What are systematic and rapid reviews? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
As you can imagine, there is a hierarchy of reviewing processes, starting with the most basic literature review (doing a search on what has been written in this area), right through to a review of reviews (reviewing previous reviews) (fig.1). At each stage, the process is more rigorous and, because of this, more time-consuming. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/altc.alt.ac.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1112\/2022\/06\/image.png?resize=452%2C305&ssl=1\")
<\/a>Systematic reviews have a set of processes that need to be conducted for it to be truly systematic. These include; establishing and publishing a replicable process, working with others to reduce bias, and having clear inclusion criteria to show why papers were rejected. Rapid reviews are similar, but usually have more constrained inclusion criteria and focus, and may have only one type of research involved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why should I think of doing a more systematic review? Beyond the more obvious benefits, Mel found reading a range of papers helped her understand the assorted styles of writing and research approaches, provided her with a broad understanding of the subject, and identify the research gaps. But there are challenges like; understanding and applying the method, using the technology, finding the time, and defining the criteria and scope. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The rapid reviews during covid looked at both secondary and Higher Education. Here are the main findings: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Not as many studies look at students in primary or secondary years, with a focus on teacher experiences in schools, but student experiences in studies focused on higher education <\/li>
- Zoom and other similar tools were the most used types \u2013 almost half the studies <\/li>
- Not much on students with disabilities \u2013 whose voice is being heard in this research? <\/li>
- Not much research on assessment tools or social networking tools <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The presentation was very engaging and interactive. Through audience questions, Mel established that the audience were newbies to reviews, that we could see a wide range of opportunities, but that time was the key constraint. The following are a few reflections on the session. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reflections <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Using technology to enable the reviewing of literature:<\/strong> Mel showed us how she was using EPPI-Reviewer<\/a>, a software specially designed for systematic reviews. Once you have established the criteria, key terms, and databases, this tool helps by pulling in the abstracts and presenting them for review and\/or rejection (see fig 2) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/altc.alt.ac.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1112\/2022\/06\/Screenshot-2022-06-22-09.14.31.png?resize=594%2C358&ssl=1\")
<\/a>Figure 2 EPPI-Reviewer interface showing the rejection criteria on the left and keywords highlighted on the right <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n EPPI-Reviewer also uses machine learning<\/a> to help sort and suggest papers. It can also continue this process as new work is published. It is also possible to allow others outside of the research team to view the database and run different queries. I am familiar with using citation and bibliographic analysis tools. However, the growing possibilities to support learning is interesting. Traditionally, this is seen as an area for libraries, but you can see eventual crossovers as AI and machine learning help shift, sort, and share knowledge. Once the rules of the systematic review are created, the technology can create an open resource for other researchers to explore the database and do further analysis. This creates a virtuous cycle around established criteria that can help others to examine the data in diverse ways. The systems also continue to gather the data, meaning the research is always ongoing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reducing the bias:<\/strong> Mel reflected a number of times on the lack of systematic reviews to include a wider range of voices. Reviews often only include papers published in English. Her recent reviews highlight the lack of publishing in Africa, Oceania, the Middle East, and South America. There is also a tendency to not include \u2018grey literature\u2019 published outside of academic journals. There is a need to find ways to support and include these voices for the benefit of everyone, as it distorts our understanding of learning across the globe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The quality of the literature out there: <\/strong>All the findings of systematic reviews require a good standard of research in the first instance. Mel hinted that there is room for improvement here, and links back to ELESIG\u2019s mission to help support the development of research skills within our community. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lack of reviews in education:<\/strong> Systematic reviews are quite common in scientific disciplines, but Mel notes that there are far fewer in education. This is a big opportunity for our area, which brings me to my next point. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Need to support each other:<\/strong> Very few attending had done a systematic review at the session, which points to a lack of knowledge, skills, and resources in this area. This provides us with an opportunity in the ALT community to work together on identifying and conducting reviews. This could help by sharing the obvious benefits but reducing the challenges such as time and resources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Link to video and slides <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Video<\/strong>: ELESIG Webinar: Emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n