Cited by 129Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentEducational Research and Methods

What Is the State of theArt of Systematic Reviewin Engineering Education?: Review of Systematic Reviews in Engineering Education

Borrego, Maura, Foster, Margaret J., Froyd, Jeffrey E.·2015·Journal of Engineering Education

Abstract

Background Systematic review refers to a growing set of research methodologies intended to critically appraise and synthesize research to inform policy and practice. Systematic review methods, widely used in fields such as medicine, psychology, and education, are being applied in engineering education. Analysis of current systematic review practices in engineering education can contribute to continuous improvement of an important set of synthesis methodologies. Purpose To promote continuous improvement in systematic reviews, researchers are currently developing criteria to evaluate the quality of systematic review methodologies. The purpose of this article is to identify prior systematic reviews in areas of interest to the engineering education community, use these criteria to critique these systematic reviews, and make recommendations for improving use and quality of systematic review methods in engineering education research. Scope/Method Using systematic review search methodologies, we identified 12 conference papers and 37 journal articles that are systematic reviews published since 1990. Two reviewers coded each by topic, education level, quantitative or qualitative sources and synthesis methods, and 18 quantitative measures of review quality. Interrater reliability was calculated using kappa as described by Landis and Koch, which ranged from 0.43 (moderate) to 0.80 (almost perfect) with overall agreement of 0.64 (substantial). Conclusions We found that the 49 identified…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jee.20069

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The review used Borrego, Foster, and Froyd's (2015) four complementary methods: search, selection, coding, and synthesis.

    “To conduct the systematic literature review, we used Borrego, Foster, and Froyd's (2015) four complementary methods: search, selection, coding, and synthesis.”

    From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Borrego, Foster, and Froyd's (2015)

  • Like all systematic reviews, this study is limited by publication bias.

    “Third, like all systematic reviews, this study is limited by publication bias (Borrego, Foster, & Froyd, 2015).”

    From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Borrego, Foster, & Froyd, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
Venue
Journal of Engineering Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
212-242
ISSN
1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1720540152
Cited by
124
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1446369, 1446319)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
engineering education research, meta-analysis, synthesis methods, inter-rater reliability, study appraisal, evidence synthesis

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