The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Issues in synthesizing research in education
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Andrews and Harlen, 2006
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 10.4324/9780203464649 · DOI
- Andrews R., Paper presented at the ESRC ‘Reconceptualizing Writing 5–16’ Series
- Andrews R., 2004, The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition
- Andrews R., 2005, A systematic review of the effectiveness of ICT on 5–16 year olds' written composition in English
- Andrews R., 2004, The effect of grammar teaching (sentence-combining) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition
- Commission on the Social Sciences, 2003, Great expectations: the social sciences in Britain
- 10.2307/j.ctt1t892t3.7 · DOI
- 10.1080/01411920120095735 · DOI
- Gorard S., 2004, British Educational Research Journal, 30, 578, 10.1080/0141192042000237248 · DOI
- 10.1080/01411920120095726 · DOI
- Hargreaves D., 1996, Teaching as a research-based profession—possibilities and prospects: Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture
- Hargreaves D., 1998, Challenges for educational research, 114
- Harlen W., The role of research in mature education systems. Proceedings of the NFER International Jubilee Conference, 135
- Harlen W., 2002, A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students' motivation for learning
- 10.1080/0969594032000121270 · DOI
- 10.1080/09500790408668308 · DOI
- Hedges L. V., 1993, Review of Educational Research, 63, 345, 10.3102/00346543063003345 · DOI
- Nisbet J., 1980, The impact of research on policy and practice in education
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11560-1 · DOI
- 10.3102/0013189X015009005 · DOI
- Torgerson C., 2003, Systematic reviews
- Torgerson C., 2003, A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on literacy learning in English 5–16
- Torgerson C., 2006, Journal of Research in Reading, 29
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019) · Journal of Planning Education and Research · doi:10.1177/0739456x17723971 · Cited by 3,467
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Andrews, R., & Harlen, W.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Andrews, Richard
- ORCID
- Andrews, Richard
- Venue
- Educational Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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