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 TIME40–50 min
You are ready to continue when
Each gap is classified, traced to evidence in the included studies, and converted into a specific future research question.
Tools, templates and prompts for this stepLearn the software on its own guide. Return here to record verified outputs.
Key guidance
| Gap type | Signal in the evidence | Example statement |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence gap | Contradictory or inconclusive findings | “Effects on learning outcomes are inconsistent across 6 studies.” |
| Knowledge gap | A topic or relationship is rarely studied | “Only 2 of 42 studies examine long-term retention.” |
| Methodological gap | Weak or homogeneous designs | “31 studies were single-site pilots without control groups.” |
| Population / contextual gap | Under-represented groups, settings or regions | “No study was conducted in Southeast Asian institutions.” |
| Theoretical gap | Absent or untested theoretical frameworks | “Few studies ground their design in a learning theory.” |
| Practical / empirical gap | Real-world deployment or evaluation is missing | “Tools were evaluated in labs, not in production settings.” |
- A gap is a finding of your review: it must be supported by counts or patterns from the included studies, not by assumption.
- Prioritise gaps by importance and feasibility. Three to five well-argued gaps are stronger than a long list.
- Turn each gap into a future research question or study design (who, what, how, measured by what).
Saved locally as you type