The purpose of this article is to overview various challenges that prospective authors of quality systematic reviews should be prepared to address. These challenges pertain to all phases of the review process: from posing a critical question worthy of pursuit and executing a search procedure that is appropriately framed and transparently recorded, to discerning patterns and trends within the resulting data that speak directly to the critical question framing the review. For each of these challenges, suggestions are offered as to how authors might respond so as to enhance the quality of the review process and increase the value of findings for educational research, practice, and policymaking.
AlexanderP. A.JudyJ. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404. doi:10.3102/00346543058004375
2.
CooperH. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DinsmoreD. L.AlexanderP. A.LoughlinS. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
5.
DumasD.AlexanderP. A.GrossnickleE. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 391–427. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9224-4
6.
GarousiV.FeldererM.MäntyläM. V. (2019). Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering, Information and Software Technology, 106, 101–121. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.12.003
7.
GlassG. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. doi:10.3102/0013189X005010003
8.
GrossnickleE. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y
9.
HartC. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London, England: Sage.
10.
HattieJ. A.HansfordB. C. (1984). Meta-analysis: A reflection on problems. Australian Journal of Psychology, 36, 239–254. doi:10.1080/00049538408255094
11.
JablanskyS.AlexanderP. A. (2019). Positioning relational reasoning within group problem solving. Manuscript submitted for publication.
12.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 51, 264–269. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
13.
MurphyP. K.AlexanderP. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1019
14.
MurphyP. K.KnightS. L.DowdA. C. (2017). Familiar paths and new directions: Inaugural call for manuscripts. Review of Educational Research, 87, 3–6. doi:10.3102/0034654317691764
RothsteinH. R.HopewellS. (2009). Grey literature. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 103–125). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. New York, NY: John Wiley.
18.
ShawR. L. (2010). Conducting literature reviews. In ForresterM. (Ed.), Doing qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide (pp. 39–55). London, England: Sage.
19.
SingerL. M.AlexanderP. A. (2017). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87, 1007–1041. doi:10.3102/0034654317722961
