The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Literature Reviews in Engineering Education and Other Developing Interdisciplinary Fields
Abstract
Background: In fields such as medicine, psychology, and education, systematic reviews of the literature critically appraise and summarize research to inform policy and practice. We argue that now is an appropriate time in the development of the field of engineering education to both support systematic reviews and benefit from them. More reviews of prior work conducted more systematically would help advance the field by lowering the barrier for both researchers and practitioners to access the literature, enabling more objective critique of past efforts, identifying gaps, and proposing new directions for research. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to introduce the methodology of systematic reviews to the field of engineering education and to adapt existing resources on systematic reviews to engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Scope/Method: This article is primarily a narrative review of the literature on conducting systematic reviews. Methods are adapted to engineering education and similar developing interdisciplinary fields. To offer concrete, pertinent examples, we also conducted a systematic review of systematic review articles published on engineering education topics since 1990. Fourteen exemplars are presented in this article and used to illustrate systematic review procedures. Conclusions: Systematic reviews can benefit the field of engineering education by synthesizing prior work, by better informing practice, and by identifying important new directions for research. Engineering education researchers should consider including systematic reviews in their repertoire of methodologies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 · Cited by 20,772
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312
Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research
Prince, M. (2004) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x · Cited by 7,334 · cited 1×
“Many reviews in engineering education to date have been intended for this purpose (e.g., Froyd & Ohland, 2005; Litzinger, Lattuca, Hadgraft, & Newstetter, 2011; Prince, 2004; Prince & Felder, 2006; Streveler, Litzinger, Miller, & Steif, 2008).”
BackgroundSystematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543069001021 · Cited by 1,943
Writing Narrative Literature Reviews
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311 · Cited by 1,482
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070003287 · Cited by 1,170
Cooperative Learning Returns To College What Evidence Is There That It Works?
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998) · Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning · doi:10.1080/00091389809602629 · Cited by 1,011
Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses: Table 1
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.57.7.527 · Cited by 539
Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
Berlin, J. A. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)62352-5 · Cited by 478
Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach
Cook, D. A., & West, C. P. (2012) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x · Cited by 186
Cited by
Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management Research
Hiebl, M. R. W. (2023) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428120986851 · Cited by 635
A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education
Karabulut‐Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12548 · Cited by 581
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019) · Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) · doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1223 · Cited by 419
Lavado-Anguera, S., Velasco-Quintana, P.-J., & Terrón-López, M.-J. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060617 · Cited by 152
A Literature Review of Critical Thinking in Engineering Education
Ahern, A., Dominguez, C., McNally, C., O’Sullivan, J. J., & Pedrosa, D. (2019) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1586325 · Cited by 127
Metadata
- Authors
- Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-76
- ISSN
- 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-9830
- OpenAlex
- W1600464274
- Cited by
- 620
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 4.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
