experiências entrelaçadas.

ISSN: 1094-5296   

• Español (España)
• Português (Brasil)

Make a Submission

Anped books for review.

Paulo Freire e a educação popular: Esperançar em tempos de barbárie

Autor/Org:   Joana Salém Vasconcelos; Maíra Tavares Mendes; Daniela Mussi (Orgs)

Editora:  Elefante

Mais informações e livros

Solicitar para revisão

Mais informações para  chamada

Additional Information

Disclaimer:  The views or opinions presented in book reviews are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of Education Review .

Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas  is supported by the Scholarly Communications Group at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. 

Advertisement

Supported by

What Is Project 2025, and Why Is Trump Disavowing It?

The Biden campaign has attacked Donald J. Trump’s ties to the conservative policy plan that would amass power in the executive branch, though it is not his official platform.

• Share full article

By Simon J. Levien

Donald J. Trump has gone to great lengths to distance himself from Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals for a future Republican administration that has outraged Democrats. He has claimed he knows nothing about it or the people involved in creating it.

Mr. Trump himself was not behind the project. But some of his allies were.

The document, its origins and the interplay between it and the Trump campaign have made for one of the most hotly debated questions of the 2024 race.

Here is what to know about Project 2025, and who is behind it.

What is Project 2025?

Project 2025 was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and like-minded conservative groups before Mr. Trump officially entered the 2024 race. The Heritage Foundation is a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.

The project was intended as a buffet of options for the Trump administration or any other Republican presidency. It’s the latest installment in the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership series, which has compiled conservative policy proposals every few years since 1981. But no previous study has been as sweeping in its recommendations — or as widely discussed.

Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, which began putting together the latest document in 2022, said he thought the American government would embrace a more conservative era, one that he hoped Republicans would usher in.

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution,” Mr. Roberts said on Real America’s Voice, a right-wing cable channel, in early July, adding pointedly that the revolt “will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Education, training and skills

Government launches Curriculum and Assessment Review

Leading education expert, Professor Becky Francis CBE, named as review chair.

A broader, richer, cutting-edge curriculum that drives high and rising schools standards and sets all young people up for life and work will be central to the government’s vision for education, as it launches its wide-ranging Curriculum and Assessment Review today.

Spanning from Key Stage 1 through to Key Stage 5, the independent review will be chaired by Professor Becky Francis CBE, an expert in education policy, including curriculum and social inequality.  

The review will look closely at the key challenges to attainment for young people, and the barriers which hold children back from the opportunities and life chances they deserve – in particular those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, or with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND). 

High and rising school standards are at the heart of the government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and give every child the best start in life.

Following the review, all state schools – including academies who currently do not have to follow the national curriculum – will be required by law to teach the national curriculum up to age 16, giving parents certainty over their children’s education.

This was confirmed in the King’s Speech earlier this week, as the government will introduce a children’s wellbeing bill in the next year to legislate for a variety of its education policies.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said: 

The launch of this review is an important step in this government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, deliver better life chances and enable more young people to get on. Our dedicated school and college staff deliver better life chances for countless children but for too long they have been held back by a curriculum and assessment system that fails to prepare enough of our children for work and for life. That is why this government, alongside leading education experts, leaders and staff on the frontline, will breathe new life into our outdated curriculum and assessment system. Our renewed curriculum, built on a foundation of high and rising standards, greater access to cultural learning and crucial work and life skills, will set up all our children to achieve and thrive in the workplaces of the future, and throughout their lives.

The government’s ambition is for a curriculum that delivers excellent foundations in reading, writing and maths, and ensures every young person gets the opportunity to develop creative, digital, and speaking and listening skills particularly prized by employers.    

The review will also seek to make sure children benefit from a curriculum that represents them and their families, regardless of background, and equips young people to shape our response to the challenges of our changing world. 

The review will build on the hard work of teachers who have brought their subjects alive with knowledge-rich teaching, to deliver a new national curriculum which is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative. 

The review will look at ensuring all young people aged 16-19 have access to rigorous and high-value qualifications and training that will give them the skills they need to seize opportunity as well as ensuring they are ready for the changing workplace.    

 It will also look at whether the current assessment system can be improved for both young people and staff, while protecting the important role of examinations.  

Professor Becky Francis said: 

Ensuring all young people access a rich and fulfilling curriculum and meaningful qualifications is core to supporting them to thrive at school and later in life.   It’s a real privilege to lead this important review, which has huge potential to build a cutting-edge curriculum that works for pupils and teachers alike.    I know how stretched schools, colleges and their staff are. So it’s particularly important to me to consider how any changes could contribute to staff workload and to avoid unintended consequences.   Crucially, I want to make sure that the review and its recommendations are driven by evidence and a commitment to high standards for all our young people, irrespective of background.

The views of experts, parents, teachers and leaders will be pivotal to the recommendations and a call for evidence will be launched in September. The review will also take written evidence from key stakeholders and undertake a national roadshow, meeting and taking input from staff on the frontline.  

The launch of the review marks one of the government’s first steps towards an education system driven by high and rising standards, where background is no barrier, and every young person leaves school or college with the best life chances.  

In recognition of the pressure schools and colleges are already under, and the further strain that wholesale reform can bring, the review will seek evolution not revolution, and will be alive to the trade-offs required to deliver high and rising standards alongside greater breadth – in particular any recommendations that would increase workload.

Professor Francis will be supported by an expert group made up of individuals with experience right throughout the education system.  The review will publish recommendations in 2025.

DfE media enquiries

Central newsdesk - for journalists 020 7783 8300

Curriculum and Assessment Review: Review Aims, Terms of Reference and Working Principles

PDF , 134 KB , 4 pages

Letter from Secretary of State to Becky Francis

PDF , 108 KB , 2 pages

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

• Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

At the Crossroads of Innovation: Embracing AI to Foster Deep Learning in the College Classroom

AI is here to stay. How can we, as educators, accept this change and use it to help our students learn?

"Thinking begins," John Dewey suggested, "in what may fairly enough be called a forked-road situation, a situation which is ambiguous . . . . As long as our activity glides smoothly along . . . there is no call for reflection. Difficulty or obstruction in the way of reaching a belief brings us, however, to a pause." Footnote 1

We—higher education faculty, staff, and leaders—used to believe that the college classroom was where thinking began, where we challenged students to think deeply and critically about complex issues with no simple solutions. We proudly embraced that our courses were difficult and that they made students pause to think differently about themselves and the world.

Over the last eighteen months, we have discovered that the traditional education model is broken. Since its release in November 2022, ChatGPT (which I use as a proxy for the current class of artificial intelligence [AI] tools built on large language models [LLMs]) has aced everything from the SAT to the first year of Harvard. Indeed, ChatGPT can instantly spit out an essay that is comparable to that written by an academic researcher. Footnote 2 Our students can now glide smoothly along, secure in the knowledge that they can complete, with the press of a button, just about any assignment their professors give them.

I therefore want to suggest that we are at a fundamental crossroads in higher education—our own forked-road moment. We must fundamentally rethink how teaching and learning are done in college and university classrooms if we are to make AI a catalyst rather than a replacement for deep learning.

The Cheating Apocalypse

The first and most important step in this process is to move through the stages of grief and accept that the traditional educational paradigm is over. I do not say this glibly. Since the rise of mass schooling at the turn of the twentieth century, education has been regarded as a knowledge transfer process, with assessments (tests, essays, oral exams, etc.) demonstrating to what extent the knowledge transferred from instructor to student had been successful. Students' performance on these assessments was assumed to reflect their proficiency. Footnote 3

ChatGPT has made this paradigm obsolete. If students' performance is AI-generated, there is no meaningful connection between their performance and their proficiency. We can no longer deny the reality that students' submitted work may not reflect what they know (or don't know). So, grieve we must. We cannot be angry at the AI companies for launching products like ChatGPT or at our students for using them, and we cannot bargain our way out of thinking we can catch "cheaters." LLMs are "stochastic parrots" in that they always create unique outputs, which means there is no reliable way to prove that a student cheated. Indeed, Open AI took down its own detection system last summer, and if they can't claim to do it right, neither can we. But we can't sink into a deep depression, resigning ourselves to the belief that students will use ChatGPT for anything and everything. Footnote 4

Ethan Mollick, associate professor and co-director of the Generative AI Lab at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, calls this the "homework apocalypse." Footnote 5 I believe the problem goes even deeper than that. It's not just that students see ChatGPT as an easy shortcut to doing their assignments (which they already do). And it's not just that grades, therefore, become unmoored from and unreflective of students' skills and knowledge (which they will). This moment portends that higher education will become an inauthentic spectacle, a charade of teaching and learning. Footnote 6 Why should students listen to a lecture, pore over a reading, or struggle to articulate their point of view in a paper when AI can do all of this (and much, much more) for them? Once faculty truly realize this new reality, a vicious downward spiral takes over: We will develop AI-generated assessments that students will answer with AI and which we, in turn, will grade with AI. Why bother putting in the work when students don't either?

If you think I'm being overly dramatic or have just drunk the techie Kool-Aid, you haven't been paying attention. Estimates of students' AI use range anywhere from 40 percent to 90 percent. Footnote 7 I did an informal, anonymous end-of-semester survey of my students this past spring, and 80 percent said they were using AI in some form across their college classes. Yet only half of their professors were aware of this.

The next question, then, becomes "why?" Why are students simply offloading their work ("cheating") to AI at such high levels?

The Nature of Cheating

The word "cheating" has highly negative connotations. Cheating—whether in the stock market, at a friend's poker game, or on a final exam—seemingly tears at the very fabric of our sense of fairness and how we think society should work. However, it's slightly more complicated than that. Let me offer a brief thought experiment to explain.

Imagine I wanted to remove a huge tree in my front yard. I obviously wouldn't push it over with my bare hands; maybe I'd just get my axe and start chopping. But I'd quickly realize that this was a major project, so I'd stop and look up some tutorials on YouTube and grab my chainsaw. I could probably make progress, but soon enough, I'd likely realize that the project was just too big and complicated to do correctly on my own. (I'm not a lumberjack!) Thus, I'd hire a professional tree removal service to do the job quickly and effectively.

Now, let's change the scenario slightly.

Imagine I was a student who wanted to write a paper for a college course. I obviously wouldn't write it with my bare hands; maybe I'd just sit down at my computer and start typing. But I'd quickly realize that this was a major project, so I'd stop and look up academic articles about the topic. I could probably make progress, but soon enough, I'd likely realize that the project was just too big and complicated to do correctly on my own. (I'm not an expert in this area!) Thus, I'd hire a professional writing service to do the job quickly and effectively.

All of us, I hope, would agree that I did the smart thing in the first scenario and that I cheated in the second scenario. The question is: What's the difference?

The difference is this: In the first scenario, my goal was something extrinsic to my sense of self, something I needed to accomplish (a "product," a "performance") to get to my real goal of a cleared front yard. In the second scenario, though, my goal was something intrinsic to my sense of self, something that embodied who I was (a "process," a "proficiency").

Let me spell this out clearly. When we see a goal as just a task that must be done—something that's not important to or a part of our identity—there is no such thing as "cheating." Think about it this way: My neighbor would never claim I "cheated" by calling a tree removal service. My wife would never claim I "cheated" by ordering an Uber rather than driving us to the airport. A journal editor would never claim I "cheated" if I used Excel to figure out the correlation coefficient and standard error of data I analyzed. The tree removal service, Uber, and Excel are all just tools. The point is that using whatever tools I have at my disposal—even if I give up complete "ownership"—is a normal and acceptable way to accomplish a particular task. Footnote 8

Dear reader, you may want to sit down for this next part.

A college course is just a particular task that many students feel they need to get through to get to their real goals (whether that goal is a career or a party). The task is extrinsic —a product, a performance, or a checklist. It's just not that important to students' sense of identity. Therefore, they use whatever tools they have at their disposal to complete the task, even if that means giving up ownership and letting ChatGPT write their assignments for them. (There is nothing new here, by the way. We have long known that 10–20 percent of students "contract" their assignments to commercial services. AI has simply supercharged the issue. Footnote 9 )

However, we want students to see college as an opportunity to enhance their critical thinking skills, cultural competence, civic engagement, and so much more. We want the work to be intrinsic —a process, a proficiency. So, if students give up their ownership and let ChatGPT do their work, we call it cheating.

But this way of thinking also clarifies why we—and not our students—are the problem. Research shows that when students see their work as extrinsic and a "performance," they are "more likely to perform academic dishonesty than students who held mastery approach goals." Footnote 10

In other words, we have never been that good at showing our students how and why college matters. We assign papers, quizzes, and end-of-semester presentations, secure in the knowledge that we know why the work matters, hoping that our students will, sooner or later, realize it as well. Until ChatGPT came along, most students had no choice but to do what we told them. For most students, there was—to use my earlier metaphor—no tree removal service they could call to get that tree out of their front yard. They had to do the hard work themselves.

Now they don't.

The Way Forward

So now what?

In one respect, we already have a partial answer. Over the last thirty years, there has been a dramatic shift from a teaching-centered to a learning-centered education model. High-impact practices, such as service learning, undergraduate research, and living-learning communities, are common and embraced because they help students see the real-world connections of what they are learning and make learning personal. Footnote 11

Therefore, I believe we must double down on a learning-centered model in the age of AI.

The first step is to fully and enthusiastically embrace AI. Many are already successfully stumbling toward strategies for leveraging the ability of AI to serve as a real-time, adaptive, and ubiquitous tutor, mentor, and assistant. For example, I made ChatGPT my formal teaching assistant across all of my undergraduate classes, teaching students how to use it ethically and effectively for brainstorming, generating thesis statements, outlining, and getting feedback. Footnote 12

The second step is to find the "jagged technological frontier" of using AI in the college classroom. I do not mean this in terms of what AI seemingly can and cannot do, as AI leaders believe that multiple technological leaps are still ahead of us. Footnote 13 I mean this in terms of what AI makes possible for us now as instructors.

Let me put it this way. If college is about helping students to think critically, then the research is clear that we need to do three specific things in the classroom: foster dialogue, engage in authentic instruction, and provide individualized mentorship. We have already moved into a learning-centered model where dialogue and authentic high-impact practices have become commonplace. Yet, and this is the key, researchers note that "mentoring may serve in a catalytic capacity" for such critical thinking. Footnote 14

Mentorship is exactly where mass education has always fallen short. How am I supposed to mentor a room of twenty or two hundred students individually? I can't.

ChatGPT can serve as a real-time ubiquitous tutor and mentor. My end-of-semester survey revealed that 85 percent of my students found ChatGPT to be helpful or extremely helpful. One student said, "I'm not the best writer, so I try and use ChatGPT to guide me in the right direction and help me lay out my essay." Another wrote, "I use ChatGPT to give me ideas when I struggle with what to write."

If I can't be a mentor to each one of my students, ChatGPT can.

Let me be clear that this is brand-new territory for everyone; my students and I are making this up on the fly, and it takes an incredible amount of time to figure out how to do it well. But we must do it if we want to keep alive our vision of higher education as a place where learning and thinking still occur.

We are indeed at a forked-road moment, one that will define whether higher education flourishes or falters. Therefore, let me return to John Dewey for one final piece of advice. Right after Dewey explained his concept of thinking and the importance of that moment of pausing, he suggested this: "In the suspense of uncertainty, we metaphorically climb a tree." In so doing, Dewey explained, we gain a "more commanding view of the situation" that helps us to think more broadly and clearly about the issue in front of us.

We might all need to climb a tree right now to better understand the situation in front of us as we attempt to rethink and reimagine higher education. Indeed, it is incumbent on all of us to make that climb as we stare at and ponder the uncertainty of the coming crossroads.

Maybe I shouldn't have called that tree removal service.

• John Dewey, "What Is Thought," in How We Think (Boston: D.C. Heath & Co., 1910), 11. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text. ↩
• Leopold Aschenbrenner, "From GPT-4 to AGI: Counting the OOMs," in Situational Awareness: The Decade Ahead , (self-pub., 2024), 16; Catherine A. Gao et al., "Comparing Scientific Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT to Real Abstracts with Detectors and Blinded Human Reviewers," npj Digital Medicine 6, article no. 75 (April 2023). Jump back to footnote 2 in the text. ↩
• David Tyack and Larry Cuban, Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997); Robert Glaser, Naomi Chudowsky, and James W. Pellegrino, eds., Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001); Nicholas C. Soderstrom and Robert A. Bjork, "Learning versus Performance: An Integrative Review," Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, no. 2 (March 2015): 176–199. Jump back to footnote 3 in the text. ↩
• Owen Kichizo Terry, "I'm a Student. You have No idea How Much We're Using ChatGPT," Chronicle of Higher Education, May 12, 2023; Emily M. Bender et al., "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be too Big," in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAcct Conference, 2021), 610–623; Mark Hachman, "OpenAI's ChatGPT Is Too Good for Its Own AI to Detect," PCWorld, July 26, 2023. Jump back to footnote 4 in the text. ↩
• Ethan Mollick, "The Homework Apocalypse," One Useful Thing (blog), July 1, 2023. Jump back to footnote 5 in the text. ↩
• Dan Sarofian-Butin, "Higher Education Must Wrestle Harder to Escape ChatGPT's Death Grip," Times Higher Education, August 15, 2023. Jump back to footnote 6 in the text. ↩
• "4 in 10 College Students Are Using ChatGPT on Assignments," Intelligent, last modified February 27, 2024; "Productive Teaching Tool or Innovative Cheating," Study.com, accessed January, 2023. Jump back to footnote 7 in the text. ↩
• Tamara B. Murdock and Eric M. Anderman, "Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating: Toward an Integrated Model of Academic Dishonesty," Educational Psychologist 41, no. 3 (2006): 129–145; J. Adam Carter, "Autonomy, Cognitive Offloading, and Education," Educational Theory 68, no. 6 (December 2018): 657–673. Jump back to footnote 8 in the text. ↩
• Philip M. Newton, "How Common Is Commercial Contract Cheating in Higher Education and Is It Increasing? A Systematic Review," Frontiers in Education 3 (August 2018): 67. Jump back to footnote 9 in the text. ↩
• Megan R. Krou et al., "Achievement Motivation and Academic Dishonesty: A Meta-Analytic Investigation," Educational Psychology Review 33, no. 2 (2021): 427–458. Jump back to footnote 10 in the text. ↩
• Robert B. Barr and John Tagg, "From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,"   Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning  27, no. 6 (November 1995): 12–26; George D. Kuh, High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, (Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2008): 28–29. Jump back to footnote 11 in the text. ↩
• Ethan Mollick and Lilach Mollick, "Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students, with Prompts," The Wharton School Research Paper, June 21, 2023; Dan Sarofian-Butin, "ChatGPT Is My Co-Pilot," Times Higher Education, January 31, 2024. Jump back to footnote 12 in the text. ↩
• Fabrizio Dell'Acqua et al., "Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality," (working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston, 2023); Aschenbrenner, "From GPT-4 to AGI," 16. Jump back to footnote 13 in the text. ↩
• Philip C. Abrami, "Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis," Review of Educational Research 85, no. 2 (June 2015): 275–314. Jump back to footnote 14 in the text. ↩

Dan Sarofian-Butin is a Full Professor in, and Founding Dean of, the Winston School of Education & Social Policy at Merrimack College.

© 2024 Dan Sarofian-Butin. The content of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Evaluation and Compliance and Membership Application Forms

A Notice by the Commerce Department on 07/19/2024

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Published document.

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

Board Application

Evaluation and compliance, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

Enhanced content - sharing.

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 07/18/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on May 02, 2024 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Start Printed Page 58718

Agency: Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Department of Commerce.

Title: Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Board Application Form.

OMB Control Number: 0605-0028.

Type of Request: Regular submission. This is an extension.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 220.

Estimated Time per Response: .25 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 55.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Needs and Uses: Ascertain applicant interest for Board membership.

Frequency: Annual.

Legal Authority: Authorizing Statute: 15 U.S.C. chapter 13 (sections 8701-8717).

Estimated Time per Response: .5 hour per quarterly report.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 440.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Needs and Uses: Verify assessment payment.

Frequency: Quarterly.

This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov . Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain . Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0605-0028.

Sheleen Dumas,

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Commerce Department.

[ FR Doc. 2024-15971 Filed 7-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-06-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information