Reflections on conducting rapid reviews of educational research

IF 2.7 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Research Pub Date : 2022-09-28 DOI:10.1080/00131881.2022.2120514
Connie Cirkony, M. Rickinson, Lucas Walsh, J. Gleeson, M. Salisbury, Blake Cutler
{"title":"Reflections on conducting rapid reviews of educational research","authors":"Connie Cirkony, M. Rickinson, Lucas Walsh, J. Gleeson, M. Salisbury, Blake Cutler","doi":"10.1080/00131881.2022.2120514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Rapid reviews involve a streamlined approach to knowledge synthesis. They are used to identify high-quality evidence for the purpose of informing decisions and initiatives, completed over relatively short timeframes, and have been found to reach conclusions that do not differ extensively from full systematic reviews. Although common in the health sector, rapid reviews are not as widespread in education. Purpose This paper reflects on the experiences of conducting a rapid review that applied review guidance from the health sector to a topic situated within education: effective Professional Learning (PL) for school-based educators. Our purpose is not to share the rapid review’s findings: rather, our interest lies in exploring the process of undertaking the review. We sought to investigate the methodological decisions we made for the education context as we carried out the review. Methods As part of a large-scale investigation focusing on practitioner use of research evidence in education, we undertook a rapid review to understand what is known about effective PL. Drawing on methodological literature from the health and education sectors, we documented the procedure involved in conducting our rapid review in education. At each step, we reflected on methodological issues encountered, decisions taken and the procedural adjustments we made to align the process to the education context. Findings Our reflections identify the key adaptations we made to ensure that review guidance was carefully attuned to the context of the education field and the wider purpose of the review: in our case, to inform an initiative in education. Considerations highlighted by our procedure also included the role of reviewer judgement in quality appraisal and attending to collaborative review team processes. These reflections support the notion that the use of research to inform decisions in education needs to be a dynamic, contextualised, and collaborative process. Conclusion Rapid reviews have a crucial part to play in efforts to strengthen evidence-informed practice in the education sector. Our methodological exploration offers insights for those conducting, using, and commissioning rapid reviews to provide systematic and transparent evidence-based guidance for initiatives in education.","PeriodicalId":47607,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2022.2120514","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Rapid reviews involve a streamlined approach to knowledge synthesis. They are used to identify high-quality evidence for the purpose of informing decisions and initiatives, completed over relatively short timeframes, and have been found to reach conclusions that do not differ extensively from full systematic reviews. Although common in the health sector, rapid reviews are not as widespread in education. Purpose This paper reflects on the experiences of conducting a rapid review that applied review guidance from the health sector to a topic situated within education: effective Professional Learning (PL) for school-based educators. Our purpose is not to share the rapid review’s findings: rather, our interest lies in exploring the process of undertaking the review. We sought to investigate the methodological decisions we made for the education context as we carried out the review. Methods As part of a large-scale investigation focusing on practitioner use of research evidence in education, we undertook a rapid review to understand what is known about effective PL. Drawing on methodological literature from the health and education sectors, we documented the procedure involved in conducting our rapid review in education. At each step, we reflected on methodological issues encountered, decisions taken and the procedural adjustments we made to align the process to the education context. Findings Our reflections identify the key adaptations we made to ensure that review guidance was carefully attuned to the context of the education field and the wider purpose of the review: in our case, to inform an initiative in education. Considerations highlighted by our procedure also included the role of reviewer judgement in quality appraisal and attending to collaborative review team processes. These reflections support the notion that the use of research to inform decisions in education needs to be a dynamic, contextualised, and collaborative process. Conclusion Rapid reviews have a crucial part to play in efforts to strengthen evidence-informed practice in the education sector. Our methodological exploration offers insights for those conducting, using, and commissioning rapid reviews to provide systematic and transparent evidence-based guidance for initiatives in education.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于开展教育研究快速评审的思考
摘要背景快速评审涉及一种简化的知识综合方法。它们用于确定高质量的证据,为决策和举措提供信息,在相对较短的时间内完成,并被发现得出的结论与全面系统审查没有很大区别。尽管快速审查在卫生部门很常见,但在教育领域却没有那么普遍。目的本文回顾了进行快速审查的经验,该审查将卫生部门的审查指导应用于教育领域的一个主题:为学校教育工作者提供有效的专业学习(PL)。我们的目的不是分享快速审查的结果:相反,我们的兴趣在于探索进行审查的过程。我们试图调查我们在进行审查时为教育背景做出的方法论决定。方法作为一项大规模调查的一部分,重点是从业者在教育中使用研究证据,我们进行了一次快速审查,以了解有效PL的已知情况。根据卫生和教育部门的方法学文献,我们记录了在教育中进行快速审查所涉及的程序。在每一步中,我们都会反思遇到的方法问题、做出的决定以及我们为使过程与教育背景相一致而做出的程序调整。调查结果我们的反思确定了我们所做的关键调整,以确保审查指导与教育领域的背景和审查的更广泛目的相适应:在我们的案例中,为教育倡议提供信息。我们程序强调的考虑因素还包括评审员判断在质量评估中的作用以及参与协作评审团队流程。这些思考支持了这样一种观点,即利用研究为教育决策提供信息需要是一个动态的、情境化的和协作的过程。结论快速审查在加强教育部门循证实践方面发挥着至关重要的作用。我们的方法探索为那些进行、使用和委托快速审查的人提供了见解,为教育举措提供了系统和透明的循证指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Research
Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Educational Research, the journal of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), was established in 1958. Drawing upon research projects in universities and research centres worldwide, it is the leading international forum for informed thinking on issues of contemporary concern in education. The journal is of interest to academics, researchers and those people concerned with mediating research findings to policy makers and practitioners. Educational Research has a broad scope and contains research studies, reviews of research, discussion pieces, short reports and book reviews in all areas of the education field.
期刊最新文献
Exploring cooperative learning as a tool in civic education Invisible and fluid walls in early childhood nature learning: collecting data through video Conditions for higher education study: the perspectives of prospective students from rural areas What is the meaning of family participation in schools? A multi-voice perspective Leadership as a profession in early childhood education and care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1