Çevrim İçi Sistematik Literatür Derleme Eğitiminin Doktora Öğrencileri Üzerindeki Yansımaları

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı çevrim içi Kuramdan Uygulamaya Sistematik Literatür İnceleme Kursu (KUSLİK) eğitiminin doktora öğrencileri üzerindeki yansımalarını incelemektir. TÜBİTAK 2237-A kapsamında gerçekleştirilen KUSLİK eğitiminde genel hatlarıyla anahtar kelimeler, yardımcı arama karakterleri, mantıksal operatörler, veri tabanları, katalog tarama süreçleri, sistematik literatür inceleme süreci, Sistematik Literatür Derleme (SLD) yöntemleri (meta-analiz, meta-sentez, betimsel içerik analizi, bibliyometrik analiz) ve Sistematik Olmayan Literatür Derlemeleri (SOLD) üzerinde durulmuştur. KUSLİK eğitimi alanında uzman akademisyenlerce beş günlük (6-10 Eylül 2021) bir süreçte gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma nitel betimsel bir araştırmadır. Araştırmaya kriter ve maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemeye göre Türkiye’nin farklı üniversitelerinde eğitim alanında farklı doktora programlarına kayıtlı 14 öğrenci katılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak KUSLİK eğitimi öncesi ve sonrasında kullanılmak üzere araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen açık uçlu sorular ve anlam çözümleme tablosundan oluşan anket formu kullanılmıştır. Veriler içerik analizi tekniği ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda çevrim içi KUSLİK eğitiminin doktora öğrencilerinin sistematik literatür inceleme sürecine ilişkin algılarına ve öz-yeterliklerine olumlu yansımaları olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca çevrim içi KUSLİK eğitimi doktora öğrencilerinin SLD ve SOLD’lerin ortak ve ayırt edici özelliklerine ilişkin algılarına da olumlu yansımıştır. Eğitim alanında doktora yapan öğrencilere yönelik lisansüstü derslerde KUSLİK içeriğine benzer ders, seminer ya da kursların verilmesi faydalı olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sistematik literatür derleme
• Meta-analiz
• Meta-sentez
• Betimsel içerik analizi
• Bibliyometrik analiz

Reflections of Online Systematic Literature Review Education on Postgraduate Students

Öz

The purpose of this research is to examine the reflections of the online Systematic Literature Review Course from Theory to Practice (SLRCTP) training on postgraduate students. SLRCTP training, which was carried out within the scope of TUBITAK 2237-A, focused on keywords, auxiliary search characters, logical operators, databases, database search tools, the systematic literature review process, non-systematic literature reviews, and systematic literature review methods. SLRCTP training was conducted over a five-day period (6-10 September 2021) by academic experts in the field of review. The type of the research is qualitative descriptive. According to the criteria and maximum variation sampling, a total of 14 students from various doctoral programs in education at different universities in Türkiye participated in the research. Data collection tools include an open-ended survey form and a semantic analysis table developed by the researcher. These tools are intended to be used both before and after the SLRCTP training. Data were analyzed using the inductive content analysis technique. The study concluded that online SLRCTP training had a positive reflection on postgraduate students’ perceptions and self-efficacy regarding the systematic review process. Additionally, online SLRCTP training provided positive outcomes in postgraduate students’ perceptions of the common and distinctive features of systematic and non-systematic reviews.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Systematic literature review
• Meta-analysis
• Meta-synthesis
• Descriptive content analysis
• Bibliometric analysis

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, H. İ., Çepni, S., & Şahin, Ç. (2013). Doktora tez sürecinde karşılaşılan problemlerin belirlenmesi: eğitim fakültesi örneği. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 50-69.
2. Amer, A. (2018). Teaching/developing vocabulary using semantic feature analysis. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0743
3. Aveyard, H. (2010). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide (2nd edition). Berkshire: Open University Press
4. Badenhorst, C. M. (2018). Graduate student writing: Complexity in literature reviews. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(1), 58-74.
5. Beck, C. T. (2002). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 27(4), 214-221.
6. Chen, D. T. V., Wang, Y. M., & Lee, W. C. (2016). Challenges confronting beginning researchers in conducting literature reviews. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(1), 47-60.
7. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (Fourth Edition). Boston: Pearson Education
8. Cronin, Ryan, F. ve Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43.

9. Çalık, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38.
10. Çetin, A., & Dikici, R. (2014). Eğitim bilimlerinde araştırma yöntemleri dersinin etkililiği. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(3), 981-994.
11. Daniel, B. (2022). Common challenges postgraduate students and early-career academics face when engaging with the scholarly literature. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 20(3), 142-152.
12. Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2019). Writing the literature review: A practical guide. New York: Guilford Publications
13. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evalu-ation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.
14. Gülmez, D., Özteke, İ., & Gümüş, S. (2021). Uluslararası dergilerde yayımlanan Türkiye kaynaklı eğitim araştırmalarının genel görünümü: Bibliyometrik analiz. Eğitim ve Bilim, 46(206), 213-239
15. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review. London: Sage Publications.
16. Hempel, S. (2020). Conducting your literature review. Washington: American Psychological Association.
17. Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (editors) (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of ınterventions (2nd Edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
18. Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Doing your literature review. London: SAGE Publications.
19. Kaminstein, D. (2017). Writing a literature review for an applied master's degree. Organizational Dynamics Working Papers, 23, 1-13.
20. Kilinç, A. Ç., Karahalilöz, O., & Bektaş, F. (2020). Lisansüstü öğrenim görmek: Öğretmen deneyimleri üzerinden fenomenolojik bir çözümleme. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi, 9(4), 1755-1774.
21. Kogut, A., Ramirez, D., & Foster, M. J. (2022). Systematic review training model for education librarians: A case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 28(2), 205-226.
22. Liu, L. (2016). Using generic inductive approach in qualitative educational research: A case study analysis. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 129-135.
23. Magilvy, J. K., & Thomas, E. (2009). A first qualitative project: Qualitative descriptive design for novice researchers. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 14(4), 298-300.
24. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Third Edition). California: Sage publications.
25. Nichols, W. D., & Rupley, W. H. (2004). Matching ınstructional design with vocabulary ınstruction. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 45(1), 56-71.
26. O'Clair, K. (2013). Preparing graduate students for graduate‐level study and research. Reference Services Review, 41(2), 336-350.
27. Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of ınformation systems research, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26), 1-51.
28. Purssell, E., & McCrae, N. (2020). How to perform a systematic literature review: A guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
29. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340.
30. Shahsavar, Z., & Kourepaz, H. (2020). Postgraduate students’ difficulties in writing their theses literature review. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1784620.
31. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
32. Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.
33. Tranfield, D., Denyer D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222.
34. Turale, S. (2020). A brief introduction to qualitative description: A research design worth using. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 24(3), 289-291.
35. Ültay, E., Akyurt, H., & Ültay, N. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde betimsel içerik analizi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10, 188-201.
36. Walter, L., & Stouck, J. (2020). Writing the literature review: Graduate student experiences. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 1-17.
37. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112.
38. Yu, H., Wei, Y. M., Tang, B. J., Mi, Z., & Pan, S. Y. (2016). Assessment on the research trend of low-carbon energy technology investment: A bibliometric analysis. Applied Energy, 184, 960-970.
39. Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311-318.
40. Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.