Abstracts
Résumé
Les revues systématiques de la littérature proposent une synthèse des connaissances scientifiques sur une question de recherche. La transparence de la méthodologie permet de juger la fiabilité de la revue et des conclusions proposées. L’éducation fondée sur les preuves défend cette méthodologie, mais ignore généralement les études non expérimentales. L’objectif du présent article est de permettre la compréhension et la conception de revues systématiques en sciences de l’éducation et de la formation, incluant différents types de recherche, des études expérimentales aux études à visée compréhensive et exploratoire. Cet article détaille les étapes de la construction d’une revue systématique et propose un script de rédaction pour tout chercheur s’engageant dans l’écriture d’une revue systématique, quel que soit son niveau d’expertise.
Mots-clés :
- revue systématique,
- démarche méthodologique,
- sciences de l’éducation,
- pratiques éducatives,
- éducation fondée sur les preuves
Abstract
Systematic literature reviews offer a synthesis of scholarly knowledge on a given research subject. The transparency of the methodology is a benchmark of the reliability of the review and the proposed conclusions. Evidence-based education defends this methodology, but generally ignores non-experimental studies. The purpose of this article is to help understand and design systematic reviews in education and training, including different types of research, from experimental studies to comprehensive and exploratory studies. The article details the steps involved in the construction of a systematic review and proposes a writing script for any researcher engaging in writing a systematic review, irrespective of their level of expertise.
Keywords:
- systematic review,
- methodological approach,
- education science,
- educational practices,
- evidence-based education
Resumen
Las revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura proporcionan una síntesis del conocimiento científico sobre una cuestión de investigación. La transparencia de la metodología permite juzgar la fiabilidad de la revisión y de las conclusiones propuestas. La educación basada en evidencias defiende esta metodología, pero generalmente ignora los estudios no experimentales. El objetivo de este artículo es permitir la comprensión y el diseño de revisiones sistemáticas en las ciencias de la educación y la formación, incluyendo diferentes tipos de investigación, desde estudios experimentales hasta estudios integrales y exploratorios. Este artículo detalla los pasos para crear una revisión sistemática y ofrece un guión de redacción para cualquier investigador que participe en la redacción de una revisión sistemática, independientemente de su nivel de experiencia.
Palabras clave:
- revisión sistemática,
- enfoque metodológico,
- ciencias de la educación,
- prácticas educativas,
- educación basada en evidencia
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Baye, A., Bluge, V. et Lafontaine, D. (2016). L’éducation fondée sur des preuves. Rapport du groupe d’expertise mandaté dans le cadre du Pacte pour un enseignement d’excellence. Liège: Université de Liège. Repéré à https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/252129/1/Baye_Bluge_Education%20fondee%20sur%20des%20preuves_1_10_16.pdf
- Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M. et Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87‑122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
- Best Evidence Encyclopedia (2021, 6 février). About the Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE). Best Evidence Encyclopedia. https://bestevidence.org/about/
- Blais, M. et Martineau, S. (2006). L’analyse inductive générale: Description d’une démarche visant à donner un sens à des données brutes. Recherches qualitatives, 26(2), 1-18.
- Bøg, M., Filges, T. et Jørgensen, A. M. K. (2018). Deployment of personnel to military operations: Impact on mental health and social functioning. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1‑127. doi: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.6
- Bondas, T. et Hall, E. O. C. (2007). A decade of metasynthesis research in health sciences: A meta-method study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 2(2), 101‑113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17482620701251684
- Buckley, S., Coleman, J., Davison, I., Khan, K. S., Zamora, J., Malick, S., Morley, D., Pollard, D., Ashcroft, T., Popovic, C. et Sayers, J. (2012). Les effets éducatifs des portfolios sur l’apprentissage des étudiants pendant le cursus prégradué: une revue systématique de la collaboration Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME). Guide BEME N° 11. Pédagogie médicale, 13(2), 115‑145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2012013
- Bussières, E.-L. (2018). La revue systématique d’études quantitatives. Revue francophone de recherche en ergothérapie, 4(1), 79‑83. doi: https://doi.org/10.13096/rfre.v4n1.107
- Caracelli, V. J. et Cooksy, L. J. (2013). Incorporating qualitative evidence in systematic reviews : Strategies and challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 2013(138), 97‑108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20061
- Chalmers, I. (2005). If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn’t work in theory? Evidence & Policy. A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1(2), 227‑242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/1744264053730806
- Cheung, A. C. K. et Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198‑215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.002
- Cheung, A. C. K. et Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283‑292. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615
- Chevalier, P. (2014). Biais de sélectivité lors du choix et du rapport des résultats. Minerva Website. Repéré à http://www.minerva-ebm.be/FR/Article/22
- Cook, B. et Cook, L. (2016). Research designs and special education research. Different designs address different questions. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12110
- Cronin, P., Ryan, F. et Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 17(1), 38‑43. doi: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059
- Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75‑80. doi: https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N
- Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B. et Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 45‑53.
- Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A., Shaw, R., Smith, J. et Young, B. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6.
- Estabrooks, C. A., Field, P. A. et Morse, J. M. (1994). Aggregating qualitative findings: An approach to theory development. Qualitative Health Research, 4(4), 503‑511. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239400400410
- Evans, J. et Benefield, P. (2001). Systematic reviews of educational research: Does the medical model fit? British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 527‑541.
- Fitzpatrick, D. et Burns, J. (2019). Single-track year-round education for improving academic achievement in U.S. K-12 schools: Results of a meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3), e1053. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1053
- Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Ciliska, D. et Thomas, H. (2009). Méthodes pour faire la synthèse d’études sans groupes témoins. Centre de collaboration nationale des méthodes et outils.
- Goldberg, M. (2011). L’épidémiologie sans peine. Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
- Gopalakrishnan, S. et Ganeshkumar, P. (2013). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis : Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2(1), 9‑14. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934
- Gough, D. (2004). Systematic research synthesis to inform the development of policy and practice in education. Dans G. Thomas et R. Pring (dir.), Evidence-based Practice (p. 44‑62). Buckingham, MK: Open University Press.
- Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213‑228. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189
- Gough, D. (2015). Qualitative and mixed methods in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 181. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0151-y
- Grant, M. J. et Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91‑108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
- Hensens, H. (2002). Bruit et silence. Repéré à https://www.mpl.ird.fr/documentation/indexation/bruit.htm
- Higgins, J., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savović, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L. et Sterne, J. A. C. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928
- Higgins, J. et James, T. (dir.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2e éd.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Higgins, J., Lasserson, T., Chandler, J., Tovey, D., Thomas, J., Flemyng, E. et Churchill, R. (2020). Methodological expectations of Cochrane intervention reviews. Standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates. Cochrane.
- Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R. et Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172‑177.
- Hjetland, H. N., Brinchmann, E. I., Scherer, R. et Melby-Lervåg, M. (2017). Preschool predictors of later reading comprehension ability: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1‑155. doi: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.14
- Institut de statistique de l’UNESCO (2013). Classification internationale type de l’éducation: CITE 2011.
- Jahan, N., Naveed, S., Zeshan, M. et Tahir, M. A. (2016). How to conduct a systematic review: A narrative literature review. Cureus, 8(11). doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.864
- Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Jørgensen, A.-M. K., Hammerstrøm, K. et Sathe, N. (2017). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1‑73. doi: https://doi.org/10.4073/cmg.2016.1
- Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Littlewood, A., Marshall, C., Metzendorf, M.-I., Noel-Storr, A., Rader, T., Shokraneh, F., Thomas, J. et Wieland, L. S. (2019). Searching for and selecting studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (p. 67‑107). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch4
- Lipsey, M. W. et Wilson, D. B. (1999). Practical Meta-Analysis (Sage). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publishing.
- Lockwood, C., Munn, Z. et Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179‑187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000062
- Macdonald, G. (2000). Social care: Rhetoric and reality. Dans Davies, H. T. O., Nutley, S. M. et Smith, P. C. (dir.), What Works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Oxford: Policy Press.
- Maison, P. (2010). La méta-analyse sur données résumées. Recherche en soins infirmiers, 101(2), 18‑24.
- Martineau, S. (2005). L’instrumentation dans la collecte des données. Recherches qualitatives, hors-série, 2, 5‑17.
- Matthews, K. E., Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Acai, A., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Healey, M., Healey, R. L. et Marquis, E. (2019). Enhancing outcomes and reducing inhibitors to the engagement of students and staff in learning and teaching partnerships: Implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(3), 246‑259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1545233
- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. et The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
- Newman, M. et Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Dans O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond et K. Buntins (dir.), Systematic Reviews in Educational Research (p. 3‑22). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1
- Norris, N. (1997). Error, bias and validity in qualitative research. Educational Action Research, 5(1), 172-176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799700200020
- Oakley, A. (2002). Social science and evidence-based everything: The case of education. Educational Review, 54(3), 277‑286. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191022000016329
- Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. et Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan. A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
- Page, M. J., Moher, D., 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., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
- Pellegrini, M., Lake, C., Neitzel, A. et Slavin, R. E. (2021). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, 7, 1‑29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986211
- Pollock, A. et Berge, E. (2018). How to do a systematic review. International Journal of Stroke, 13(2), 138‑156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017743796
- Regnaux, J.-P. et Remondière, R. (2018). Protocole d’une revue systématique de la littérature des recommandations de bonnes pratiques de kinési-physiothérapie applicables en France. Kinésithérapie, la Revue, 18(202), 9‑15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kine.2018.05.013
- Rey, O. (2006). Qu’est-ce qu’une «bonne» recherche en éducation? Institut français de l’éducation.
- Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (éd. revue). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
- Saussez, F. et Lessard, C. (2009). Entre orthodoxie et pluralisme, les enjeux de l’éducation basée sur la preuve. Revue française de pédagogie, 168, 111‑136. doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.1804
- Schöpfel, J. (2012). Vers une nouvelle définition de la littérature grise. Cahiers de la documentation/Bladen voor Dokumentatie, 3, 14‑24.
- Slavin, R. E. (1995). Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(1), 9‑18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A
- Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15‑21. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007015
- Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education. What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5‑14. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08314117
- Slavin, R. E., Lake, C. et Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 839‑911. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330968
- Swanson, E., McCulley, L. V., Osman, D. J., Lewis, N. S. et Solis, M. (2017). The effect of team-based learning on content knowledge: A meta-analysis. Active Learning in Higher Education. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731201
- Tant, M. et Watelain, É. (2014). Attitudes des enseignants d’éducation physique envers l’inclusion d’un élève en situation de handicap. Une revue systématique de la littérature (1975-2015). Staps, 106(4), 37‑53. doi: https://doi.org/10.3917/sta.106.0037
- The Cochrane Collaboration (2020). Data collection form for intervention reviews: RCTs and non-RCTs. Repéré à https://dplp.cochrane.org/data-extraction-forms
- Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237‑246. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
- Thomas, J. et Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
- Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A. et Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555‑575. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
- Tripney, J., Roulstone, A., Vigurs, C., Hogrebe, N., Schmidt, E. et Stewart, R. (2015). Interventions to improve the labour market situation of adults with physical and/or sensory disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 11(1), 1‑127. doi: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2015.20
- Vlachopoulos, D. et Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 22.
- Zaugg, V., Savoldelli, V., Sabatier, B. et Durieux, P. (2014). Améliorer les pratiques et l’organisation des soins: méthodologie des revues systématiques. Santé publique, 26(5), 655‑667.