2005
DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000323719
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic reviews of research in science education: rigour or rigidity?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0
10

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
45
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…A more detailed account and critique of systematic review methods may be found in Bennett, Lubben, Hogarth, and Campbell (2005).…”
Section: Systematic Review Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A more detailed account and critique of systematic review methods may be found in Bennett, Lubben, Hogarth, and Campbell (2005).…”
Section: Systematic Review Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, it was decided to restrict this review to article abstracts, so matching initial phases of both 'systematic review' [5] and 'qualitative synthesis' [13]. Use of abstracts is characteristic of surveys aspiring to be large-scale [2] and a feature of other content analyses [3,[14][15][16].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the standardized test-driven culture of today's schools, the allocation of scarce instructional time and resources is a major concern for both teachers and administrators (Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006). Furthermore, research on science teachers has found that they feel underprepared and lack the confidence necessary to implement and manage socio-scientific inquiry (Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004;Bennett , Lubben, Hogarth, & Campbell, 2005;Levinson & Turner, 2001). So, while it appears that we know what to do in science to boost achievement, we simply are not doing it as often as we should or could.…”
Section: National Trends In Science Education and Student Performancementioning
confidence: 99%