A five-step systematic methodology for building the conceptual evidence base of educational innovations¶
Research Method · All research methods
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 design),q2· 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study
Description¶
The article introduces a structured methodology for evaluating educational innovations' conceptual foundations, developed through practice at the International Centre for EdTech Impact. It proceeds from evidence identification to interpretation and application: "We followed five systematic steps. First, we conducted a rapid literature review, guided by the principle of methodological plurality. Second, we evaluated the identified studies using the criterion of weight of evidence." The sequence was designed to reduce the risk of retrospectively selecting evidence to justify existing product features, and culminates in a theory of change shared with the company to inform its research roadmap.
Accounts¶
- A five-step systematic methodology for building the conceptual evidence base of educational innovations: The article introduces a structured methodology for evaluating educational innovations' conceptual foundations, developed through practice at the International Centre for EdTech Impact. It proceeds from evidence identification to interpretation and application: "We followed five systematic steps. First, we conducted a rapid literature review, guided by the principle of methodological plurality. Second, we evaluated the identified studies using the criterion of weight of evidence." The sequence was designed to reduce the risk of retrospectively selecting evidence to justify existing product features, and culminates in a theory of change shared with the company to inform its research roadmap. (Natalia Kucirkova et al. (2026))
Claims¶
- The simple reverse-engineering approach to aligning products with Science of Learning principles risks false positives and a narrow perspective on learning [+W]
- In the I Can Read case, alignment with the Science of Reading was high for four of the five Big Ideas but low for Vocabulary, prompting revision of vocabulary activities [+M]
Related Research Methods¶
-
Key Sources¶
- Natalia Kucirkova, Phil Vahey, David Patterson, David Dockterman. (2026). Expanding conceptual evidence-building with the science of learning: integrating evidence weights, alignment estimates and iterative updates for educational innovations. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10732-w
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
research-method |
id |
a-five-step-systematic-methodology-for-building-the-conceptual-evidence-base-of-educationa |
title |
A five-step systematic methodology for building the conceptual evidence base of educational innovations |
description |
The article introduces a structured methodology for evaluating educational innovations' conceptual foundations, developed through practice at the International Centre for EdTech Impact. |
status |
review |
generated |
by process:settle-candidates on 2026-10-29 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.