Step by step: Read the guidance, open the linked tools if needed, then record your verified decisions below. Your work is saved in this browser; export the portfolio to keep a backup.
ESTIMATED HANDS-ON TIME60–90 min for a pilot
You are ready to continue when
Each RQ has a set of defined themes, each theme is supported by named studies, and contradictory evidence is recorded.
Tools, templates and prompts for this stepLearn the software on its own guide. Return here to record verified outputs.
Key guidance
- Code the findings text in the extraction matrix (and the full text where needed). Keep code names short and descriptive.
- Group related codes into descriptive themes. Write a one-sentence definition for each theme so a co-author could apply it.
- Develop analytical themes that go beyond the studies: explanations, conditions, mechanisms or tensions that answer the RQ.
- For each theme, record supporting studies, contradicting studies and the strength of evidence (number and quality of studies).
- Write the result by theme, not by paper. Each paragraph compares studies; it does not summarise them one by one.
Needs revision
Weak (paper-by-paper): “Study A found hints helped. Study B found no difference. Study C interviewed students.”
Stronger
Strong (synthesised): “Evidence on learning gains was mixed: one controlled pilot reported higher immediate test scores [S01], whereas a larger observational study found no significant difference [S02]. Both were single-course studies, and neither measured retention.”
Saved locally as you type