Bibliothek

@article{Haddaway2020,

title = {Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them},

author = {Neal R. Haddaway and Alison Bethel and Lynn V. Dicks and Julia Koricheva and Biljana Macura and Gillian Petrokofsky and Andrew S. Pullin and Sini Savilaakso and Gavin B. Stewart},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x},

doi = {10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x},

issn = {2397-334X},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-10-12},

journal = {Nature Ecology & Evolution},

volume = {4},

pages = {1582–1589},

abstract = {Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.},

keywords = {A, literature review},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bellinger_Mayrberger_2019,

title = {Systematic Literature Review zu Open Educational Practices (OEP) in der Hochschule im europäischen Forschungskontext},

author = {Franziska Bellinger and Kerstin Mayrberger},

url = {https://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/664},

doi = {10.21240/mpaed/34/2019.02.18.X},

issn = {1424-3636},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-02-01},

urldate = {2019-02-01},

journal = {MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung},

volume = {34},

number = {Research and OER},

pages = {19–46},

abstract = {Open Educational Practices (OEP) erscheinen in der Debatte um Openness im Bildungskontext und in Verbindung mit Open Educational Resources (OER) trotz einer nachweislichen Verbindung als noch relativ unterrepräsentiert. So wird hier der Annahme gefolgt, dass es aus theoretischer, empirischer wie diskursiver Perspektive notwendig erscheint für eine Kultur des Teilens und weiter eine offene Bildung im Sinne von Open Education und Open Pedagogy, die sich in Variationen von OEP manifestieren, zu sensibilisieren. Auf Grund der Bedeutung von OEP für den derzeitigen Transformationsprozess im Hochschulkontext unter den Bedingungen der Digitalisierung liefert der Beitrag einen systematischen Überblick zu Forschungsarbeiten zu OEP. Dabei findet eine Orientierung entlang der übergreifenden Fragestellung, in welchen Zusammenhängen und unter welchen Fragestellungen OEP im Kontext Hochschule erforscht werden und mit welchem Begriffsverständnis gearbeitet wird, statt. Das Ergebnis des Literature Reviews zeigt, dass in den Forschungsarbeiten ein variantenreiches Verständnis von OEP thematisiert wird. In Abhängigkeit dessen wie das Verhältnis der Praktiken der Subjekte und die Praxis jeweils gefasst werden, lassen sich vier Dimensionen einer OEP im Kontext von Openness identifizieren. Der Beitrag plädiert daher für eine begriffliche Schärfung von OEP im jeweils spezifischen Verwendungszusammenhang. Die Autorinnen forcieren dabei eine praxistheoretische Perspektive. Es wird argumentiert, dass ein praxistheoretischer Zugang es ermöglicht, offene Bildungspraktiken für den Hochschulkontext theoretisch zu fundieren und empirisch zu untersuchen, um damit einen Beitrag zur zeitgemässen Mediendidaktik respektive Medienpädagogik leisten zu können.},

keywords = {A, Hochschule, Literaturanalyse, literature review, Open Educational Practices},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Schwab2018,

title = {Television Is Still “Easy” and Print Is Still “Tough”? More Than 30 Years of Research on the Amount of Invested Mental Effort},

author = {Frank Schwab and Christine Hennighausen and Dorothea C. Adler and Astrid Carolus},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01098},

doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01098},

isbn = {1664-1078},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-07-03},

journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},

volume = {9},

number = {1098},

pages = {1-17},

abstract = {We provide a literature overview of 30 years of research on the amount of invested mental effort (AIME, Salomon, 1984), illuminating relevant literature in this field. Since the introduction of AIME, this concept appears to have vanished. To obtain a clearer picture of where the theory of AIME has diffused, we conducted a literature search focusing on the period 1985–2015. We examined scientific articles (N = 244) that cite Salomon (1984) and content-analyzed their keywords. Based on these keywords, we identified seven content clusters: affect and motivation, application fields, cognition and learning, education and teaching, media technology, learning with media technology, and methods. We present selected works of each content cluster and describe in which research field the articles had been published. Results indicate that AIME was most commonly (but not exclusively) referred to in the area of educational psychology indicating its importance regarding learning and education, thereby investigating print and TV, as well as new media. From a methodological perspective, research applied various research methods (e.g., longitudinal studies, experimental designs, theoretical analysis) and samples (e.g., children, college students, low income families). From these findings, the importance of AIME for further research is discussed.},

keywords = {AIME, amount of invested mental effort, content cluster, content-analysis, literature review},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}