Writing a systematic review

I will use a published systematic review to illustrate the various elements in a systematic review. The paper is Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111-1150. doi:10.3102/0034654315627864

The review was carried out by a team of researchers. You are a team of one so when you see the scale of the study you need to remind yourself that you don't have a small army of research assistants to do the grunt work.

The study is useful as a model for what you might do. Read it lightly, you can't and won't be able to map everything they did onto your work.

General comments about writing a paper
Here are some notes and ideas you need to think about in terms of writing a paper.

The paper has the following elements:

Hard to be more precise or descriptive. For your title, think about the importance of words and phrases for online searching.

Ask a colleague to read your title and suggest what your paper might be about. Were they able hit the nail on the head? Did they leave something important out? Some journals publish the ‘short’ title, so ensure the ‘short’ title can stand alone (e.g. a short title is the first half, before the colon)

The list of sections here does not needed to be reproduced exactly. They are simply those headers you will likely encounter when looking at other reviews.

Here are some notes on the Abstract.

Some observations about the introduction.

Method and Theory
Some notes about method and theory.

Some notes about method and theory.

Synthesis, Results & Discussion
Some notes about method and theory.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License