Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
| dc.creator | Buntins, Katja | |
| dc.creator | Bedenlier, Svenja | |
| dc.creator | Marín, Victoria I. | |
| dc.creator | Händel, Marion | |
| dc.creator | Bond, Melissa | |
| dc.date | 2023-12 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-11-03T12:17:24Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-11-03T12:17:24Z | |
| dc.identifier | https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/54/2023.12.20.X | |
| dc.identifier | 1424-3636 | |
| dc.identifier | https://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/464860 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://fima-docencia.ub.edu:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/24452 | |
| dc.description | Evidence synthesis methods are becoming increasingly popular in the social sciences, particularly in the field of educational technology, where secondary research has grown exponentially in recent years. Although review studies provide insight into these methods, questions have been raised about their methodological rigor and transparency. This tertiary review analyzed transparency and reproducibility in the reporting of evidence synthesis methods in the field of educational technology across different types of reviews indexed in the Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, Google Scholar, Dialnet, and FIS. Reviews were included if they were published in English, German, or Spanish; if they synthesized the use of educational technology within formal teaching and learning settings; and if they contained a methods section. A sample of 446 evidence syntheses were included for data extraction and synthesis in EPPI Reviewer, with systematic reviews, metaanalyses, and literature reviews selected for deeper analysis as the most widely used review types in the corpus. Indicators of replicability at critical stages of the review were identified and analyzed in the sample by review type (research question, search strategy, data extraction, and synthesis). The results show significant room for improvement of methodological transparency in data extraction and synthesis, with certain types of reviews showing lower scores than others on some indicators. The article concludes with recommendations for improving the methodological transparency and rigor of evidence synthesis in the field of educational technology. | |
| dc.description | Victoria I. Marín acknowledges the support of the Grant RYC2019-028398-I funded by MCIN/AEI/ https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033 and FSE “El FSE invierte en tu futuro”. | |
| dc.format | application/pdf | |
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.publisher | Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft | |
| dc.relation | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/AEI//RYC2019-028398-I/ES/ | |
| dc.relation | Reproducció del document publicat a https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/54/2023.12.20.X | |
| dc.relation | MedienPädagogik, 2023, vol. 54, p. 167-191 | |
| dc.rights | cc-by (c) Katja Buntins et al., 2023 | |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.rights | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
| dc.subject | Mediendidaktik | |
| dc.subject | Systematik | |
| dc.title | Methodological Approaches to Evidence Synthesis in Educational Technology. A Tertiary Systematic Mapping Review | |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| Ficheros | Tamaño | Formato | Ver |
|---|---|---|---|
|
No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem. |
|||