Systematic review¶
Research Method · All research methods
Evidence · 5 claims (5 for) · 3 studies (3 quant-synthesis),q3· 0 of 3 report an effect size · 5 claims rest on one study
Description¶
The article defines systematic reviews as a distinct genre of research synthesis. It states that "It is important to define what we mean by a systematic review to distinguish it from simple summaries of research", and that "Systematic reviews are designed to answer a question and prevent the information overload that decision makers at all levels may face." The framework positions the systematic review as a purposeful, question-anchored alternative to ad hoc summaries, used to support evidence-based decision making at all levels.
Accounts¶
- Systematic reviews as question-driven syntheses distinct from simple research summaries: The article defines systematic reviews as a distinct genre of research synthesis. It states that "It is important to define what we mean by a systematic review to distinguish it from simple summaries of research", and that "Systematic reviews are designed to answer a question and prevent the information overload that decision makers at all levels may face." The framework positions the systematic review as a purposeful, question-anchored alternative to ad hoc summaries, used to support evidence-based decision making at all levels. (Jill Constantine (2013))
- PRISMA-framework systematic literature review corpus on AI ethics in education, academic misconduct, and educational technology: The article's evidence base is a systematic literature review conducted with the PRISMA framework covering recent studies in AI Ethics in Education, Academic Misconduct, and Educational Technology. Publications in various academic databases were "screened, filtered, and analyzed" to determine emerging trends in AI Governance, Responsible AI, Learning Analytics, and Digital Assessment. The corpus underpins all of the review's findings on student perceptions, cognitive offloading, and institutional inconsistency. (Padhy (2026))
- PRISMA 2020 corpus of 50 peer-reviewed articles (2015–2024) analyzed with NVivo 14: The review's evidence base: 50 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2015 and 2024, systematically selected from major academic databases under the PRISMA 2020 framework. The article states it was "Guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework, 50 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2015 and 2024 were systematically selected from major academic databases." The studies were analyzed using thematic analysis supported by NVivo 14 to ensure transparency. (MOHAMMAD ANIQ AMDAN et al. (2026))
- Systematic review corpus of 127 included ITS studies selected via PRISMA from 37,617 initial records: The review's evidence base is a corpus assembled through a Kitchenham-style systematic literature search across Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Springer. The selection process states that "37,617 articles were initially identified, 9,485 were eliminated after deduplication, 2,112 were excluded after screening titles and abstracts, and finally, 127 articles were included for full review, supplemented by 26 reports from specialized web sources". Inclusion criteria required evaluation of educational effectiveness in real learning environments, empirical data, validation of 6 weeks or more, samples of 100 or more participants, and peer-reviewed English-language papers. (Meriem Zerkouk et al. (2025))
- Systematic review evidence base of 21 primary-education differentiation studies yielding 78 effect sizes: The evidence base for this review is a corpus of empirical studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education published since 1995. The authors state they synthesized "the results of empirical studies (n = 21) on this topic since 1995" and that "We extracted 78 effect sizes from the included studies." Outcomes covered are language and math performance in primary education. (Deunk et al. (2018))
- Systematic review corpus of 622 reports yielding 53 program evaluations and 44 meta-analyzable effect sizes: The review assembled an evidence corpus by hand-searching all volumes of 35 journals from 1983 to the end of May 2009 and 18 electronic databases, including non-English reports and unpublished work. Of "622 reports concerned with bullying prevention", 89 reports describing 53 different program evaluations were included, and 44 provided calculable effect sizes for bullying or victimization. Evaluations spanned four design types: randomized experiments, before-and-after intervention-control comparisons, other intervention-control comparisons, and age-cohort designs. (Maria M. Ttofi (2011))
- Revisión sistemática de literatura sobre evaluación formativa y analíticas de aprendizaje en cursos virtuales: Como parte de la definición del modelo, la tesis realiza "una revisión sistemática de la literatura con el fin de identificar los últimos avances en cuanto a metodologías, herramientas, así como otros modelos aplicados en esta área". Esta revisión fundamenta el planteamiento del problema y las preguntas de investigación que guían el diseño e implementación del modelo de evaluación formativa integrado con analíticas de aprendizaje. (Pineda Corcho (2021))
- Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of metacognitive self-report measures (24,396 articles screened; 22 factor-structure studies; 37 correlation studies): This element is the article's own evidence base: two PRISMA-conducted systematic reviews and a meta-analysis of self-report in metacognitive research. Searches in seven databases located studies from 1982 through 2018, with "24,396 articles from 1982 through 2018 were screened for inclusion in the study." The first review tabulated 22 factor-structure studies; the second analyzed 37 studies, in which "the 37 articles reported 328 correlations between factors and/or subcomponents of metacognition," with instrument type and timing coded for moderator analysis. (Craig et al. (2020))
Claims¶
- Using computerized systems as a differentiation tool has small to moderate positive effects on primary students' language and math performance [+M]
- Differentiation embedded in a broader program or reform has small to moderate positive effects on primary students' performance [+M]
- Between- or within-class homogeneous ability grouping has a small negative effect on low-ability primary students but no effect on other students [+M]
- School-based anti-bullying programs are effective overall, decreasing bullying by 20-23% on average [+M]
- Self-report subscales do not reliably assess distinct metacognitive subcomponents, with structures of two to nine components found across studies [+M]
Related Research Methods¶
-
Key Sources¶
- Jill Constantine. (2013). Systematic Reviews as a Tool in Evidence-Based Decision Making: Improving Research and Informing Practice. Jacobs Foundation. https://www.jacobsfoundation.de/en/
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
research-method |
id |
systematic-review |
title |
Systematic review |
description |
The article defines systematic reviews as a distinct genre of research synthesis. |
status |
review |
moved_from |
theory/systematic-reviews-question-driven-syntheses |
generated |
by process:sweep-kinds on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jill-constantine-2013 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.