@article {, title = {Evidence syntheses in educational technology research: What is not published in English is not visible? A tertiary mapping review}, journal = {Review of Education }, volume = {13}, year = {2025}, abstract = {

Evidence syntheses, such as systematic reviews, aimto summarise the current state of research in a field,often using the publication language of a study as acriterion for inclusion or exclusion. However, this hasserious implications for capturing evidence from awider range of geographical areas, and the potentialfor linguistic bias. In order to explore this issue, atrilingual tertiary mapping review of 446 evidencesyntheses within the field of educational technology(EdTech) and published in English, Spanish andGerman was undertaken, analysing the frequencyof multi- and monolingual evidence syntheses,reasons for language choice by research teams,and the composition of research teams in multi-and monolingual evidence syntheses. Items wereincluded if they were a form of evidence synthesiswith an explicit method section, indexed within ERIC,Scopus, Web of Science, Dialnet, FIS- Bildung, orGoogle Scholar, education-related, and publishedbetween 1983 and May 2022. The results showed thatonly eight languages were considered in publishedsyntheses, only five languages were used to constructsearch strings, most evidence syntheses includedresearch published in English without explaining why,and multilingual research team composition did notpredict multilingual evidence syntheses. The findingssuggest the need to address publication languagesnot only as a formal criterion but as an integral aspect\ of methodological approach, influencing the contentand scope of syntheses in educational research.

}, keywords = {educational technology; linguistic bias; meta review; publication language; research methods; research synthesis; review overviews: systematic review}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70022}, author = {Bedenlier, Svenja and Buntins, Katja and Bond, Melissa and H{\"a}ndel, Marion and Mar{\'\i}n, Victoria I.} } @article {, title = {Forschungssynthesen in der Mediendidaktik. Ans{\"a}tze und Herausforderungen (Editorial)}, journal = {MedienP{\"a}dagogik. Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung}, year = {2023}, abstract = {

Die Herbsttagung 2023 der Sektion Medienp\ädagogik in der Gesellschaft f\ür Erziehungswissenschaft steht unter dem Tagungsthema \„Mit Medienp\ädagogik in die Zukunft. Entw\ürfe, Begr\ündungen und (inter-)disziplin\äre Begegnungen\“ und fragt dabei auch nach den methodologischen und methodischen Zug\ängen zum Forschungsfeld (Hartung et al., 2014). Vor dem Hintergrund der internationalen Forschungsstr\änge zu Digital Education bzw. Educational Technology und dem gesellschaftlichen Bedarf nach evidenzbasierter bzw. -informierter Bildungspolitik zu Fragen der Digitalisierung ist die lange Zeit prim\är theoretisch angelegte Diskussion im deutschsprachigen Raum zunehmend durch eine empirische Perspektive erweitert worden (Buntins et al., 2018). Dabei kommen sowohl qualitative, quantitative als auch mixed methods Ans\ätzen zum Einsatz, und es stellt sich die Frage, wie die Vielzahl der vorliegenden Befunde systematisch erfasst, synthetisiert und f\ür weitere Forschung nutzbar gemacht werden k\önnen. Forschungssynthesen gehen \über einfache Literaturauswertungen hinaus und basieren in ihren verschiedenen Auspr\ägungen auf systematischen, d.h. intersubjektiv nachvollziehbaren Verfahren (Sutton et al., 2019). Sie werden zunehmend auch in der medienp\ädagogischen Forschung herangezogen und finden Beachtung in der Bildungspraxis und -politik (s.a. Delere, 2020; M\üller et al., 2022; Schmidt, 2023).
Die historische und disziplin\äre Entwicklung von Forschungssynthesen - und hier im Besonderen in der Form des Systematic Review - stellt jedoch eine besondere Situation dar. Mit ihrem Ursprung in der medizinischen und pharmakologischen Forschung der 1970er Jahre wurden Systematic Reviews in den 1990er Jahren verst\ärkt auch im Kontext von Public Policy aufgegriffen und fanden Eingang in die Sozialwissenschaften (Oakley et al., 2005). Der Einsatz von Forschungssynthesen in diesem Feld wurde begleitet von einer vertiefenden Diskussion zu ihrer methodischen Anlage (Ades et al. 2005; Afshari et al. 2017; Bohlin 2012; Borrego et al. 2014; Chen und Tseng 2011; Esteves et al. 2017; Petticrew 2003), sowie der Erweiterung um qualitative Zug\änge und komplexerer Ans\ätze, die die bislang vorherrschenden quantitativen Verfahren erg\änzen (Grant und Booth 2009).
Forschungssynthesen zum Lernen mit digitalen Medien und das Feld der Educational Technology sind hiervon ebenso betroffen, da sich zum ersten sogenannte \«Goldstandards\», die in den Ursprungsdisziplinen von Forschungssynthesen angelegt werden k\önnen, nicht problemlos auf (medien)p\ädagogische und (medien)didaktische Fragestellungen und Forschungsarbeiten anwenden lassen. Zum zweiten sind es komplexe Interaktionen und Konditionen unter denen Auswirkungen bildungsbezogener Interventionen entstehen, was einfache Wertungen ausschlie\ßt (Berliner, 2002; Hammersley 2020). Angesichts dieser Gemengelage und der zunehmenden Verwendung und aktueller Prominenz von Forschungssynthesen in der Forschung zu Educational Technology (Kimmons und Rosenberg, 2022), stellen sich somit Fragen nach Grenzen und Potenzialen dieses Ansatzes.
Als Folge bedarf es im Kontext einer st\ärker forschungsmethodologisch und -methodisch ausgerichteten Debatte einer kritischen Bestandsaufnahme der Anlage und Ausgestaltung von Forschungssynthesen in diesem Themenfeld mit Bezug auf die spezifischen Fragen der medienerzieherischen bzw. -didaktischen Forschung. Dies schlie\ßt die Fragen ein, wie diese Arbeiten auf den Kontext der Disziplin, ihres Forschungsgegenstandes und ihrer Traditionen anzupassen sind (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020). Das vorliegende Themenheft gibt einen Einblick in die Vielzahl der aktuell diskutierten Fragestellungen, die gleicherma\ßen die methodische Ausgestaltung von Arbeitsprozessen und Formaten, inhaltliche Spezifika im Themenfeld Digitalisierung und Medienp\ädagogik oder auch die Darstellung und den Transfer von synthetisierten Forschungsbefunden betreffen. Es m\öchte damit einen Beitrag leisten, um den Ansatz der Forschungssynthesen mit Blick auf medienp\ädagogische und mediendidaktische Fragestellungen zu reflektieren und Denkanst\ö\ße f\ür ihre Weiterentwicklung zu setzen.

}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/54/2023.12.21.X}, url = {https://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/1826}, author = {Bedenlier, Svenja and Buntins, Katja and Wilmers, Annika and Michael Kerres} } @article {, title = {Invisible borders in educational technology research? A comparative analysis}, journal = {Educational technology. Research and Development}, year = {2023}, month = {2023/02/07}, abstract = {

Educational research is reflective of the nature and structure of national and regional education systems and their historical evolution. Educational technology research, as an area within educational research, reflects this case particularly prominently. Although individual countries and regions have varying research traditions, the publication of research in English as the scientific lingua franca can lead to missing nuances in terminology, which is often not reflected upon. Despite this, the exploration of research from different countries can still uncover diverse topical clusters. This study aims to identify the research topics in educational technology research in three countries (Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom), each with their own research traditions, through the terms used. To this end, a bibliometric analysis of 3034 article abstracts and keywords from 29 English-language Web of Science journals in the field of education and educational research was conducted, with a focus on educational technology. In addition, the quantitative findings are comparatively analysed by considering the corresponding cultural clusters. Main findings include diverse research foci in the three countries, also showing that distinct research traditions are still present, despite using English as lingua franca. Therefore, research articles written in English by non-English authors often do not reflect the same meanings in each country, despite using the same words. The conclusions reflect upon the need to establish ways of understanding the traditions behind those\ research articles and build collaborative systems to illustrate nuances in this research.

}, isbn = {1556-6501}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10195-3}, author = {Mar{\'\i}n, Victoria I. and Buntins, Katja and Bedenlier, Svenja and Melissa Bond} } @article {, title = {Methodological Approaches to Evidence Synthesis in Educational Technology: A Tertiary Systematic Mapping Review}, journal = {Medienp{\"a}dagogik. Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung}, year = {2023}, abstract = {

Methoden der Evidenzsynthese werden in den Sozialwissenschaften immer beliebter, auch im Bereich der Bildungstechnologie, wo die Menge der durchgef\ührten Sekund\ärforschung exponentiell zugenommen hat. W\ährend \Übersichten einen wertvollen Einblick in den Stand des Feldes geben k\önnen, wurden Fragen zur methodischen Strenge und Transparenz aufgeworfen. In dieser terti\ären \Übersichtsarbeit wird daher untersucht, wie transparent und reproduzierbar die Berichterstattung \über die Methoden der Evidenzsynthese im Bereich der Bildungstechnologie in den verschiedenen Arten von \Übersichtsarbeiten ist. Zu diesem Zweck wurde eine kritische Analyse einer Stichprobe von Evidenzsynthesen in drei Sprachen (Englisch, Deutsch und Spanisch) durchgef\ührt. Systematic Review, Meta-Analyse und Literaturreview als die am h\äufigsten verwendeten Review-Typen wurden f\ür die weitere Analyse. In der Stichprobe wurden Indikatoren f\ür die Replizierbarkeit in kritischen Phasen der \Überpr\üfung identifiziert und nach \Überpr\üfungstyp (Forschungsfrage, Suchstrategie, Datenextraktion und Synthese) analysiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die methodische Transparenz bei der Datenextraktion und -synthese erheblich verbessert werden kann, wobei bestimmte Arten von \Übersichten bei den Indikatoren schlechter abschneiden als andere. Es werden Empfehlungen zur Verbesserung der methodischen Transparenz und Strenge der Evidenzsynthese im Bereich der Bildungstechnologie gegeben.

}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/54/2023.12.20.X}, author = {Buntins, Katja and Bedenlier, Svenja and Mar{\'\i}n, Victoria I. and H{\"a}ndel, Marion and Melissa Bond} } @article {12823, title = {Facilitating student engagement in higher education through educational technology: A narrative systematic review in the field of education}, journal = {Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education}, volume = {20}, year = {2020}, abstract = {

Developing, sustaining, and improving student engagement is of vital importance to higher education instructors. Educational technology has been linked to student engagement, and preservice and in-service teachers need to develop information communication and technology (ICT) skills and knowledge to apply them in the classroom as well as to develop ICT skills in students. Thus, further investigation of this link in the field of education is needed. This narrative systematic review is a synthesis of 42 peer-reviewed articles from across four international databases, published between 2007-2016 and is a subset of a larger systematic review. The results indicate that the majority of research has been undertaken within undergraduate preservice teacher education, predominantly in the US, Hong Kong, and the UK, with limited attention given to grounding research in theory. This review found educational technology supports student engagement, with behavioral and affective being the most prevalent dimensions. Social networking tools (SNT), knowledge organization and sharing tools, text-based tools, and website creation tools were the most effective at promoting engagement. However, caution is needed when employing SNT and assessment tools, as they were also more likely to lead to disengagement. Further research is needed on how educational technology affects disengagement, how tools are used in online teacher education programs, and how to effectively integrate SNT in education programs.

}, url = {https://citejournal.org/volume-20/issue-2-20/general/facilitating-student-engagement-in-higher-education-through-educational-technology-a-narrative-systematic-review-in-the-field-of-education}, author = {Melissa Bond and Bedenlier, Svenja and Buntins, Katja and Michael Kerres and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf} } @article {12677, title = {Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities}, journal = {Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,}, volume = {36}, year = {2020}, pages = {126-150}, abstract = {

Understanding how educational technology can enhance student engagement is becoming increasingly necessary in higher education, and particularly so in arts and humanities, given the communicative nature of courses. This narrative systematic review synthesises 42 peer-reviewed arts and humanities articles published between 2007-2016, indexed in four international databases. The results indicate that the majority of research has been undertaken in language learning, predominantly in East Asian countries, with limited grounding of research in theory. This review found that educational technology supports student engagement, with behavioural engagement by far the most prevalent dimension. Affective engagement was the lowest observed dimension, with affective disengagement the most prevalent negative dimension. Blogs, mobile learning, and assessment tools were the most effective at promoting engagement. However, caution and education in how to use technology are needed, as any use not underpinned by effective and informed pedagogy can also lead to students feeling overwhelmed and disengaging from learning. Further research is needed on online collaboration, as well as international courses that offer cross-cultural opportunities for language use, and the increased use of qualitative methods is also advised.

}, issn = {2321 {\textendash} 2462}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477}, url = {https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/5477}, author = {Bedenlier, Svenja and Melissa Bond and Buntins, Katja and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf and Michael Kerres} } @inbook {12535, title = {Learning by Doing? Reflections on Conducting a Systematic Review in the Field of Educational Technology}, booktitle = {Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application}, year = {2020}, note = {

https://plu.mx/plum/a/?doi=10.1007\%2F978-3-658-27602-7_7

}, pages = {11-127}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, organization = {Springer Nature}, address = {Wiesbaden}, abstract = {

Drawing on an example of a large systematic review that was conducted on the use of educational technology and student engagement in higher education, we provide practical insights into how we proceeded throughout the review phases. Readers and researchers embarking on a systematic review themselves might find the contents of this chapter useful, in order to better prepare themselves for issues that can arise when undertaking such an endeavour.

}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_7}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_7}, author = {Bedenlier, Svenja and Melissa Bond and Buntins, Katja and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf and Michael Kerres} } @article {12575, title = {Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map.}, journal = {International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education}, volume = {17}, year = {2020}, abstract = {

Digital technology has become a central aspect of higher education, inherently affecting all aspects of the student experience. It has also been linked to an increase in behavioural, affective and cognitive student engagement, the facilitation of which is a central concern of educators. In order to delineate the complex nexus of technology and student engagement, this article systematically maps research from 243 studies published between 2007 and 2016. Research within the corpus was predominantly undertaken within the United States and the United Kingdom, with only limited research undertaken in the Global South, and largely focused on the fields of Arts \& Humanities, Education, and Natural Sciences, Mathematics \& Statistics. Studies most often used quantitative methods, followed by mixed methods, with little qualitative research methods employed. Few studies provided a definition of student engagement, and less than half were guided by a theoretical framework. The courses investigated used blended learning and text-based tools (e.g. discussion forums) most often, with undergraduate students as the primary target group. Stemming from the use of educational technology, behavioural engagement was by far the most often identified dimension, followed by affective and cognitive engagement. This mapping article provides the grounds for further exploration into discipline-specific use of technology to foster student engagement.

}, keywords = {Educational technology, Evidence map, Higher education, Student engagement, Systematic review}, issn = {2365-9440}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8}, author = {Melissa Bond and Buntins, Katja and Bedenlier, Svenja and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf and Michael Kerres} } @proceedings {12913, title = {Student Engagement und digitales Lernen: Kontextuelle Validierung eines Systematic Review mit E-Learning-Akteuren an Hochschulen}, volume = {77}, year = {2020}, pages = {15-26}, publisher = {Waxmann}, address = {Winterthur}, isbn = {978-3-8309-4244-3}, doi = {10.31244/9783830992448}, url = {https://www.waxmann.com/waxmann-buecher/?no_cache=1\&tx_p2waxmann_pi2\%5Bbuch\%5D=BUC127157\&tx_p2waxmann_pi2\%5Baction\%5D=show\&tx_p2waxmann_pi2\%5Bcontroller\%5D=Buch\&cHash=0d52f9b15df860e06867301b87d87539}, author = {Vonarx, Anne and Buntins, Katja and Michael Kerres and St{\"o}ter, Joachim and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf and Bedenlier, Svenja and Melissa Bond}, editor = {M{\"u}ller Werder, Claude and Erlemann, Jennifer} } @proceedings {, title = {Student Engagement und digitales Lernen Kontextuelle Validierung eines Systematic Review mit E-Learning-Akteuren an Hochschulen}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, pages = {15-25}, publisher = {Waxmann}, address = {Winterthur}, abstract = {

Systematic Reviews und Metaanalysen gewinnen in den Bildungswissenschaft en zunehmend an Bedeutung. Mit dieser Entwicklung einher geht die Frage nach der Allgemeing\ültigkeit der Ergebnisse. Ein Grund hierf\ür kann ein wechselseitiger ScientistPractitioner Gap sein. In dieser Studie stellen wir die Ergebnisse einer kontextuellen Validierung mit E-Learning-Akteuren aus den Bildungswissenschaft en vor. Mit diesen wurden in einem Onlinefragebogen die Ergebnisse aus einem Systematic Review validiert. Das Systematic Review ging der Frage nach, inwieweit der Einsatz von Lerntechnologien das Student Engagement in bildungswissenschaft lichen Studienangeboten an Hochschulen beeinflusst. Die kontextuelle Validierung zeigt deutliche Unterschiede im Grad der Zustimmung. Bildungswissenschaft liche Erkenntnisse und Aussagen in Bezug auf die Medienkompetenz erlangen deutlich h\öhere Zustimmungswerte als Items im Bereich der Lerntechnologie selbst. Die Ergebnisse werden diskutiert.

}, keywords = {Student engagement, Systematic review}, isbn = {978-3-8309-4244-3}, doi = {10.31244/9783830992448}, url = {https://www.waxmann.com/waxmann-buecher/?tx_p2waxmann_pi2\%5Bbuchnr\%5D=4244\&tx_p2waxmann_pi2\%5Baction\%5D=show}, author = {Vonarx, Anne and Buntins, Katja and Michael Kerres and St{\"o}ter, Joachim and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf and Bedenlier, Svenja and Melissa Bond}, editor = {M{\"u}ller-Werder, Claude and Erlemann, Jennifer} } @book {11583, title = {Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application}, year = {2020}, publisher = {Springer Nature }, organization = {Springer Nature }, address = {Berlin}, abstract = {

In this open access edited volume, international researchers of the field describe and discuss the systematic review method in its application to research in education. Alongside fundamental methodical considerations, reflections and practice examples are included and provide an introduction and overview on systematic reviews in education research.

https://plu.mx/plum/a/?doi=10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7

}, isbn = {978-3-658-27602-7}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7}, url = {https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7}, author = {Zawacki-Richter, Olaf and Michael Kerres and Buntins, Katja and Melissa Bond and Bedenlier, Svenja} } @inbook {12539, title = {Mediendidaktische Forschung aus Deutschland im Kontext der internationalen Diskussion. Eine Auswertung englischsprachiger Publikationsorgane von 2008 bis 2017}, booktitle = {Digitalisierung und Hochschulentwicklung. Proceedings zur 26. Tagung der Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Medien in der Wissenschaft e.V.}, volume = {74}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, pages = {246-263}, publisher = {Waxmann}, organization = {Waxmann}, address = {Essen}, abstract = {

Der Beitrag geht der Frage nach, wie sich aus Deutschland stammende Forschung zu Fragen des Lernens mit digitalen Medien zum internationalen bzw. englischsprachigen Diskurs, der \üblicherweise mit dem Label \„Educa tional Technology \“versehen wird, verh\ält bzw. welche Unterschiede und Gemein samkeiten bestehen. Vorgestellt werden Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Textanalyse und andere bibliometrische Analysen, die a) zentrale Forschungsthemen benennen und b) Unterschiede zwischen den Publikationen aus deutschen und anderen Forschungseinrichtungen identifizieren. Der Beitrag diskutiert dabei, welche Erkenntnisse aus solchen Analysen gewonnen werden k\önnen, und wo ihre Grenzen sind.

}, doi = {10.25656/01:17132}, author = {Buntins, Katja and Bedenlier, Svenja and Melissa Bond and Michael Kerres and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf}, editor = {Getto, Barbara and Patrik Hintze and Michael Kerres} } @conference {11283, title = {Systematic Reviews in Educational Technology Research: Potential and pitfalls}, booktitle = {EdMedia + Innovate Learning Conference}, volume = {Short Paper}, year = {2018}, publisher = {AACE}, organization = {AACE}, address = {Amsterdam}, url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325987954_Systematic_Reviews_in_Educational_Technology_Research_Potential_and_Pitfalls}, author = {Melissa Bond and Bedenlier, Svenja and Buntins, Katja and Michael Kerres and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf} } @article {, title = {Who cites whom? U.S.-American authored research syntheses in the field of educational technology: a bibliometric analysis}, journal = {Learning, Media and Technology}, chapter = {1 - 16}, abstract = {

Research syntheses are an important approach to capture and synthesize empirical studies in educational technology. However, despite their proclaimed impartial summary of available research, imbalances exist as to whose research is included due to publication language or in regard to the visibility of entire scientific communities.

Using the concepts of academic hegemony and WEIRD research, a bibliometric analysis is conducted in order to explore how research syntheses of authors located in one of the so-called academic core countries \– the U.S.A. \– are positioned in international comparison, and how this potentially shapes the discourse on educational technology.

For the bibliometric analysis, a corpus with\ N\ =\ 446 research syntheses is considered, comprised of 95 U.S.-authored and 351 non-U.S.-authored syntheses. Findings reveal that U.S.-authored syntheses are relatively self-referential and also draw heavily on databases of U.S.-based professional societies in their literature search. Over half of the syntheses cite other U.S.-based research, followed by Chilean, British, Canadian, Australian and German research. In contrast, U.S.-authored syntheses are cited globally, accentuating their perceived importance and influence. Findings point to the need to consider underlying influences and contextual factors for research syntheses in educational technology, reflect on citation practices and generalizability of findings from educational research.

}, keywords = {Research synthesis;bibliometric analysis;academic hegemony;educational technology;generalizability}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2025.2495602}, author = {Buntins, Katja and Bedenlier, Svenja and Zawacki-Richter, Olaf} }