Reviewing the results of pedagogical research: Methodological orientations and reflective approach

Journal title EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY
Author/s Alice Femminini, Anna Salerni, Irene Stanzione
Publishing Year 2025 Issue 2025/1
Language Italian Pages 14 P. 272-285 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/ess1-2025oa19732
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

View article Download Open Access article

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The contribution offers a reflection on the topic of literature review in the field of educational sciences. In a historical context characterized by the increasing proliferation of research contributions, it is crucial to maintain a critical stance in choosing the review and synthesis methods in order to address specific questions and integrate research findings to produce effective summaries. The aim is to emphasize the importance of adopting a reflective approach throughout the entire process, ensuring that decisions are made based on a strong coherence between the methodology used and the objectives of the review. Some adjustments to the conventional systematic review procedures are proposed in order to overcome the criticisms often associated with pedagogical research, such as the lack of methodological rigor, and to address the specificities of this disciplinary field.

Keywords: ; literature review; research synthesis; approaches; reflexivity; pedagogical research

  1. Azarian M., Yu H., Shiferaw A. T., & Stevik T. K. (2023). Do We Perform Systematic Literature Review Right? A Scientific Mapping and Methodological Assessment. Logistics, 7(4), 89. DOI: 10.3390/logistics7040089.
  2. Cohen L., Manion L., & Morrison K. (2002). Research Methods in Education. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203224342.
  3. Crocetti E. (2015). Rassegne sistematiche, sintesi della ricerca e meta-analisi (pp. 1-268). North Charleston: CreateSpace.
  4. Daniele K., & Zannini L. (2023). I criteri COREQ per valutare la validità degli studi qualitativi: un percorso a ritroso per illuminarne alcuni presupposti taciti: A back-ward path to illuminate their tacit assumptions. Studium Educationis-Rivista semestrale per le professioni educative, (1): 084-095. DOI: 10.7346/SE-012023-10.
  5. Dell’Anna S., e Pellegrini M. (2019). Condurre systematic review in ambito inclusivo. Uno strumento per l’epistemologia e l’implementazione nel settore. Didattica e Inclusione scolastica: ricerche e pratiche in dialogo, pp. 162-174. -- https://hdl.handle.net/10863/11922.
  6. Dewey J. (2019). Come pensiamo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore. (Titolo origina-le: How we think, pubblicato in John Dewey The Later Works, vo. 8, 1933).
  7. Ghirotto L. (2020). La systematic review nella ricerca qualitativa. Metodi e strategie. Roma: Carocci.
  8. Glenton C., Lewin S., Downe S., Paulsen E., Munabi-Babigumira S., Agarwal S., Ames H., Cooper S., Daniels K., Houghton C., Karimi‐Shahanjarini A., Moloi H., Oden-daal W., Shakibazadeh E., Vasudevan L., Xyrichis A., & Bohren M. A. (2022). Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. DOI: 10.1177/16094069211061950.
  9. Hattie J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.
  10. Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A., Clarke M., Devereaux P. J., Kleijnen J., & Moher D. (2009). The PRISMA State-ment for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4): W-65-W-94. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136.
  11. Marsili F., Morganti A., e Vivanet G. (2020). Nuovi orizzonti di ricerca in educazione speciale: le sintesi di sintesi. Italian Journal of Special Education for Inclusion, 8(1): 185-200. DOI: 10.7346/sipes-01-2020-15.
  12. Montù V. (2011). La costruzione di una systematic review sulla ricerca con i bambini. Formazione e insegnamento, 9(1): 211-218. -- https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/1153.
  13. Mortari L. (2010). Cercare il rigore metodologico per una ricerca pedagogica scientificamente fondata. Education Sciences & Society, 1: 143-156. -- http://hdl.handle.net/11562/349098.
  14. Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J. M., Akl E. A., Brennan S. E., Chou R., Glanville J., Grim-shaw J. M., Hróbjartsson A., Lalu M. M., Li T., Loder E. W., Mayo-Wilson E., McDonald S., . . . Moher D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
  15. Pellegrini M., & Marsili F. (2021). Evaluating software tools to conduct systematic reviews: a feature analysis and user survey. Form@re - Open Journal per La Formazione in Rete, 21(2): 124-140. DOI: 10.36253/form-11343.
  16. Pellegrini M., & Vivanet G. (2018). Sintesi di ricerca in educazione. Basi teoriche e metodologiche. Roma: Carocci.
  17. Smela B., Toumi M., Świerk K., Francois C., Biernikiewicz M., Clay E., & Boyer L. (2023). Rapid literature review: definition and methodology. Journal of market access & health policy, 11(1), 2241234.
  18. Tong A., Flemming K., McInnes E., Oliver S., & Craig J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1). DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181.
  19. Tong A., Sainsbury P., & Craig J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6): 349-357. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
  20. Wohlin C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 1-10. DOI: 10.1145/2601248.2601268.
  21. Zawacki-Richter O., Kerres M., Bedenlier S., Bond M., & Buntins K. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer. -- https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7.

Alice Femminini, Anna Salerni, Irene Stanzione, Passare in rassegna i risultati della ricerca pedagogica: orientamenti metodologici e approccio riflessivo in "EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY" 1/2025, pp 272-285, DOI: 10.3280/ess1-2025oa19732