Mapping Literature Reviews in Education
A Bibliometric Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36557/2009-3578.2025v11n2p9249-9277Resumo
Literature reviews have gained increasing prominence in educational research, functioning as strategic tools for synthesizing evidence, guiding policy, and consolidating theoretical and methodological knowledge. This study examines how literature reviews in education are distributed thematically, geographically, and methodologically, offering a broad mapping of recent trends in the field. Based on a bibliometric analysis of 6,197 literature reviews extracted from the Web of Science (2019–2023), the study explores publication volume, types of reviews, thematic clusters, institutional and geographic origin, and citation patterns. Network visualizations of keywords and term analyses from titles and abstracts were generated using VOSviewer. Results reveal a predominance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with strong thematic concentrations in educational technology—notably artificial intelligence, online learning, and virtual reality—especially in higher education contexts. Reviews focusing on children, inclusive education, and mental health are also significant. The data further indicate geographic asymmetries, with Global South contributions underrepresented. This study provides insights into how literature reviews shape the field of educational technology and offers a methodological contribution to evidence-informed educational research. The findings support future research design and review practices and are relevant to both researchers and policymakers interested in synthesizing educational knowledge.
Downloads
Referências
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. UNESCO.
Antoninis, M., Alcott, B., Al Hadheri, S., April, D., Fouad Barakat, B., Barrios Rivera, M., ... & Weill, E. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Campbell Collaboration. Methods Group. (2023). Methodological expectations of Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews (MECCIR): 2023 update. Campbell Collaboration. https://osf.io/kcspx/
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
Gopalakrishnan, S., & 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.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational research, policymaking and practice. Paul Chapman Publishing.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Janeaim, N., Suwanwong, C., Prasittichok, P., Mohan, K. P., & Hudrudchai, S. (2024). Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving rabies prevention in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 13(1), 497.
Ledford, J. R., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2023). Systematic review and meta-analysis of stay-play-talk interventions for improving social behaviors of young children. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 25(1), 65–77.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 1–9.
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410.
Mallett, S., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 445–455.
Mattar, J., & Ramos, D. K. (2021). Metodologia da pesquisa em educação: Abordagens qualitativas, quantitativas e mistas. Almedina Brasil.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 1–7.
OECD. (2022). Evidence-informed policy making in education: Looking back and looking forward. https://www.oecd.org
OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/d7f76adc-en
Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37.
Özcan, M. Ş., Göksun, T., & Kisbu, Y. (2024). The impact of learning to code on higher-order executive functions: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–29.
Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778.
Ruiz-del-Pino, B., Fernández-Martín, F. D., & Arco-Tirado, J. L. (2022). Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101172.
Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education – A tool on whose terms? United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2023). VOSviewer manual (Version 1.6.19). Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.19.pdf
Vosgerau, D. S. A. R., & Romanowski, J. P. (2014). Estudos de revisão: Implicações conceituais e metodológicas. Revista Diálogo Educacional, 14(42), 165–190.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Daniela Karine Ramos, João Mattar
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Você tem o direito de:
- Compartilhar — copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer suporte ou formato para qualquer fim, mesmo que comercial.
- Adaptar — remixar, transformar, e criar a partir do material para qualquer fim, mesmo que comercial.
De acordo com os termos seguintes:
- Atribuição — Você deve dar o crédito apropriado , prover um link para a licença e indicar se mudanças foram feitas . Você deve fazê-lo em qualquer circunstância razoável, mas de nenhuma maneira que sugira que o licenciante apoia você ou o seu uso.
- Sem restrições adicionais — Você não pode aplicar termos jurídicos ou medidas de caráter tecnológico que restrinjam legalmente outros de fazerem algo que a licença permita.
