CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98Global Educational Policies and ReformsSchool Choice and PerformanceSociology and Education Studies

A comprehensive view of trust in education: Conclusions from a systematic literature review

Open access
Niedlich, Sebastian, Kallfaß, Annika, Pohle, Silvana, Bormann, Inka·2021·Review of Education
DOI 10.1002/rev3.3239
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Trust is considered to be a crucial element of social cohesion. At the same time, as research has shown, education can be understood as an important precondition of trust. Furthermore, contextual conditions are important for the development of trust. In spite of this, the role of trust in the multi‐level education system has been scarcely investigated. This paper introduces a comprehensive model of trust in the education system, based on a systematic literature review of 183 recent peer‐reviewed articles following a thematic and interpretive review approach. The suggested model consists of four interconnected elements (generalised trust, educational governance, educational settings, educational attainment). By introducing a comprehensive model of trust in multi‐level education systems the paper aims at opening up perspectives for future theoretically driven, interdisciplinary comparative research that may shed further light on the role of trust in education systems. The paper proceeds as follows. First, trust is discussed as a complex subject in research, policy and practice in multi‐level education systems, and key research questions are derived from this. Second, the methodology of the systematic literature review is explained. Third, results from the literature review are presented, focusing on three domains of trust and their interrelations. Fourth, the comprehensive model of trust in multi‐level education systems is introduced. The fifth section discusses the findings and explores how future research could advance a comprehensive understanding of trust in education.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rev3.3239

Cites

178 of 183 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Guidance from instructors supports students' ability to engage with GenAI effectively and strengthens interpersonal trust between instructors and students, which is fundamental to enhancing educational development.

    “The guidance not only supports students' ability to engage with GenAI effectively, but also strengthens the interpersonal trust between instructors and students [85], which is fundamental to enhancing educational development [18, 26]”

    From Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [85]

    The 'Three domains of trust' section says close, direct interaction can increase students' trust in instructors. It does not establish that instructor guidance, specifically, strengthens that trust. The GenAI and educational-development clauses have other citations in the printed sentence, so they are not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. n297 · DOI
  2. Shockley, T. M. S. Neal, L. M. PytlikZillig & B. H. Bornstein (Eds) Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust. Towards theoretical and methodological integration (Dordrecht, Springer), 117-131.
  3. Zalec, B. (2013) Trust, accountability, and higher education, synthesis, Philosophica, 28(1-2), 65- 81.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Niedlich, S., Kallfaß, A., Pohle, S., & Bormann, I.
Affiliations
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Bormann, Inka
ORCID
Venue
Review of Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-11-24
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
124-158
ISSN
2049-6613 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/rev3.3239
OpenAlex
W3107587855
Cited by
98
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Review of Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver (cc-by)
Funders
Freie Universität Berlin
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociology and Education Studies
Keywords
trust in education, multi-level education system, generalized trust, education governance, educational environment, educational attainment, social cohesion, trust model

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