Cited by 73Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEducational Research and MethodsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Issues in synthesizing research in education

Andrews, Richard, Harlen, Wynne·2006·Educational Research

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews of educational research require synthesis of the results from a range of studies. When these studies are diverse in nature and methodological approach, synthesis can be problematic. Purpose To offer a critique of the process of synthesizing systematic reviews by considering the stages of the process and the problems raised at each stage. Source of evidence A brief review of the literature on the role of systematic reviews in education is presented, together with a description of the staged process of a systematic review. Main argument Synthesis of systematic reviews is difficult on account of the fact that they are heterogeneous across different aspects of the research process. Moreover, synthesis of such systematic reviews may be neither feasible nor desirable. Conclusions Clear and manageable research questions are an important prerequisite for synthesis; Bayesian synthesis should be used where appropriate; and the minimization of bias must be maintained through the stages of synthesis in any research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00131880600992330

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Numerous studies in education have attested to the effectiveness and utility of systematic review methodology.

    “numerous studies in the field of education have also attested to its effectiveness and utility (Andrews and Harlen, 2006; Bearman et al., 2012; Davies, 2000; Martin et al., 2020).”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. 10.4324/9780203464649 · DOI
  2. Andrews R., Paper presented at the ESRC ‘Reconceptualizing Writing 5–16’ Series
  3. Andrews R., 2004, The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition
  4. Andrews R., 2005, A systematic review of the effectiveness of ICT on 5–16 year olds' written composition in English
  5. Andrews R., 2004, The effect of grammar teaching (sentence-combining) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition
  6. Commission on the Social Sciences, 2003, Great expectations: the social sciences in Britain
  7. 10.2307/j.ctt1t892t3.7 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/01411920120095735 · DOI
  9. Gorard S., 2004, British Educational Research Journal, 30, 578, 10.1080/0141192042000237248 · DOI
  10. 10.1080/01411920120095726 · DOI
  11. Hargreaves D., 1996, Teaching as a research-based profession—possibilities and prospects: Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture
  12. Hargreaves D., 1998, Challenges for educational research, 114
  13. Harlen W., The role of research in mature education systems. Proceedings of the NFER International Jubilee Conference, 135
  14. Harlen W., 2002, A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students' motivation for learning
  15. 10.1080/0969594032000121270 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/09500790408668308 · DOI
  17. Hedges L. V., 1993, Review of Educational Research, 63, 345, 10.3102/00346543063003345 · DOI
  18. Nisbet J., 1980, The impact of research on policy and practice in education
  19. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11560-1 · DOI
  20. 10.3102/0013189X015009005 · DOI
  21. Torgerson C., 2003, Systematic reviews
  22. Torgerson C., 2003, A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on literacy learning in English 5–16
  23. Torgerson C., 2006, Journal of Research in Reading, 29

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Andrews, R., & Harlen, W.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Andrews, Richard
Venue
Educational Research
Published
2006-11
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
287-299
ISSN
  • 0013-1881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5847
OpenAlex
W1992760945
Cited by
73
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Educational Research (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
heterogeneity of evidence, Bayesian synthesis, research questions, bias mitigation, systematic review methodology

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