Systematic reviews have witnessed significant growth across many fields, including education. In this article, we outline the background of this growth, highlight the tendency to focus on methodological considerations, and propose a framework to support education researchers in preparing systematic reviews with broad impact. We draw on our experience working with education stakeholders in Singapore and on international scholarship to propose a framework that supports education researchers in clarifying and specifying their aims and audiences and crafting syntheses of appropriate types. Our aim is that this framework, which includes examples illustrating four categories of reviews, acts as a reflective tool which researchers can use to maximize the utility, value, and potential impact of education research.
AndrewsR. (2005). The place of systematic reviews in education research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–8527.2005.00303.x
2.
BaiS.HewK. F.HuangB. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30, Article 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322
3.
BasseyM. (1981). Pedagogic research: On the relative merits of search for generalisation and study of single events. Oxford Review of Education, 7(1), 73–94.
4.
BearmanM.SmithC. D.CarboneA.SladeS.BaikCHughes-WarringtonM.NeumannD. L. (2012). Systematic review methodology in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(5), 625–640. https://10.1080/07294360.2012.702735
5.
BiestaG. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741–5446.2006.00241.x
6.
BoazA.DaviesH.FraserA.NutleyS. (2019). What works now? Evidence-informed policy and practice. Polity Press.
7.
BorregoM.FosterM. J.FroydJ. E. (2015). What is the state of the art of systematic review in engineering education?Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 212–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20069
8.
BurawoyM. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102
9.
BurnsT.SchullerT. (2007). The evidence agenda. In Evidence in education: Linking research and policy (pp. 15–32). OECD Publishing.
10.
ButlerA.SinclairK. A. (2020). Place matters: A critical review of place inquiry and spatial methods in education research. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 64–96. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903303
ChernikovaO.HeitzmannN.StadlerM.HolzbergerD.SeidelT.FischerF. (2020). Simulation-based earning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
13.
ChongS. W.BondM.ChalmersH. (2023). Opening the methodological black box of research synthesis in language education: Where are we now and where are we heading?Applied Linguistics Review, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0193
14.
ChongS. W.PlonskyL. (2023). A typology of secondary research in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0189
15.
ChongS. W.PlonskyL. (2024). Research synthesis in language education. In NesiH.MilinP.ChongS. W. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of language and linguistics (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
16.
ConnorP. O. (2020). Visible learning and whole language: Revisiting the ‘garbage in, garbage out’ problem. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 43(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03652050
17.
Dall’AlbaG.SandbergJ. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003383
18.
Darling-HammondL. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
19.
DaviesP. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3–4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/713688543
20.
DimmockC.TanC. Y. (2013). Educational leadership in Singapore: Tight coupling, sustainability, scalability, and succession. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311492
21.
Dixon-WoodsM.BonasS.BoothA.JonesD. R.MillerT.SuttonA. J.ShawR. L.SmithJ. A.YoungB. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058867
22.
EdyburnD. L. (2003). 2002 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340301800301
23.
FischerC.PardosZ. A.BakerR. S.WilliamsJ. J.SmythP.YuR.SlaterS.BakerR.WarschauerM. (2020). Mining big data in education: Affordances and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 130–160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903304
24.
GarzónJ.Kinshuk BaldirisS.GutiérrezJ.PavónJ. (2020). How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educational Research Review, 31, Article 100334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334
25.
GoldenG. (2020). Education policy evaluation: Surveying the OECD landscape (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 236). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9f127490-en.
26.
GreenC.TaylorC.BuckleyS.HeanS. (2016). Beyond synthesis: Augmenting systematic review procedures with practical principles to optimise impact and uptake in educational policy and practice. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 39(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2016.1146668
KoenkaA. C.Linnenbrink-GarciaL.MoshontzH.AtkinsonK. M.SanchezC. E.CooperH. (2021). A meta-analysis on the impact of grades and comments on academic motivation and achievement: A case for written feedback. Educational Psychology, 41(7), 922–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1659939
31.
KuhnT. S. (1997). The structure of scientific revolutions (Vol. 962). University of Chicago Press.
32.
LamK. K. L.ZhouM. (2019). Examining the relationship between grit and academic achievement within K-12 and higher education: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 56(10), 1654–1686. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22302
33.
LittellJ. H. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1
34.
LongH.KerrB. A.EmlerT. E.BirdnowM. (2022). A critical review of assessments of creativity in education. Review of Research in Education, 46(1), 288–323. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221084326
35.
LucknerJ. L.MovahedazarhoulighS. (2019). Social-emotional interventions with children and youth who are deaf or hard of hearing: A research synthesis. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 24(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eny030
36.
LukeA. (2011). Generalizing across borders: Policy and the limits of educational science. Educational Researcher, 40(8), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11424314
37.
MarsdenE.AlferinkI.AndringaS.BolibaughC.CollinsLJacksonC.KasprowiczR.O’ReillyD.PlonskyL. (2018). Open accessible summaries in language studies (OASIS) [Database]. https://www.oasis-database.org
38.
MuisK. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003317
NewmanM.GoughD. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In NewmanM.GoughD. (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research (pp. 3–22). Springer.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.MoherD. (2021).The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
47.
PattonL. D.JenkinsT. S.HowellG. L.KeithA. R.Jr. (2022). Unapologetically Black creative educational experiences in higher education: A critical review. Review of Research in Education, 46(1), 64–104. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221084321
48.
PlonskyL. (2014) Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2014.12058.x
49.
RaabeJ.SchmidtK.CarlJ.HönerO. (2019). The effectiveness of autonomy support interventions with physical education teachers and youth sport coaches: A systematic review. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 41(6), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2019–0026
SandelowskiM.TrimbleF.WoodardE. K.BarrosoJ. (2006) From synthesis to script: Transforming qualitative research findings for use in practice. Qualitative Health Research, 16(10), 1350–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306294274
52.
Schick-MakaroffK.MacDonaldM.PlummerM.BurgessJ.NeanderW. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3(1), 172–215. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172
53.
SearlesA.DoranC.AttiaJ.KnightD.WiggersJ.DeemingS.MattesJ.WebbB.HannanS.LingR.EdmundsK.ReevesP.NilssonM. (2016). An approach to measuring and encouraging research translation and research impact. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961–016–0131–2
54.
SmythH. (2013). What does research say about the effectiveness of professional learning and development for culturally responsive teaching at primary school level?New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 10(1), 169–188.
55.
SzetoE.LeeT. T. H.HallingerP. (2015). A systematic review of research on educational leadership in Hong Kong, 1995–2014. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 534–553. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03–2015–0027
TosteJ. R.DidionL.PengP.FildermanM. J.McClellandA. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 420–456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352
60.
VeldkampA.van de GrintL.KnippelsM.-C. P.van JoolingenW. R. (2020). Escape education: A systematic review on escape rooms in education. Educational Research Review, 31, Article 100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100364
61.
WadaM.SixsmithJ.HarwoodG.CoscoT. D.FangM. L.SixsmithA. (2020). A protocol for co-creating research project lay summaries with stakeholders: Guideline development for Canada’s AGE-WELL network. Research Involvement and Engagement, 6, Article 226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900–020–00197–3
62.
WolgemuthJ.MarnT.SabnisS. (2022). On the sidelines of what works: Scientifically based indifference. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1966620
63.
WybornC.LouderE.HarrisonJ.MontambaultJ.MontanaJ.RyanM.BednarekA.NesshöverC.PullinA.ReedM.DelleckerE.KramerJ.BoydJ.DelleckerA.HuttonJ. (2018). Understanding the impacts of research. Environmental Science and Policy, 86, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.013.
