Reviews of teaching methods – which fundamental issues are identified?

References

• Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, J. L. (2018). Unifying SoTL methodology: Internal and external validity. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 6(2), 115–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2017). Predicting what will happen when you intervene. Clinical Social Work Journal, 45(1),  270–279.
   Google Scholar
• Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4(3), 5–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Newman-Gonchar, R., & Alwell, M. (2009). Self-determination for students with disabilities: A narrative meta-synthesis. Career Development of Exceptional Individuals, 32(2), 108–114.
   Google Scholar
• Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology,18(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119–1
   Google Scholar
• Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications for cognitive theory for instruction in problem-solving. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 363–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 28(1), 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsh, Å., & Nilholm, C. (2019). Reviews of teaching methods – what are the fundamental problems? Paper presented at ECER Conference, Hamburg. Retrieved from https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/47337/
   Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaestle, C. F. (1993). The Awful Reputation of Education Research. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 23–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022001023
   Google Scholar
• Kazrin, A., Durac, T., & Agteros, T. (1979). Meta-meta-analysis: A new method for evaluating therapy outcome. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 17(4), 397–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher,26(7), 4–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026007004
   Google Scholar
• Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). “Making it real”: exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, 10(3), 163–174. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0036-4
   Google Scholar
• Khorsan, R., & Crawford, C. (2014). External validity and model validity: A conceptual approach for systematic review methodology. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2014, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and theirapplications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34, 224-230.
   Google Scholar
• Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gulmezoglu, M., … Rashidian, A. (2015). Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: An approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med, 12(10), 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LIJNSE, P. (2000) Didactics of science: The forgotten dimension in science education research. In Millar, R., Leach, J., & Osborne, J. (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 308–326). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maag, J. W. (2006). Social skills training for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review of reviews. Behavioral Disorders, 32(1), 5–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilholm, C., & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 437–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. Paris: Author. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en
   Google Scholar
• Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review – A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 21–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polanin, J., Maynard, B., & Dell, N. (2017). Overviews in education research: A systematic review and analysis. I. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roman, H., Sundberg, D., Hirsh, Å., Nilholm, C., & Forsberg, E. (2018). Mapping and exploring high impact research reviews on teaching. Paper presented at ECER Conference, Bolzano. Retrieved from https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/23/contribution/44956/
   Google Scholar
• Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rycroft-Malone, J., McCormack, B., Hutchinson, A. M., DeCorby, K., Bucknall, T. C., Kent, B., … Wilson, V. (2012). Realist synthesis: Illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Science, 7(33), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, F., & White, K. (2000). Making sense of it all: Giving and getting online course feedback. In WhiteK. W. &WeightB. H. (Eds.), The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom (pp. 57–72). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9037–z
   Google Scholar
• Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The Teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Updated with a new preface and afterword. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Terhart, E. (2011). Has John Hattie really found the holy grail of research on teaching? An extended review of Visible Learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 425–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torgerson, C. J. (2007). The quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness in literacy learning in English: A ‘tertiary’ review. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(3), 287–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of Research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, E. (1993) The irrelevancy of science education research: perception or reality? NARST News,35(1), 1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., … Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 137160065182(1), 61–89.
   Google Scholar