review educational research

• AERA Open Editors
• AERJ Editors
• EEPA Editors
• ER Issues and Archives
• JEBS Editors
• JSTOR Online Archives
• RER Editors
• RRE Editors
• AERA Examination and Desk Copies
• Mail/Fax Book Order Form
• International Distribution
• Books & Publications
• Merchandise
• Search The Store
• Online Paper Repository
• Inaugural Presentations in the i-Presentation Gallery
• Research Points
• AERA Journal Advertising Rate Cards
• Publications Permissions
• Publications FAQs

Share 

The  Review of Educational Research  ( RER , bimonthly, begun in 1931) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research.  RER  encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues.  RER  does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review.  RER  will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.

Impact Factor : 11.2 5-Year Impact Factor : 16.6 Ranking : 1/263 in Education & Educational Research

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Review of Educational Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The Review of Educational Research ( RER , quarterly, begun in 1931; approximately 640 pp./volume year) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.

The Review of Educational Research publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research, and all analyses should be incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented. The following types of manuscripts fall within the journal’s purview:

Integrative reviews pull together the existing work on an educational topic and work to understand trends in that body of scholarship. In such a review, the author describes how the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how research methods and theories have shaped the outcomes of scholarship, and what the strengths and weaknesses of the literature are. Meta-analyses are of particular interest when they are accompanied by an interpretive framework that takes the article beyond the reporting of effect sizes and the bibliographic outcome of a computer search.

Theoretical reviews should explore how theory shapes research. To the extent that research is cited and interpreted, it is in the service of the specification, explication, and illumination of a theory. Theoretical reviews and integrative reviews have many similarities, but the former are primarily about how a theory is employed to frame research and our understandings, and refer to the research as it relates to the theory.

Methodological reviews are descriptions of research design, methods, and procedures that can be employed in literature reviews or research in general. The articles should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of methodological tools and explore how methods constrain or open up opportunities for learning about educational problems. They should be written in a style that is accessible to researchers in education rather than methodologists.

Historical reviews provide analyses that situate literature in historical contexts. Within these reviews, explanations for educational phenomena are framed within the historical forces that shape language and understanding.

Commissioned reviews and thematic issues. The editors may commission and solicit authors to review areas of literature. In all other respects, commissioned reviews are subject to the same review process as submitted reviews. The editors also encourage readers to propose thematic topics for special issues and, as potential guest editors, to submit plans for such issues.

In addition to review articles, RER will occasionally publish notes and responses which are short pieces of no more than 1,200 words on any topic that would be of use to reviewers of research. Typically, they point out shortcomings and differences in interpretation in RER articles and policy.

The standards and criteria for review articles in RER are the following:

1. Quality of the Literature. Standards used to determine quality of literature in education vary greatly. Any review needs to take into account the quality of the literature and its impact on findings. Authors should attempt to review all relevant literature on a topic (e.g., international literature, cross-disciplinary work, etc.).

2. Quality of Analysis. The review should go beyond description to include analysis and critiques of theories, methods, and conclusions represented in the literature. This analysis should also examine the issue of access—which perspectives are included or excluded in a body of work? Finally, the analysis should be reflexive—how does the scholars’ framework constrain what can be known in this review?

3. Significance of the Topic. The review should seek to inform and/or illuminate questions important to the field of education. While these questions may be broad-based, they should have implications for the educational problems and issues affecting our national and global societies.

4. Impact of the Article. The review should be seen as an important contribution and tool for the many different educators dealing with the educational problems and issues confronting society.

5. Advancement of the Field. The review should validate or inform the knowledge of researchers and guide and improve the quality of their research and scholarship.

6. Style. The review must be well written and conform to style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Authors should avoid the use of unexplained jargon and parochialism.

7. Balance and Fairness. The review should be careful not to misrepresent the positions taken by others, or be disrespectful of contrary positions.

8. Purpose. Any review should be accessible to the broad readership of RER. The purpose of any article should be to connect the particular problem addressed by the researcher(s) to a larger context of education.

We also encourage all authors interested in submitting a manuscript to RER to read our Editorial Vision for more information on our publication aims.

• Academic Search - Premier
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Elite
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Elite
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Premier
• EBSCO: Professional Development Collection
• EBSCO: Sales & Marketing Source
• EBSCOhost: Current Abstracts
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
• Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F)
• Higher Education Abstracts
• MasterFILE Select - EBSCO
• ProQuest Education Journals
• Social SciSearch
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Teacher Reference Center
• Wilson Education Index/Abstracts

1. Publication Standards 2. Submission Preparation Checklist 3. How to Get Help With the Quality of English in Your Submission 4. Copyright Information 5. For authors who use figures or other materials for which they do not own copyright 6. Right of Reply 7. Sage Choice and Open Access

The Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes comprehensive reviews of literature related to education and does not publish new empirical work, except in the context of meta-analytic reviews of an area. Please check the journal’s Aims and Scope to see if your manuscript is appropriate to submit to RER.

All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the editorial team at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rer . For questions or inquiries about manuscripts, email us at [email protected] . Manuscripts may not be submitted via e-mail.

Publication Standards

Researchers who intend to submit studies for publication should consult the Standards for Research Conduct adopted by the AERA Council. We also recommend consulting (a) the Guidelines for Reviewers , which outline the criteria under which manuscripts are reviewed for publication by AERA and (b) recent previous editions of the journal. Individuals submitting systematic reviews or meta-analyses should also consult The PRISMA Statement ( http://www.prisma-statement.org ) as well the article on “Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology” in American Psychologist, 63 , 839 – 851 (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839).

Submission Preparation Checklist

When you upload your initial submission, upload (1) a separate title page that is not anonymized. Please format the title page as described by the 7th edition of the APA Manual and (2) the main manuscript, which includes an ANONYMIZED title page, an abstract with keywords at the bottom, and the rest of the document including tables and figures, and finally (c) Author Bios.

Please ensure that your manuscript complies with the “ RER Formatting Requirements and Common Formatting Errors ” (see PDF on the RER website). If your submission does not meet these requirements, it will be returned to you.

Additionally, your submission should meet the following guidelines:

1. The submission has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; or an explanation has been provided in the Cover Letter. Authors should indicate in the Author Note on the separate title page if sections of the manuscript have been published in other venues.

2. THE MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, EVEN ON THE ANONYMIZED TITLE PAGE. Please anonymize any work of limited circulation (e.g., in press papers, manuscripts under submission) that would point to the author, both in the body of the manuscript and the reference list. More information on anonymizing is described subsequently. Please double check that the author’s name has been removed from the document’s Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu (select “File,” “Properties,” “Summary,” and remove the author’s name; select “OK” to save).

3. The text conforms to APA style (currently the 7th ed.). Consult the guidelines spelled out under “Manuscript Style, Length, and Format” on this webpage and in the RER Formatting Requirements PDF included on our website.

4. The submission must be in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx), which will be converted into a PDF file. Please do not upload PDF files, or they will be returned to you.

5. All URL addresses and DOIs in the manuscript (e.g., http://www.aera.net ) should be activated and ready to click.

6. An abstract of 150 words maximum is included (both separately and on the second page of the main document after the ANONYMIZED title page). Please also include three to five keywords—the terms that researchers will use to find your article in indexes and databases.

Manuscript Style, Length, and Format

The style guide for the Review of Educational Research and all AERA journals is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed., 2020. The manual is available for purchase here . Guidelines are also available on the APA website .

Manuscripts should NOT exceed 65 pages (or 15,000 words), including tables, figures, appendices, notes, and references, but excluding anonymized title page, abstract, and any supplementary files. Pages should be numbered consecutively in the top right-hand corner, with a fully capitalized running head in the top-left corner. All manuscripts should begin with the anonymized title page (p.1). Manuscripts should be typed for 8½” x 11” paper, in upper and lower case, with 1-inch margins on all sides. Manuscripts should be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font. Manuscripts that exceed 65 pages may be returned without review.

All text, from the title page to the end of the manuscript should be double-spaced , including the abstract, block quotations, bulleted text, and the reference list. Single-spacing is allowed in tables when it is useful in making the table clearer. Do not leave blank lines after paragraphs or before sub-headings. However, if a heading or subheading is the last line on a page, use a page break to move it to the top of the next page. The Abstract, Introduction (beginning with the title), the References, and all tables and figures begin on new pages.

Please use the five subheadings as appropriate based on the 7th edition of the APA style manual. In addition to being on the title page, the title should also be placed at the beginning of the Introduction (in lieu of the word, “Introduction,” which should not appear) and the title at the beginning of the Introduction should be a Level 1 heading.

Tables and figures are to be placed after the references—all tables precede all figures—and should not be included in the body of the text. Each figure and table should begin on a separate page. Do NOT use the “Place Table 5 here” or “Place Figure 1 here” convention. The tables and figures will be placed nearest to where they are mentioned as appropriate when copyediting is done.

Figures and tables should present data to the reader in a clear and unambiguous manner, and should be referred to in the text. If the illustration/table/figure and text are redundant, eliminate the illustration or reduce the amount of detail provided in text. The use of lines in tables is limited (please consult the APA style manual for formatting guidelines ). Figure captions should be placed at the bottom of the figure. One high-quality electronic version of each figure must be submitted with the manuscript. Tables will be typeset. Note that any figures and tables uploaded separately from the main manuscript will still count toward the total 65-page limit.

Italics can be used for emphasis or contrast in special situations but should be used sparingly. Ideally, sentence structure should be used for these issues. All words to be set in italics (e.g., book titles, journal names) should be typed in italics. There should be no underlined text . Abbreviations and acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are mentioned unless they are found as entries in their abbreviated form in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , 11th ed., 2003 (e.g., “IQ” can be used without being spelled out). Mathematical symbols and symbols for vectors should be clearly formatted in italics and boldface, respectively.

You can use the footnote or endnote feature of Microsoft Word. However, notes are only for explanations or amplifications of textual material that cannot be incorporated into the regular text; they are not for reference information. Moreover, notes are distracting to readers and expensive to produce and should be used sparingly and avoided whenever possible.

The reference list should contain only references that are cited in the text. Its accuracy and completeness are the responsibility of the authors. Reference each publicly available dataset with its title, author, date, and a persistent Web identifier such as a digital object identifier (doi), a handle, or a uniform resource name (URN). If necessary, this last element may be replaced by a web address. Additionally, any references that were included in the analysis but not cited in-text in the main manuscript can be included in a separate reference list that is uploaded as a Supplementary File for Review (this may assist in meeting the page limit).

Authors should anonymize their manuscripts for review . Anonymizing does not mean removing all self-citations. Authors should only anonymize citations of limited circulation (e.g., forthcoming, in press, unpublished) that point to the author. Publications already in the extant literature (e.g., books, book chapters, journal articles) should be cited normally, but authors should include self-citations judiciously . When anonymizing, please use “Author” or “Authors” as in the examples below and place this alphabetically in the reference list and not where the author’s actual name would typically appear.

For examples of common types of references, consult the APA 7th edition manual, or visit the webpage here: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references

How to Get Help with the Quality of English in Your Submission

Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using the services of a professional English-language editing company. We highlight some of these companies at  https://languageservices.sagepub.com/en/ .

Please be aware that Sage has no affiliation with these companies and makes no endorsement of them. An author's use of these services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the particular company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.

Copyright Information Accepted authors will be asked to  assign copyright  to AERA, in return for which AERA grants several rights to authors.

Permission to reproduce your own published material

No written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from this journal, or to make photocopies for classroom use. Authors are granted permission, without fee, to photocopy their own material or make printouts from the final pdf of their article. Copies must include a full and accurate bibliographic citation and the following credit line: “Copyright [year] by the American Educational Research Association; reproduced with permission from the publisher.” Written permission must be obtained to reproduce or reprint material in circumstances other than those just described. Please review Sage Publishing’s  Journal Permissions  for further information on policies and fees.

Permission to submit material for which you do not own copyright

Authors who wish to use material, such as figures or tables, for which they do not own the copyright must obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher) and submit it along with their manuscript. However, no written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from an AERA journal.

Copyright transfer agreements for accepted works with more than one author

This journal uses a transfer of copyright agreement that requires just one author (the corresponding author) to sign on behalf of all authors. Please identify the corresponding author for your work when submitting your manuscript for review. The corresponding author will be responsible for the following:

1. Ensuring that all authors are identified on the copyright agreement, and notifying the editorial office of any changes in the authorship.

2. Securing written permission (by letter or e-mail) from each co-author to sign the copyright agreement on the co-author’s behalf.

3. Warranting and indemnifying the journal owner and publisher on behalf of all co-authors. Although such instances are very rare, you should be aware that in the event that a co-author has included content in his or her portion of the article that infringes the copyright of another or is otherwise in violation of any other warranty listed in the agreement, you will be the sole author indemnifying the publisher and the editor of the journal against such violation.

Please contact the publications office at  AERA  if you have questions or if you prefer to use a copyright agreement for all coauthors to sign.

Right of Reply

The right of reply policy encourages comments on recently published articles in AERA publications. They are, of course, subject to the same editorial review and decision process as articles. If the comment is accepted for publication, the editor shall inform the author of the original article. If the author submits a reply to the comment, the reply is also subject to editorial review and decision. The editor may allot a specific amount of journal space for the comment (ordinarily about 1,500 words) and for the reply (ordinarily about 750 words). The reply may appear in the same issue as the comment or in a later issue (Council, June 1980).

If an article is accepted for publication in an AERA journal that, in the judgment of the editor, has as its main theme or thrust a critique of a specific piece of work or a specific line of work associated with an individual or program of research, then the individual or representative of the research program whose work is critiqued should be notified in advance about the upcoming publication and given the opportunity to reply, ideally in the same issue. The author of the original article should also be notified. Normal guidelines for length and review of the reply and publication of a rejoinder by the original article’s author(s) should be followed. Articles in the format “an open letter to …” may constitute prototypical exemplars of the category defined here, but other formats may well be used, and would be included under the qualifications for response prescribed here (Council, January 2002).

Sage Choice and Open Access

If you or your funder wish your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in Sage Choice, subject to payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let Sage know directly if you are choosing Sage Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit  Sage Choice . For more information on open access options and compliance at Sage, including self author archiving deposits (green open access) visit  Sage Publishing Policies  on our Journal Author Gateway.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

On The Site

Harvard educational review.

Edited by Maya Alkateb-Chami, Jane Choi, Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith, Ron Grady, Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson, Pennie M. Gregory, Jennifer Ha, Woohee Kim, Catherine E. Pitcher, Elizabeth Salinas, Caroline Tucker, Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah

Individuals

Institutions.

• Read the journal here

Journal Information

• ISSN: 0017-8055
• eISSN: 1943-5045
• Keywords: scholarly journal, education research
• First Issue: 1930
• Frequency: Quarterly

Description

The Harvard Educational Review (HER) is a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. The Editorial Board aims to publish pieces from interdisciplinary and wide-ranging fields that advance our understanding of educational theory, equity, and practice. HER encourages submissions from established and emerging scholars, as well as from practitioners working in the field of education. Since its founding in 1930, HER has been central to elevating pieces and debates that tackle various dimensions of educational justice, with circulation to researchers, policymakers, teachers, and administrators.

Our Editorial Board is composed entirely of doctoral students from the Harvard Graduate School of Education who review all manuscripts considered for publication. For more information on the current Editorial Board, please see here.

A subscription to the Review includes access to the full-text electronic archives at our Subscribers-Only-Website .

Editorial Board

2023-2024 Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board Members

Maya Alkateb-Chami Development and Partnerships Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Maya Alkateb-Chami is a PhD student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the role of schooling in fostering just futures—specifically in relation to language of instruction policies in multilingual contexts and with a focus on epistemic injustice. Prior to starting doctoral studies, she was the Managing Director of Columbia University’s Human Rights Institute, where she supported and co-led a team of lawyers working to advance human rights through research, education, and advocacy. Prior to that, she was the Executive Director of Jusoor, a nonprofit organization that helps conflict-affected Syrian youth and children pursue their education in four countries. Alkateb-Chami is a Fulbright Scholar and UNESCO cultural heritage expert. She holds an MEd in Language and Literacy from Harvard University; an MSc in Education from Indiana University, Bloomington; and a BA in Political Science from Damascus University, and her research on arts-based youth empowerment won the annual Master’s Thesis Award of the U.S. Society for Education Through Art.

Jane Choi Editor, 2023-2025

Jane Choi is a second-year PhD student in Sociology with broad interests in culture, education, and inequality. Her research examines intra-racial and interracial boundaries in US educational contexts. She has researched legacy and first-generation students at Ivy League colleges, families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and parents of pre-K and kindergarten-age children in the New York City School District. Previously, Jane worked as a Research Assistant in the Family Well-Being and Children’s Development policy area at MDRC and received a BA in Sociology from Columbia University.

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith Content Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith is a fourth-year Education PhD student in the Human Development, Learning and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. A former public middle and high school mathematics teacher and department chair, she is interested in understanding the mechanisms that contribute to disparities in secondary mathematics education, particularly how teacher beliefs and biases intersect with the social-psychological processes and pedagogical choices involved in math teaching. Jeannette holds an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education where she studied as an Urban Scholar and a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.

Ron Grady Editor, 2023-2025

Ron Grady is a second-year doctoral student in the Human Development, Learning, and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His central curiosities involve the social worlds and peer cultures of young children, wondering how lived experience is both constructed within and revealed throughout play, the creation of art and narrative, and through interaction with/production of visual artifacts such as photography and film. Ron also works extensively with educators interested in developing and deepening practices rooted in reflection on, inquiry into, and translation of the social, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of their classroom ecosystems. Prior to his doctoral studies, Ron worked as a preschool teacher in New Orleans. He holds a MS in Early Childhood Education from the Erikson Institute and a BA in Psychology with Honors in Education from Stanford University.

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson Editor, 2023-2024

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson is a first year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership(EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her ultimate quest is to position all students as drivers of their destiny. Phoebe is passionate about early learning and literacy. She is committed to ensuring that districts and school leaders, have the necessary tools to create equitable learning organizations that facilitate the academic and social well-being of all students. Phoebe is particularly interested in the intersection of homeless students and literacy. Prior to her doctoral studies, Phoebe was a Special Education Instructional Specialist. Supporting a portfolio of more than thirty schools, she facilitated the rollout of New York City’s Special Education Reform. Phoebe also served as an elementary school principal. She holds a BS in Inclusive Education from Syracuse University, and an MS in Curriculum and Instruction from Pace University.

Pennie M. Gregory Editor, 2023-2024

Pennie M. Gregory is a second-year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership (EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Pennie was born in Incheon, South Korea and raised in Gary, Indiana. She has decades of experience leading efforts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities first as a special education teacher and then as a school district special education administrator. Prior to her doctoral studies, Pennie helped to create Indiana’s first Aspiring Special Education Leadership Institute (ASELI) and served as its Director. She was also the Capacity Events Director for MelanatED Leaders, an organization created to support educational leaders of color in Indianapolis. Pennie has a unique perspective, having worked with members of the school community, with advocacy organizations, and supporting state special education leaders. Pennie holds an EdM in Education Leadership from Marian University.

Jennifer Ha Editor, 2023-2025

Jen Ha is a second-year PhD student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research explores how high school students learn to write personal narratives for school applications, scholarships, and professional opportunities amidst changing landscapes in college access and admissions. Prior to doctoral studies, Jen served as the Coordinator of Public Humanities at Bard Graduate Center and worked in several roles organizing academic enrichment opportunities and supporting postsecondary planning for students in New Haven and New York City. Jen holds a BA in Humanities from Yale University, where she was an Education Studies Scholar.

Woohee Kim Editor, 2023-2025

Woohee Kim is a PhD student studying youth activists’ civic and pedagogical practices. She is a scholar-activist dedicated to creating spaces for pedagogies of resistance and transformative possibilities. Shaped by her activism and research across South Korea, the US, and the UK, Woohee seeks to interrogate how educational spaces are shaped as cultural and political sites and reshaped by activists as sites of struggle. She hopes to continue exploring the intersections of education, knowledge, power, and resistance.

Catherine E. Pitcher Editor, 2023-2025

Catherine is a second-year doctoral student at Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Culture, Institutions, and Society program. She has over 10 years of experience in education in the US in roles that range from special education teacher to instructional coach to department head to educational game designer. She started working in Palestine in 2017, first teaching, and then designing and implementing educational programming. Currently, she is working on research to understand how Palestinian youth think about and build their futures and continues to lead programming in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. She holds an EdM from Harvard in International Education Policy.

Elizabeth Salinas Editor, 2023-2025

Elizabeth Salinas is a doctoral student in the Education Policy and Program Evaluation concentration at HGSE. She is interested in the intersection of higher education and the social safety net and hopes to examine policies that address basic needs insecurity among college students. Before her doctoral studies, Liz was a research director at a public policy consulting firm. There, she supported government, education, and philanthropy leaders by conducting and translating research into clear and actionable information. Previously, Liz served as a high school physics teacher in her hometown in Texas and as a STEM outreach program director at her alma mater. She currently sits on the Board of Directors at Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America, a nonprofit organization working to diversify the leadership pipeline in the United States. Liz holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in higher education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Caroline Tucker Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Caroline Tucker is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the history and organizational dynamics of women’s colleges as women gained entry into the professions and coeducation took root in the United States. She is also a research assistant for the Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Initiative’s Subcommittee on Curriculum and the editorial assistant for Into Practice, the pedagogy newsletter distributed by Harvard University’s Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning. Prior to her doctoral studies, Caroline served as an American politics and English teaching fellow in London and worked in college advising. Caroline holds a BA in History from Princeton University, an MA in the Social Sciences from the University of Chicago, and an EdM in Higher Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah (Kickapoo, Sac & Fox) is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Their research explores how settler colonialism is addressed in K-12 history and social studies classrooms in the United States. Prior to their doctoral studies, Kemeyawi taught middle and high school English and history for eleven years in Boston and New York City. They hold an MS in Middle Childhood Education from Hunter College and an AB in Social Studies from Harvard University.

Submission Information

Click here to view submission guidelines .

Contact Information

Click here to view contact information for the editorial board and customer service .

Subscriber Support

Individual subscriptions must have an individual name in the given address for shipment. Individual copies are not for multiple readers or libraries. Individual accounts come with a personal username and password for access to online archives. Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail.

Institutional rates apply to libraries and organizations with multiple readers. Institutions receive digital access to content on Meridian from IP addresses via theIPregistry.org (by sending HER your PSI Org ID).

Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail. If you have questions about using theIPregistry.org you may find the answers in their FAQs. Otherwise please let us know at [email protected] .

How to Subscribe

To order online via credit card, please use the subscribe button at the top of this page.

To order by phone, please call 888-437-1437.

Checks can be mailed to Harvard Educational Review C/O Fulco, 30 Broad Street, Suite 6, Denville, NJ 07834. (Please include reference to your subscriber number if you are renewing. Institutions must include their PSI Org ID or follow up with this information via email to [email protected] .)

Permissions

Click here to view permissions information.

Article Submission FAQ

Submissions, question: “what manuscripts are a good fit for her ”.

Answer: As a generalist scholarly journal, HER publishes on a wide range of topics within the field of education and related disciplines. We receive many articles that deserve publication, but due to the restrictions of print publication, we are only able to publish very few in the journal. The originality and import of the findings, as well as the accessibility of a piece to HER’s interdisciplinary, international audience which includes education practitioners, are key criteria in determining if an article will be selected for publication.

We strongly recommend that prospective authors review the current and past issues of HER to see the types of articles we have published recently. If you are unsure whether your manuscript is a good fit, please reach out to the Content Editor at [email protected] .

Question: “What makes HER a developmental journal?”

Answer: Supporting the development of high-quality education research is a key tenet of HER’s mission. HER promotes this development through offering comprehensive feedback to authors. All manuscripts that pass the first stage of our review process (see below) receive detailed feedback. For accepted manuscripts, HER also has a unique feedback process called casting whereby two editors carefully read a manuscript and offer overarching suggestions to strengthen and clarify the argument.

Question: “What is a Voices piece and how does it differ from an essay?”

Answer: Voices pieces are first-person reflections about an education-related topic rather than empirical or theoretical essays. Our strongest pieces have often come from educators and policy makers who draw on their personal experiences in the education field. Although they may not present data or generate theory, Voices pieces should still advance a cogent argument, drawing on appropriate literature to support any claims asserted. For examples of Voices pieces, please see Alvarez et al. (2021) and Snow (2021).

Question: “Does HER accept Book Note or book review submissions?”

Answer: No, all Book Notes are written internally by members of the Editorial Board.

Question: “If I want to submit a book for review consideration, who do I contact?”

Answer: Please send details about your book to the Content Editor at [email protected].

Manuscript Formatting

Question: “the submission guidelines state that manuscripts should be a maximum of 9,000 words – including abstract, appendices, and references. is this applicable only for research articles, or should the word count limit be followed for other manuscripts, such as essays”.

Answer: The 9,000-word limit is the same for all categories of manuscripts.

Question: “We are trying to figure out the best way to mask our names in the references. Is it OK if we do not cite any of our references in the reference list? Our names have been removed in the in-text citations. We just cite Author (date).”

Answer: Any references that identify the author/s in the text must be masked or made anonymous (e.g., instead of citing “Field & Bloom, 2007,” cite “Author/s, 2007”). For the reference list, place the citations alphabetically as “Author/s. (2007)” You can also indicate that details are omitted for blind review. Articles can also be blinded effectively by use of the third person in the manuscript. For example, rather than “in an earlier article, we showed that” substitute something like “as has been shown in Field & Bloom, 2007.” In this case, there is no need to mask the reference in the list. Please do not submit a title page as part of your manuscript. We will capture the contact information and any author statement about the fit and scope of the work in the submission form. Finally, please save the uploaded manuscript as the title of the manuscript and do not include the author/s name/s.

Invitations

Question: “can i be invited to submit a manuscript how”.

Answer: If you think your manuscript is a strong fit for HER, we welcome a request for invitation. Invited manuscripts receive one round of feedback from Editors before the piece enters the formal review process. To submit information about your manuscript, please complete the Invitation Request Form . Please provide as many details as possible. The decision to invite a manuscript largely depends on the capacity of current Board members and on how closely the proposed manuscript reflects HER publication scope and criteria. Once you submit the form, We hope to update you in about 2–3 weeks, and will let you know whether there are Editors who are available to invite the manuscript.

Review Timeline

Question: “who reviews manuscripts”.

Answer: All manuscripts are reviewed by the Editorial Board composed of doctoral students at Harvard University.

Question: “What is the HER evaluation process as a student-run journal?”

Answer: HER does not utilize the traditional external peer review process and instead has an internal, two-stage review procedure.

Upon submission, every manuscript receives a preliminary assessment by the Content Editor to confirm that the formatting requirements have been carefully followed in preparation of the manuscript, and that the manuscript is in accord with the scope and aim of the journal. The manuscript then formally enters the review process.

In the first stage of review, all manuscripts are read by a minimum of two Editorial Board members. During the second stage of review, manuscripts are read by the full Editorial Board at a weekly meeting.

Question: “How long after submission can I expect a decision on my manuscript?”

Answer: It usually takes 6 to 10 weeks for a manuscript to complete the first stage of review and an additional 12 weeks for a manuscript to complete the second stage. Due to time constraints and the large volume of manuscripts received, HER only provides detailed comments on manuscripts that complete the second stage of review.

Question: “How soon are accepted pieces published?”

Answer: The date of publication depends entirely on how many manuscripts are already in the queue for an issue. Typically, however, it takes about 6 months post-acceptance for a piece to be published.

Submission Process

Question: “how do i submit a manuscript for publication in her”.

Answer: Manuscripts are submitted through HER’s Submittable platform, accessible here. All first-time submitters must create an account to access the platform. You can find details on our submission guidelines on our Submissions page.

Can learners benefit from chatbots instead of humans? A systematic review of human-chatbot comparison research in language education

• Published: 24 May 2024

Cite this article

• Jaeho Jeon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1161-3676 1 &
• Seongyong Lee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9436-4272 2  

37 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Research has demonstrated the promising potential of chatbots in education. Moreover, technological advancements, such as ChatGPT, prompted us to reexamine distinctions between pedagogical roles that humans and chatbots assume. In this context, a systematic review of 11 experimental studies on human-chatbot comparisons in language education was performed, yielding 64 statistical findings, which were then categorized into 11 overarching variables. The analysis indicates that chatbots provide benefits comparable to those afforded by human-human interaction in some domains, such as eliciting utterances of similar sophistication, vocabulary, and grammar levels and facilitating improvements in speaking and listening proficiency. In contrast, chatbots were less effective than humans in areas that may demand socially appropriate interpersonal elements, such as sustaining interactivity, providing sufficient information in elaborations, and maintaining a positive attitude toward target language conversations over the long term. Based on the results, we suggest that chatbots be conceptualized as novel interlocutors rather than as simulations striving to perfectly mimic humans and that emphasis be placed on aspects humans should focus more on in educational scenarios where chatbots are involved. Additionally, other implications for researchers and teachers are discussed to inform future research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 , 19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bibauw, S., François, T., & Desmet, P. (2019). Discussing with a computer to practice a foreign language: Research synthesis and conceptual framework of dialogue-based CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32 (8), 827–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1535508

Bibauw, S., François, T., Van den Noortgate, W., & Desmet, P. (2022). Dialogue systems for language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 26 (1), 1–24. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73488

Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023). Influence of Pedagogical Beliefs and Perceived Trust on Teachers’ Acceptance of Educational Artificial Intelligence Tools. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39 (4), 910–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2049145

Clark, L., Pantidi, N., Cooney, O., Doyle, P., Garaialde, D., Edwards, J., ... & Cowan, B. R. (2019). What makes a good conversation? Challenges in designing truly conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12).

Davis, R. O., Park, T., & Vincent, J. (2021). A systematic narrative review of agent persona on learning outcomes and design variables to enhance personification. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53 (1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1830894

Divekar, R. R., Drozdal, J., Chabot, S., Zhou, Y., Su, H., Chen, Y., Zhu, H., Hendler, J. A., & Braasch, J. (2022). Foreign language acquisition via artificial intelligence and extended reality: Design and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35 (9), 2332–2360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879162

Dizon, G. (2020). Evaluating intelligent personal assistants for L2 listening and speaking development. Language Learning & Technology, 24 (1), 16–26.  http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44705

Edwards, B. I., & Cheok, A. D. (2018). Why not robot teachers: Artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 32 (4), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2018.1464286

Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., & Lin, X. (2018). I, teacher: Using artificial intelligence (AI) and social robots in communication and instruction. Communication Education, 67 (4), 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1502459

Forsyth, C. M., Luce, C., Zapata-Rivera, D., Jackson, G. T., Evanini, K., & So, Y. (2019). Evaluating English language learners’ conversations: Man vs. machine. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32 (4), 398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1517126

Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75 , 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045

Fryer, L., & Carpenter, R. (2006). Bots as language learning tools. Language Learning & Technology, 10 (3), 8–14.  http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44068

Fryer, L., Coniam, D., Carpenter, R., & Lăpușneanu, D. (2020). Bots for language learning now: Current and future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 24 (2), 8–22. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44719

Girouard-Hallam, L. N., Streble, H. M., & Danovitch, J. H. (2021). Children’s mental, social, and moral attributions toward a familiar digital voice assistant. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3 (5), 1118–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.321

Holstein, K., & Aleven, V. (2022). Designing for human–AI complementarity in K-12 education. AI Magazine, 43 (2), 239–248.

Hsu, H. L., Chen, H. H. J., & Todd, A. G. (2021). Investigating the impact of the Amazon Alexa on the development of L2 listening and speaking skills. Interactive Learning Environments . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2016864

Huang, W., Hew, K. F., & Fryer, L. K. (2022). Chatbots for language learning—are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot-supported language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38 , 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12610

Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2023). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (7), 4099–4112.

Hwang, W., Guo, B., Hoang, A., Chang, C., & Wu, N. (2022). Facilitating authentic contextual EFL speaking and conversation with smart mechanisms and investigating its influence on learning achievements. Computer Assisted Language Learning . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2095406

Jeon, J. (2023). Chatbot-assisted dynamic assessment (CA-DA) for L2 vocabulary learning and diagnosis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36 (7), 1338–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1987272

Jeon, J. (2024). Exploring AI chatbot affordances in the EFL classroom: young learners’ experiences and perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37 (1–2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.2021241

Jeon, J., & Lee, S. (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (12), 15873–15892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1

Jeon, J., Lee, S., & Choe, H. (2023a). Beyond ChatGPT: A conceptual framework and systematic review of speech-recognition chatbots for language learning. Computers & Education, 206 , 104898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104898

Jeon, J., Lee, S., & Choi, S. (2023b). A systematic review of research on speech-recognition chatbots for language learning: Implications for future directions in the era of large language models. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–19. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2204343

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Kuchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Gunnemann, S., Hullermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Jurgen, P., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103 , 102274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868

Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2022). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3 . Advanced online publication.

Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 , 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1

Law, E., Baghaei Ravari, P., Chhibber, N., Kulic, D., Lin, S., Pantasdo, K. D., Ceha, J., Suh, S., & Dillen, N. (2020). Curiosity notebook: A platform for learning by teaching conversational agents. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–9).

Lee, S., & Jeon, J. (2022). Visualizing a disembodied agent: young EFL learners’ perceptions of voice-controlled conversational agents as language partners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–26. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2067182

Lee, S., Jeon, J., & Choe, H. (2024). Enhancing Pre‐Service Teachers' Global Englishes Awareness with Technology: A Focus on AI Chatbots in 3D Metaverse Environments. TESOL Quarterly . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3300

Lee, J., Shin, D., & Noh, W. (2023). Artificial Intelligence-Based Content Generator Technology for Young English-as-a-Foreign-Language Learners’ Reading Enjoyment. RELC Journal, 54 (2), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231165060

Li, J. (2015). The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 77 , 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001

Ockey, G. J., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2021). Human vs. Computer Partner in the paired oral discussion test. Applied Linguistics, 42 (5), 924–944. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa067

Qin, C., Huang, W., & Hew, K. F. (2020). Using the community of inquiry framework to develop an educational chatbot: lesson learned from a mobile instant messaging learning environment. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computers in Education .

Schouten, D. G., Venneker, F., Bosse, T., Neerincx, M. A., & Cremers, A. H. (2017). A digital coach that provides affective and social learning support to low-literate learners. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11 (1), 67–80.

Smutny, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020). Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook messenger. Computers & Education, 151 , 103862.

Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2022b). The impact of intelligent personal assistants on adolescent EFL learners’ speaking proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2040536

Tai, T. Y. (2022). Effects of intelligent personal assistants on EFL learners’ oral proficiency outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2075013

Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2022a). The impact of intelligent personal assistants on adolescent EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2040536

Tegos, S., Psathas, G., Tsiatsos, T., Katsanos, C., Karakostas, A., Tsibanis, C., & Demetriadis, S. (2020). Enriching synchronous collaboration in online courses with configurable conversational agents. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 284–294).

Timpe-Lauglin, V., Sydorenko, T., & Dombi, J. (2022). Human vs. machine: Investigating L2 learner output in face-to-face vs. fully automated role plays. Computer Assisted Language Learning . https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2032184 . Advance online publication.

Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environment, 10 (1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59 (236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wang, X., Pang, H., Wallace, M. P., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2022). Learners’ perceived AI presences in AI-supported language learning: a study of AI as a humanized agent from community of inquiry. Computer Assisted Language Learning . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2056203

Xu, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2020). What are you talking to? Understanding children’s perceptions of conversational agents. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376416

Xu, Y., Aubele, J., Vigil, V., Bustamante, A. S., Kim, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2022). Dialogue with a conversational agent promotes children’s story comprehension via enhancing engagement. Child Development, 93 (2), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13708

Xu, Y., Wang, D., Collins, P., Lee, H., & Warschauer, M. (2021). Same benefits, different communication patterns: Comparing children’s reading with a conversational agent vs. a human partner. Computers and Education, 161 , 104059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104059

Zhang, R., Zou, E., & Cheng, G. (2023a). A review of chatbot-assisted learning: pedagogical approaches, implementations, factors leading to effectiveness, theories, and future directions. Interactive Learning Environments . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2202704

Zhang, S., Shan, C., Lee, J. S. Y., Che, S., & Kim, J. H. (2023b). Effect of chatbot-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11805-6

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University Bloomington, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN, 47405-1006, USA

School of Education and English, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, 199 Taikang East Road, Ningbo, 315100, China

Seongyong Lee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seongyong Lee .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jeon, J., Lee, S. Can learners benefit from chatbots instead of humans? A systematic review of human-chatbot comparison research in language education. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12725-9

Download citation

Received : 26 October 2023

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 24 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12725-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review
• Language learning
• Artificial intelligence
• Computer-assisted language learning
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 21 May 2024

Effectively teaching cultural competence in a pre-professional healthcare curriculum

• Karen R. Bottenfield 1 ,
• Maura A. Kelley 2 ,
• Shelby Ferebee 3 ,
• Andrew N. Best 1 ,
• David Flynn 2 &
• Theresa A. Davies 1 , 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  553 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

208 Accesses

Metrics details

There has been research documenting the rising numbers of racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States. With this rise, there is increasing concern over the health disparities that often affect these populations. Attention has turned to how clinicians can improve health outcomes and how the need exists to educate healthcare professionals on the practice of cultural competence. Here we present one successful approach for teaching cultural competence in the healthcare curriculum with the development of an educational session on cultural competence consisting of case-based, role-play exercises, class group discussions, online discussion boards, and a lecture PowerPoint presentation.

Cultural competence sessions were delivered in a pre-dental master’s program to 178 students between 2017 and 2020. From 2017 to 2019, the sessions were implemented as in-person, case-based, role-play exercises. In 2020, due to in-person limitations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, students were asked to read the role-play cases and provide a reflection response using the online Blackboard Learn discussion board platform. Evaluation of each session was performed using post-session survey data.

Self-reported results from 2017 to 2020 revealed that the role-play exercises improved participant’s understanding of components of cultural competence such as communication in patient encounters (95%), building rapport with patients (94%), improving patient interview skills (95%), and recognition of students own cultural biases when working with patients (93%).

Conclusions

Students were able to expand their cultural awareness and humility after completion of both iterations of the course session from 2017 to 2019 and 2020. This session can be an effective method for training healthcare professionals on cultural competence.

Peer Review reports

It is projected that by the year 2050, racial and ethnic minority groups will make up over 50% of the United States population [ 1 ]. With a more multicultural society, growing concern has emerged over how to address the health disparities that effect these populations and the ways in which healthcare professionals can increase positive health outcomes. Continuing evidence suggests that many patients from racial and ethnic minority groups are not satisfied with the current state of healthcare which has been attributed to implicit bias on the part of physicians and current challenges faced by practitioners who feel underprepared to address these issues due to differences in language, financial status, and healthcare practice [ 2 , 3 , 4 ].

To contend with health disparities and the challenges faced by practitioners working with a more diverse population, healthcare educators have begun to emphasize the importance of educating healthcare workforce on the practice of cultural competence and developing a skilled-based set of behaviors, attitudes and policies that effectively provides care in the wake of cross-cultural situations and differences [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. There are several curricular mandates from both medical and dental accreditation bodies to address this issue [ 7 , 8 , 9 ], and large amounts of resources, ideas, and frameworks that exist for implementing and training future and current healthcare providers on the inadequacies of the healthcare system and cultural competence [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. These current institutional guidelines for accreditation and the numerous amounts of resources for training cultural competence, continue to evolve with work documenting the need for blended curriculum that is continuous throughout student education, starting early as we have done here with pre-dental students, including in-person didactic or online sessions, a service learning component, community engagement and a reflective component [ 4 , 5 , 13 , 14 ].

This study investigates teaching cultural competence in a healthcare curriculum. We hypothesized that early educational exposure to cultural competence through role playing case studies, can serve as an effective mechanism for training early pre-doctoral students the practice of cultural competence. Utilizing student self-reported survey data conducted in a predental master’s curriculum, in which two iterations of role-playing case studies were used to teach components of cultural competence, this study aims to evaluate and support research that suggests role-playing case studies as effective means for educating future clinical professionals on the practice of cultural competence.

This study was determined to be exempt by the Institutional Review Board of Boston University Medical Campus, Protocol # H-37,232. Informed consent was received from all subjects.

Data collection

The role-playing, case-based simulated patient encounter exercises were developed and administered at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine to predental students in the Master of Science in Oral Health Sciences Program (see Table  1 ). From 2017 to 2020, we administered patient encounter cases [see Additional File 1 ] to students ( n  = 178) in the program as a portion of a case-based, role-playing exercise to teach the importance of cultural competence and cultural awareness during patient encounters. During years 2017–2019, real actors portrayed the patient and physician. In 2020, the session was conducted online via a discussion board through a Blackboard Course Site. The original case was published as part of a master’s students thesis work in 2021 [ 15 ].

Description of patient encounter cases 1 and 2

Patient Encounter Case 1 [see Additional file 1 ] is composed of two subsections, scenario 1 A and scenario 1B, and is centered around a patient/physician interaction in which a patient who is pregnant presents with pain upon urination. The physician in 1 A is short and terse with the patient, immediately looking at a urine sample, prescribing medication for a urinary tract infection, and telling the patient to return for a follow-up in 2 weeks. In scenario 1B, a similar situation ensues; however, in this scenario the physician takes more time with the patient providing similar care as the physician in 1 A, but asking for more information about the patients personal and medical history. At the conclusion of the scenario, the patient is offered resources for an obstetrician and a dentist based on the information that is provided about the patient’s background. The patient is then sent on their way and asked to follow-up in 2 weeks. The patient does not return.

Patient Encounter Case 2 [see Additional file 1 ] follows a similar format to the Patient Encounter Case 1. In scenario 2 A, the same patient from Case 1 returns with tooth pain after giving birth. The physician in 2 A, like 1 A, is short with the patient and quickly refers the patient to a dentist. In 2B, the physician again takes more time with the patient to receive background information on the patient, make a connection, and provides an antibiotic and dental referral.

Each Patient Encounter Case explored topics such as the importance of building a trusting physician/patient relationship, the importance of asking a patient for patient history, making a connection, and the importance of a physician taking all facets of a patient’s circumstances into consideration [ 15 ].

Session outline

The sessions conducted between 2017 and 2019 were composed of three parts: (1) enactment of an abridged patient encounter facilitated by session administrators, (2) group discussion and reflection during which time students were asked to critically reflect and discuss the theme and key take-aways from the role play exercise, and (3) a PowerPoint presentation emphasizing take-away points from the role-play exercise. At the conclusion of the cultural competence training sessions, students participated in a post-session Qualtrics generated survey administered electronically to assess each student’s feelings about the session [see Additional file 3 ].

Role-play enactment

Facilitators dressed-up in clothing to mimic both the physician and patient for all case scenarios in Patient Encounter Case 1 and Case 2. At the conclusion of the role play portion of each of the cases, the facilitators paused to lead students in a real-time class group discussion. After Case 1, students were asked questions such as: What did you think ? Were the patient’s needs met? Did you expect the patient to return? Following Case 2, similar questions were asked by the facilitators, including: What did you think ? Were the patient’s needs met? Did you expect the patient to accept help?

At the conclusion of this portion of the session, the facilitators led a larger general discussion about both cases and how they related to one another. Finally, the course session concluded with a PowerPoint presentation that reinforced the take-home points from the session [see Additional file 2 ] [ 15 ].

Change in session modality due to COVID-19 pandemic

In Fall 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the course modality moved to an online platform and consisted of three parts on a Blackboard Discussion Board (Blackboard, Inc.). Students were required to: (1) read each of the Patient Encounter Cases and add a brief reflection comparing the scenarios, (2) then comment on at least two peer’s posts in the discussion forum and (3) attend class to hear a PowerPoint presentation by a course session facilitator on the key take-aways from each scenario [ 15 ].

Student surveys

At the conclusion of the cultural competence training sessions, students participated in a post-session Qualtrics ( https://www.qualtrics.com ) generated survey administered electronically to assess each student’s feelings about the sessions [see Additional file 3 ]. The format of the survey included 5 questions with the following Likert scale response options: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. These post-session surveys were not required but rather optional [ 15 ].

A total of 178 students completed the cultural competence sessions between 2017 and 2020. Of these participants, 112 voluntarily completed a post-session survey on the effectiveness of the course in teaching cultural competence and cultural awareness during patient encounters. Between 2017 and 2019, 99 students completed post-session surveys following sessions with role play exercises. In 2020, 13 students completed post-session surveys following discussion board sessions.

Role-play exercises enhanced cultural competence

In responding to post-session survey questions following cultural competence sessions that included role-play exercises (2017–2019), 71% of students surveyed strongly agreed and 24% agreed that the role-play exercises helped them to identify the importance of communication in patient encounters. In asking participants if the role-play exercises made them more aware of different strategies to improve their patient interview skills, 72% strongly agreed and 23% agreed. Also, 68% of the students strongly agreed and 26% agreed that the exercises helped them to better identify the importance of building rapport and trust during patient encounters. When asked if the exercises helped the students to better understand their own bias and/or cultural awareness when working with patients, the results of the survey showed that 62% of students strongly agreed and 31% agreed with this statement. In addition, most students found the role-play exercises to be enjoyable (72% strongly agreed and 22% agreed). See results shown in Fig.  1 .

Cultural Competence Session Survey Data from the Year 2017–2019. Survey data from students at Boston University’s Oral Health Sciences Program for the years 2017–2019. Data is presented as percent of respondents ( n  = 99)

Discussion boards and reflections enhanced cultural competence

Cultural competence sessions held during 2020 did not include role-play exercises due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Instead, students participated in discussion boards and reflections on Blackboard. In response to the post-session survey question asking if the discussion board exercises were helpful in identifying the importance of communication during patient encounters, 67% of students strongly agreed and 25% agreed with this statement. Also, 75% of students strongly agreed and 17% agreed that the discussion board exercises helped them identify the importance of building rapport and trust during patient contact. When asked if the exercises helped the students to better understand their own bias and/or cultural awareness when working with patients, the results of the survey showed that 67% of students strongly agreed and 25% agreed with this statement. In addition, most students found the discussion board exercises to be enjoyable (67% strongly agreed and 22% agreed). See results shown in Fig.  2 .

Cultural competence session survey data from the Year 2020. Survey data from students at Boston University’s Oral Health Sciences Program for the year 2020. Data is presented as percent of respondents ( n  = 13)

Student responses to the reflection portion of the online cultural competency sessions were recorded and categorized. Five themes were selected and 441 reflection responses were coded using NVivo (Version 12). The results showed that 29% of reflections demonstrated student’s ability to understand a holistic approach to clinical care, 24.3% understood the importance of collecting a patient history, 6.8% recognized the socioeconomic factors during a patient encounter, 27.9% reflected on the importance of the patient clinical relationship, and 12% on the effects on improving health outcomes (Table  1 ). Representative student responses to these themes are shown in Table  1 .

There exists a need to develop novel and effective means for teaching and training the next generation of healthcare professionals the practice of cultural competence. Thus, two iterations of a course session using case-based patient centered encounters were developed to teach these skills to pre-professional dentals students. Overall, the results of this study demonstrated that participation in the course, subsequent group discussion sessions, and take-away PowerPoint sessions significantly improved the participant’s understanding of the importance of communication skills and understanding of socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural disparities that can affect a patient’s health outcome.

According to results from the course session implemented in-person from 2017 to 2019, the role-playing exercise significantly improved participants understanding of important components that can be used to improve health outcomes that may be affected due to health disparities. Students were strongly able to identify the importance of communication in patient encounters, to understand strategies such as communication and compassionate care in patient encounters, identify the importance of building a patient-physician relationship with patients, and were able to recognize their own cultural biases. Similarly, in 2020, even with a change in course modality to on-line learning due to COVID-19, students were able to understand the same key take-aways from the course session as demonstrated by reflections using the discussion board regarding the need for a holistic approach to care, importance of the patient clinician relationship, and importance of taking a patient history. Despite promising implications of both iterations of the session, students completing the session online did not find the same success in “understanding my own bias/and or cultural awareness when working with patients.” This decrease may be attributed to change in course modality and the strengths of the role-play enactment of the patient encounter. It is important to recognize that additional learning components, including video recordings of the role-play enactment, may be necessary if the discussion board is used as the primary learning method in the future.

In contrast to previous studies that attempted to determine the effectiveness of cultural competence training methods, this session had many unique characteristics. The simulated role-playing exercise enabled student participants to see first-hand an interactive patient scenario that could be used as an example for when students begin working with patients or communicating with patients who are culturally diverse. Additionally, the nature of the cases created for the course session which were divided into a part A in which the patient physician was more straightforward when diagnosing and treating the patient and a part B with a more comprehensive and nurturing approach to care, allowed the students to compare the scenarios and make their own assumptions and comments on the effectiveness of each portion of the case. Another strength of this training, was the faculty with cultural competence training were uniquely involved in case creation and facilitation of the course session. According to previous studies with similar aims, it was noted that direct observation and feedback from a faculty member who had cultural competence training and direct contact with patients can provide students with a more memorable and useful experience when educating students [ 12 ]. The facilitators of this session were able to emphasize from their own personal experiences how to work with culturally diverse populations.

An important aspect of the 2020 iteration of the course session in which a discussion board format was used, was that it allowed students who may feel uncomfortable with sharing their thoughts on a case and their own biases, the opportunity to share in a space that may feel safer than in person [ 4 ]. Previous studies have mentioned challenges with online discussion boards [ 4 ] but here we had robust participation, albeit required. Students often contributed more than the required number of comments and they were often lengthy and engaging when responding to peers. Finally, in contrast to previous studies, this course session took place in a pre-professional master’s program, the M.S. in Oral Health Sciences Program at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine. This program, in which students are given the opportunity to enhance their credentials for professional school, provided students with early exposure to cultural competence training. Students that completed this session in their early pre-professional curriculum should be better prepared than peers who did not receive any cultural competence training until they entered their designated professional school. This session is part of an Evidence Based Dentistry course, which incorporates a larger component of personal reflection that serves to engage students in critical thinking as they begin to develop the skills to be future clinicians. Students that understand different cultures, society and themselves through self-assessments will grow and be best suited in time to treat future patients [ 4 , 16 , 17 ].

One limitation of the present study was the number of survey participants that competed the post-session surveys, as survey completion was not required. Thus, the number of student participants declined over the years, reaching its lowest number of participants in 2020 when the discussion board course session was implemented, and students may have been over surveyed due to the pandemic. Another limitation to this study, was the lack of both a pre and post survey that could be used to determine how student’s understanding of cultural competence had evolved from their entry into the course to the conclusion of the course as well as individual bias and self-reporting measures.

In the future, the course should implement both a role-playing format and subsequent discussion board reflections within the same course session. Studies have shown that alternatives ways of drawing students to reflect whether role play, personal narratives, etc. can be extremely advantageous in developing personal reflection and awareness building competency [ 4 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. It is noted that role-playing exercises that allow students to provide feedback with student colleagues can provide students with more insight into their own behaviors. It has also been shown in previous studies that student writing and reflection activities can also facilitate student’s reflections on their own beliefs and biases [ 4 , 11 ]. Reflective writing skills are an important and effective means for students to continue to gauge their cultural competence throughout the remainder of their academic training and as future clinicians [ 4 , 17 , 19 ]. Further, students may experience emotional responses through the process of reflective writing as they recognize personal bias or stereotypes, creating a profound and impactful response resulting in enhanced understanding of cultural differences and beliefs [ 4 ]. By combining both learning techniques, students would be able to understand their own bias and their classmates and create a dialogue that could be more beneficial than just one learning method alone. Furthermore, by implementing the discussion board into the role-playing session, as stated previously, students that are more cautious about sharing their point of view or about their own implicit bias in a traditional classroom setting would be able to express their opinions and facilitate a more comprehensive discussion more thoroughly.

Here we show an effective means to utilize role-play of a multi-scenario case-based patient encounter to teach pre-professional healthcare student’s components of cultural competence, emphasizing the importance of provider-patient interactions, holistic patient care, and patient history and socioeconomic factors in provider care. This study contributes to the larger body of work that seeks to address this important aspect of education as it relates to enhancing patient health care outcomes.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Albino JEN, Inglehart MR, Tedesco LA. Dental education and changing oral health care needs: disparities and demands. J Dent Educ. 2012;76(1):75–88.

Article   Google Scholar  

Constantinou CS, Papageorgiou A, Samoutis G, McCrorie P. Acquire, apply, and activate knowledge: a pyramid model for teaching and integrating cultural competence in medical curricula. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(6):1147–51.

DallaPiazza M, Padilla-Register M, Dwarakanath M, Obamedo E, Hill J, Soto-Greene ML. Exploring racism and health: an intensive interactive session for medical students. MedEdPORTAL. 2018;14:10783.

Forsyth CJ, Irving MJ, Tennant M, Short SD, Gilroy JA. Teaching Cultural competence in Dental Education: a systematic review and exploration of implications for indigenous populations in Australia. J Dent Educ. 2017;81(8):956–68.

Betancourt JR. Cultural competence and medical education: many names, many perspectives, one goal. Acad Med. 2006;81(6):499–501.

Jernigan VBB, Hearod JB, Tran K, Norris KC, Buchwald D. An examination of cultural competence training in US medical education guided by the tool for assessing cultural competence training. J Health Disparities Res Pract. 2016;9(3):150–67.

Google Scholar  

Behar-Horenstein LS, Warren RC, Dodd VJ, Catalanotto FA. Addressing oral Health disparities Via Educational Foci on Cultural competence. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S1):S18–23.

Lie D, Boker J, Cleveland E. Using the tool for assessing cultural competence training (TACCT) to measure faculty and medical student perceptions of cultural competence instruction in the first three years of the curriculum. Acad Med. 2006;81(6):557–64.

Holyfield LJ, Miller BH. A tool for assessing cultural competence training in dental education. J Dent Educ. 2013;77(8):990–7.

Vasquez Guzman CE, Sussman AL, Kano M, Getrich CM, Williams RL. A comparative case study analysis of cultural competence training at 15 U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2021;96(6):894–9.

Jernigan VB, Hearod JB, Tran K, Norris KC, Buchwald D. An examination of cultural competence training in US medical education guided by the tool for assessing cultural competence training. J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2016;9(3):150–67.

Kripalani S, Bussey-Jones J, Katz MG, Genao I. A prescription for cultural competence in medical education. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(10):1116–20.

Mariño R, Satur J, Tuncer E, Tran M, Milford E, Tran VMTH, Tran PQ, Tsai RP. Cultural competence of Australian dental students. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):155.

Beagan BL. Teaching social and cultural awareness to medical students: it’s all very nice to talk about it in theory, but ultimately it makes no difference. Acad Med. 2003;78(6):605–14.

Ferrebee S, Boston University School of Medicine Master’s Thesis. (2021). Effectively Teaching Cultural Competence in Healthcare Education. Available at Boston University Libraries: Open BU: https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/43838 .

Crosson JC, Deng W, Brazeau C, Boyd L, Soto-Greene M. Evaluating the effect of cultural competency training on medical student attitudes. Fam Med. 2004;36(3):199–203.

Cathryn F, Michelle I, Short S, Tennant M, Gilroy J. Strengthening indigenous cultural competence in dentistry and oral health education: academic perspectives. Eur J Dent Educ. 2019;23(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12398

DasGupta S, Meyer D, Calero-Breckheimer A, Costley AW, Guillen S. Teaching cultural competency through narrative medicine: intersections of classroom and community. Teach Learn Med. 2006;18(1):14–7.

Woldt JL, Nenad MW. Reflective writing in dental education to improve critical thinking and learning: A systematic review. J Dent Educ. 2021;85(6):778–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12561 . Epub 2021 Feb 11. PMID: 33576055.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Boston University’s Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine’s Graduate Medical Science students and study participants.

No funding was used for the completion of this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate Medical Sciences, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, 72 East Concord Street, L317, R-1017, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

Karen R. Bottenfield, Andrew N. Best & Theresa A. Davies

Department of Medical Sciences & Education, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, 72 East Concord Street, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

Maura A. Kelley, David Flynn & Theresa A. Davies

University of Maryland School of Dentistry, 650 W Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

Shelby Ferebee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TAD designed the original study concept, taught the classes (roleplay), conducted the surveys, and collected data; MAK designed the original case and PowerPoint, and performed roleplay; DBF and SF evaluated data and drafted original figures; ANB assisted in drafting the manuscript; KRB finalized figures and the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theresa A. Davies .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was determined to be EXEMPT by the Institutional Review Board of Boston University Medical Campus, Protocol # H-37232.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Informed consent was received from all subjects.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bottenfield, K.R., Kelley, M.A., Ferebee, S. et al. Effectively teaching cultural competence in a pre-professional healthcare curriculum. BMC Med Educ 24 , 553 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05507-x

Download citation

Received : 27 October 2023

Accepted : 02 May 2024

Published : 21 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05507-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Communication

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Digital Transformation & Innovation in Auditing: Insights from a Review of Academic Research

In 2021, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) asked members of the International Association for Accounting Education and Research (IAAER) to conduct a literature review examining digital transformation in the external audit setting. The review was intended to inform the IAASB’s standard-setting initiatives related to using technology in audit engagements.

In January 2022, a paper titled “ The Effects of Person-Specific, Task, and Environmental Factors on Digital Transformation and Innovation in Auditing: A Review of the Literature ,” prepared by Dereck Barr-Pulliam, Helen Brown-Liburd and Ivy Munoko, was published detailing the findings from this study. This article sets out some of the insights the IAASB gained from reviewing this research and discussing it with the paper’s authors.

Using technology in an audit continues to evolve and, by examining relevant literature published over the last 20 years, insights can be learned about evolving trends and the trajectory of digital transformation in audit.

The paper’s authors were among the first to conduct an extensive review of the growing academic literature on digital transformation in the external audit arena. The study identified an increasing interest in publishing digital transformation-related research, as demonstrated by the increase in volume of research over recent years, but indicated that research on external auditors’ use of emerging technologies is still at an early stage. This latter point could reflect the fact that many emerging technologies are yet to achieve widespread adoption due to their complexity of implementation and use.

The research identified person, task and environmental factors which affected digital transformation in audit engagements and distinguished between the types of analytics used by auditors—descriptive, diagnostic, predictive and prescriptive—and the research findings relevant to each. The findings suggest very few studies have examined the more complex predictive and prescriptive analytics.

The diagram below identifies factors that positively influence adoption of the digital audit; these themes are explored in more detail throughout this article. 

Person related factors impact enthusiasm and willingness to adopt technology in the audit

The research identified some key person-specific factors influencing the adoption of technology. When discussed with the original paper’s authors, this was highlighted as the most significant reason for a lag in technology adoption.

1)     Training and skills

The study noted that accounting curricula lags accounting practice due to the complexities in augmenting university course content and that missing components include an understanding of the information lifecycle and the technologies of the information system. The study also notes a need for greater emphasis on helping students become more agile and use more critical thinking when interacting with disruptive technology, and some studies identified possible approaches to address including use of case studies. Tool-specific training was noted as a critical driver for using technology with the timeliness of this training (i.e., before busy season) being a way to encourage greater use.

2)     Auditor Characteristics and Behavior

The review of research identified certain auditor behaviors that foster greater commitment to technology adoption with growth mindset, agility and critical thinking recognized as behaviors that positively influence the reliance on and support for technology in the audit. Research into whether mindset (fixed or growth) moderates the effect of inspection risk on auditors’ reliance on data analytics tools found that when inspection risk is high, those with a fixed mindset rely less on data analytic tools than those with growth mindset. This finding in conjunction with others related to concerns about regulators’ response to and acceptance of emerging technologies provides valuable insight into key barriers to technology adoption.

Some research noted the impact of algorithm aversion, which suggests individuals will be more likely to discount computer-generated advice or evidence more heavily than human advice or evidence. One example of this is a study that found that auditors who received contradictory evidence from an artificial intelligence system (for example, where used to evaluate a complex estimate) proposed smaller adjustments to management’s initial estimate, mainly when the underlying inputs and assumptions are objective.

3)     Stakeholder/external attitudes

The review identified several publications that presented research performed to understand perceptions of and behavioral responses to using analytics in the audit. Findings suggest that stakeholder views (including peer reviewers and regulators) influence auditors’ willingness to adopt technology.

Whilst a primary benefit of data analytics is increased audit quality, some research indicated that peer reviewers, external reviewers and key stakeholders viewed quality as largely unaffected by using data analytic techniques as an alternative to traditional audit procedures.

It is clear from the research that confidence in using automated tools and techniques by auditors and various stakeholders in audit outcomes is key to enabling increased adoption of technology on engagements.

Task related factors such as structure and complexity impact technology adoption

The research identified variations in audit task complexity and noted the importance of understanding how using emerging technology in the audit interacts with task complexity to impact judgement quality.

1)     Task complexity

Descriptive analytics were noted as most widely used of all the advanced analytics types, particularly data visualization—which is used to better understand an entity’s financial performance and for population testing, as well as for business insights. Research indicates that when data visualization is appropriately integrated into audit tasks it can improve decision making. However, as the data becomes more voluminous and the analytic more complex, there are challenges for the auditor in understanding and interpreting this data and making appropriate judgements regarding treatment of anomalies.

Studies of auditors’ use of diagnostic analytics indicates task complexity moderates the effectiveness of technology used in the audit, particularly when it gives rise to a high number of anomalies—potentially significantly more than would require investigation in a traditional sample test.

Unstructured tasks such as the use of advanced data analytic techniques, like clustering to identify patterns in data that could signal higher risk areas, may increase complexity because the auditor must process a higher number of information cues (i.e., larger data sets), combine the information in an unspecified way (e.g., identify patterns) or adapt to changes in required actions or information cues (i.e., identify higher risk areas).

As the technology being deployed becomes more complex, there is a risk that auditors experience information processing and cognitive limitations (e.g., information overload) when analyzing and interpreting output from data analytic tools. A decision aid, framework, or an accepted systematic approach can help with practical challenges faced when potentially large numbers of outliers result from full population testing. Research identified that higher levels of false positives associated with data analytics can also negatively influence the extent to which auditors exhibit professional skepticism. However, it was noted that this can be mitigated by consistently rewarding auditors for exhibiting appropriate skepticism.

2)     Examples of technology driving audit quality improvements and audit efficiency

Despite challenges around task complexity, several publications reviewed as part of the study identified examples of automated tools and techniques that could positively impact audit quality, as well as potentially improving the audit experience.

• Exogenous Data – some research looked at the use of exogenous data combined with company data to gain deeper insights. Findings indicated benefits of using this data but stressed the importance of carefully evaluating how the exogenous data linked to financial accounts.
• Benchmarking – research noted the use of appropriate benchmarking and incorporation of relevant information can improve auditors’ performance of analytical procedures.
• Machine learning – research identified benefits in using machine learning to develop independent estimates to compare to management’s estimates with studies showing that these are generally more accurate and benefit from the model being retrained each year using the actual figures.
• Contract analysis – research identified various AI-enabled techniques used in the audit, such as natural language processing to analyze contracts for unusual terms or clauses enabling a more efficient and effective approach to examining full populations of contracts and related audit tasks.
• Automation – the use of robotic process automation (RPA) technologies to automate routine, repetitive tasks to improve audit efficiency with some research proposing frameworks to use for development of RPA in an audit practice including determining which activities to automate.
• Drones – one study identified the use of drones to support inventory counts and noted that this had driven significant reductions in inspection time as well as reductions in errors.
• Process mining – research indicated that use of this technology is emerging and found that it improved the evaluation of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting.

Environmental factors influence technology adoption in audit

The study highlighted some environmental factors that influenced the adoption of technology in the audit. These factors include client preferences, competitor activity, regulatory response to technology in the audit as well as regional and global shifts towards digitization. The adoption rate, enthusiasm and expectations of these environmental parties directly impact the audit firm’s use of technologies.

The following environmental factors were noted.

1)     A regional and global shift towards digitization, automation and business intelligence – Regional factors such as government influence, competition of audit firms, regulation, advancement of technology and availability of necessary talent play a significant role in the adoption of technology.

2)     Influence of the audit client on adoption of emerging technologies – Factors such as the client’s expectation of auditor use of emerging technology and client support for data access influences how the auditor can deploy emerging technology and the regularity of use. Client expectations regarding additional insights gleaned from using emerging technology coupled with tensions around anticipated audit fee reduction because of using technology impact adoption. Additionally, an expectation gap may exist regarding the level of assurance attained from testing full populations of transactions or related to the evaluation of non-financial information through technology.

3)     Business drive to achieve/maintain competitive advantage – Emerging technologies provide opportunities to increase audit efficiency and effectiveness, for example, through use of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to automate routine, repetitive audit tasks. A disparity was noted in emerging technologies and the phase of digital transformation across accounting firms with larger firms having innovation leaders or organizations that help identify, develop, and otherwise facilitate the digital transformation journey whilst smaller firms are more likely to use off-the-shelf tools, placing them at a disadvantage in competing for clients and human capital.

4)     Regulator response to adoption of emerging technologies – Uncertainty about regulators’ response and acceptance of emerging technologies can hinder its adoption. Insights provided through using data analytics may be perceived by regulators as a breach of independence impacting audit quality, with a lack of clarity on regulator response to using technology causing “confusion and frustration.” Findings noting a need for regulators to be more proactive in identifying appropriate use of emerging technology in the audit rather than being reactive through identified findings from inspecting completed engagements.

Environmental factors that support the adoption of technology create the right conditions for successful use. Where these factors work against the adoption of technology in the audit, they give the auditor a greater hill to climb to achieve successful technology adoption.

Of the factors noted, the influence of the audit client on an auditor’s adoption of emerging technology seems to be most significant. This factor is particularly important when it comes to supporting the acquisition of data needed to run the technology and in setting an expectation with the auditor of technology use, whilst the auditor needs to appropriately manage expectations around fees and the level of assurance to be provided (reasonable not absolute) where technology is deployed.

Conclusion and takeaways

The research has provided some valuable insights into digital transformation within audit engagements and delineates person-specific, task, and environmental factors that influence adoption of technology. The research recommends that audit firms and practitioners avoid the temptation to run before they can walk. That is, instead, they take a methodical approach to technology adoption by involving all necessary parties and ensuring there are sufficient resources (human capital and technology) to enable the adoption of specific types of data analytic tools.

The research also advises consideration by standard setters and regulators about whether specific guidance on emerging technologies in the audit may help to allay concerns about adoption of these technologies. For example, in regard to artificial intelligence, to potentially mitigate auditor perception of technological innovation as an addition to traditional audit procedures rather than an enhancement.

Finally, the research concludes that a confluence of positive factors is required to achieve more widespread adoption of the digital transformation. The factors require actions by all stakeholders within the audit and assurance ecosystem. Continued collaboration between academia, audit firms, standard setters and regulators can yield significant insight into adoption of emerging technologies in audit.

Danielle Davies

EY Partner and Former IAASB Staff Fellow

Danielle Davies was an IAASB Staff Fellow from November 2021 to May 2023, on secondment from EY where she is a Partner in the UK Assurance Practice. Danielle is a subject matter expert in audit automated tools and techniques and has wide experience in using technology to aid audit and driving change in the UK audit practice. She is also a member of the UK FRC’s Technology Working Group.

While with the IAASB, Danielle’s focus was on supporting the IAASB’s disruptive technology initiative as well as providing advice and input on other technology related matters.

Follow Danielle on LinkedIn

Map Options

Education Rankings by Country 2024

There is a correlation between a country's educational system quality and its economic status, with developed nations offering higher quality education.

The U.S., despite ranking high in educational system surveys, falls behind in math and science scores compared to many other countries.

Educational system adequacy varies globally, with some countries struggling due to internal conflicts, economic challenges, or underfunded programs.

While education levels vary from country to country, there is a clear correlation between the quality of a country's educational system and its general economic status and overall well-being. In general, developing nations tend to offer their citizens a higher quality of education than the least developed nations do, and fully developed nations offer the best quality of education of all. Education is clearly a vital contributor to any country's overall health.

According to the Global Partnership for Education , education is considered to be a human right and plays a crucial role in human, social, and economic development . Education promotes gender equality, fosters peace, and increases a person's chances of having more and better life and career opportunities.

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." — Nelson Mandela

The annual Best Countries Report , conducted by US News and World Report, BAV Group, and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania , reserves an entire section for education. The report surveys thousands of people across 78 countries, then ranks those countries based upon the survey's responses. The education portion of the survey compiles scores from three equally-weighted attributes: a well-developed public education system, would consider attending university there, and provides top-quality education. As of 2023, the top ten countries based on education rankings are:

Countries with the Best Educational Systems - 2021 Best Countries Report*

Ironically, despite the United States having the best-surveyed education system on the globe, U.S students consistently score lower in math and science than students from many other countries. According to a Business Insider report in 2018, the U.S. ranked 38th in math scores and 24th in science. Discussions about why the United States' education rankings have fallen by international standards over the past three decades frequently point out that government spending on education has failed to keep up with inflation.

It's also worthwhile to note that while the Best Countries study is certainly respectable, other studies use different methodologies or emphasize different criteria, which often leads to different results. For example, the Global Citizens for Human Rights' annual study measures ten levels of education from early childhood enrollment rates to adult literacy. Its final 2020 rankings look a bit different:

Education Rates of Children Around the World

Most findings and ranking regarding education worldwide involve adult literacy rates and levels of education completed. However, some studies look at current students and their abilities in different subjects.

One of the most-reviewed studies regarding education around the world involved 470,000 fifteen-year-old students. Each student was administered tests in math, science, and reading similar to the SAT or ACT exams (standardized tests used for college admissions in the U.S.) These exam scores were later compiled to determine each country's average score for each of the three subjects. Based on this study, China received the highest scores , followed by Korea, Finland , Hong Kong , Singapore , Canada , New Zealand , Japan , Australia and the Netherlands .

On the down side, there are many nations whose educational systems are considered inadequate. This could be due to internal conflict, economic problems, or underfunded programs. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's Education for All Global Monitoring Report ranks the following countries as having the world's worst educational systems:

Countries with the Lowest Adult Literacy Rates

• Education rankings are sourced from both the annual UN News Best Countries report and the nonprofit organization World Top 20

Download Table Data

Enter your email below, and you'll receive this table's data in your inbox momentarily.

Which country ranks first in education?

Which country ranks last in education, frequently asked questions.

• Best Countries for Education - 2023 - US News
• Literacy rate, adult total (% of people ages 15 and above) - World Bank
• World Best Education Systems - Global Citizens for Human Rights
• UNESCO - Global Education Monitoring Reports
• World’s 10 Worst Countries for Education - Global Citizen
• International Education Database - World Top 20

• Find My Rep

You are here

Review of Educational Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The Review of Educational Research ( RER , quarterly, begun in 1931; approximately 640 pp./volume year) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented.

The Review of Educational Research publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research, and all analyses should be incorporated in a broader integrative review. RER will occasionally publish solicited, but carefully refereed, analytic reviews of special topics, particularly from disciplines infrequently represented. The following types of manuscripts fall within the journal’s purview:

Integrative reviews pull together the existing work on an educational topic and work to understand trends in that body of scholarship. In such a review, the author describes how the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how research methods and theories have shaped the outcomes of scholarship, and what the strengths and weaknesses of the literature are. Meta-analyses are of particular interest when they are accompanied by an interpretive framework that takes the article beyond the reporting of effect sizes and the bibliographic outcome of a computer search.

Theoretical reviews should explore how theory shapes research. To the extent that research is cited and interpreted, it is in the service of the specification, explication, and illumination of a theory. Theoretical reviews and integrative reviews have many similarities, but the former are primarily about how a theory is employed to frame research and our understandings, and refer to the research as it relates to the theory.

Methodological reviews are descriptions of research design, methods, and procedures that can be employed in literature reviews or research in general. The articles should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of methodological tools and explore how methods constrain or open up opportunities for learning about educational problems. They should be written in a style that is accessible to researchers in education rather than methodologists.

Historical reviews provide analyses that situate literature in historical contexts. Within these reviews, explanations for educational phenomena are framed within the historical forces that shape language and understanding.

Commissioned reviews and thematic issues. The editors may commission and solicit authors to review areas of literature. In all other respects, commissioned reviews are subject to the same review process as submitted reviews. The editors also encourage readers to propose thematic topics for special issues and, as potential guest editors, to submit plans for such issues.

In addition to review articles, RER will occasionally publish notes and responses which are short pieces of no more than 1,200 words on any topic that would be of use to reviewers of research. Typically, they point out shortcomings and differences in interpretation in RER articles and policy.

The standards and criteria for review articles in RER are the following:

1. Quality of the Literature. Standards used to determine quality of literature in education vary greatly. Any review needs to take into account the quality of the literature and its impact on findings. Authors should attempt to review all relevant literature on a topic (e.g., international literature, cross-disciplinary work, etc.).

2. Quality of Analysis. The review should go beyond description to include analysis and critiques of theories, methods, and conclusions represented in the literature. This analysis should also examine the issue of access—which perspectives are included or excluded in a body of work? Finally, the analysis should be reflexive—how does the scholars’ framework constrain what can be known in this review?

3. Significance of the Topic. The review should seek to inform and/or illuminate questions important to the field of education. While these questions may be broad-based, they should have implications for the educational problems and issues affecting our national and global societies.

4. Impact of the Article. The review should be seen as an important contribution and tool for the many different educators dealing with the educational problems and issues confronting society.

5. Advancement of the Field. The review should validate or inform the knowledge of researchers and guide and improve the quality of their research and scholarship.

6. Style. The review must be well written and conform to style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition). Authors should avoid the use of unexplained jargon and parochialism.

7. Balance and Fairness. The review should be careful not to misrepresent the positions taken by others, or be disrespectful of contrary positions.

8. Purpose. Any review should be accessible to the broad readership of RER. The purpose of any article should be to connect the particular problem addressed by the researcher(s) to a larger context of education.

We also encourage all authors interested in submitting a manuscript to RER to read our Editorial Vision for more information on our publication aims.

• Academic Search - Premier
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Elite
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Elite
• EBSCO: MasterFILE Premier
• EBSCO: Professional Development Collection
• EBSCO: Sales & Marketing Source
• EBSCOhost: Current Abstracts
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
• Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F)
• Higher Education Abstracts
• MasterFILE Select - EBSCO
• ProQuest Education Journals
• Social SciSearch
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Teacher Reference Center
• Wilson Education Index/Abstracts

1. Publication Standards 2. Submission Preparation Checklist 3. How to Get Help With the Quality of English in Your Submission 4. Copyright Information 5. For authors who use figures or other materials for which they do not own copyright 6. Right of Reply 7. Sage Choice and Open Access

The Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes comprehensive reviews of literature related to education and does not publish new empirical work, except in the context of meta-analytic reviews of an area. Please check the journal’s Aims and Scope to see if your manuscript is appropriate to submit to RER.

All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the editorial team at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rer . For questions or inquiries about manuscripts, email us at [email protected] . Manuscripts may not be submitted via e-mail.

Publication Standards

Researchers who intend to submit studies for publication should consult the Standards for Research Conduct adopted by the AERA Council. We also recommend consulting (a) the Guidelines for Reviewers , which outline the criteria under which manuscripts are reviewed for publication by AERA and (b) recent previous editions of the journal. Individuals submitting systematic reviews or meta-analyses should also consult The PRISMA Statement ( http://www.prisma-statement.org ) as well the article on “Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology” in American Psychologist, 63 , 839 – 851 (doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839).

Submission Preparation Checklist

When you upload your initial submission, upload (1) a separate title page that is not anonymized. Please format the title page as described by the 7th edition of the APA Manual and (2) the main manuscript, which includes an ANONYMIZED title page, an abstract with keywords at the bottom, and the rest of the document including tables and figures, and finally (c) Author Bios.

Please ensure that your manuscript complies with the “ RER Formatting Requirements and Common Formatting Errors ” (see PDF on the RER website). If your submission does not meet these requirements, it will be returned to you.

Additionally, your submission should meet the following guidelines:

1. The submission has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; or an explanation has been provided in the Cover Letter. Authors should indicate in the Author Note on the separate title page if sections of the manuscript have been published in other venues.

2. THE MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, EVEN ON THE ANONYMIZED TITLE PAGE. Please anonymize any work of limited circulation (e.g., in press papers, manuscripts under submission) that would point to the author, both in the body of the manuscript and the reference list. More information on anonymizing is described subsequently. Please double check that the author’s name has been removed from the document’s Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu (select “File,” “Properties,” “Summary,” and remove the author’s name; select “OK” to save).

3. The text conforms to APA style (currently the 7th ed.). Consult the guidelines spelled out under “Manuscript Style, Length, and Format” on this webpage and in the RER Formatting Requirements PDF included on our website.

4. The submission must be in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx), which will be converted into a PDF file. Please do not upload PDF files, or they will be returned to you.

5. All URL addresses and DOIs in the manuscript (e.g., http://www.aera.net ) should be activated and ready to click.

6. An abstract of 150 words maximum is included (both separately and on the second page of the main document after the ANONYMIZED title page). Please also include three to five keywords—the terms that researchers will use to find your article in indexes and databases.

Manuscript Style, Length, and Format

The style guide for the Review of Educational Research and all AERA journals is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed., 2020. The manual is available for purchase here . Guidelines are also available on the APA website .

Manuscripts should NOT exceed 65 pages (or 15,000 words), including tables, figures, appendices, notes, and references, but excluding anonymized title page, abstract, and any supplementary files. Pages should be numbered consecutively in the top right-hand corner, with a fully capitalized running head in the top-left corner. All manuscripts should begin with the anonymized title page (p.1). Manuscripts should be typed for 8½” x 11” paper, in upper and lower case, with 1-inch margins on all sides. Manuscripts should be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font. Manuscripts that exceed 65 pages may be returned without review.

All text, from the title page to the end of the manuscript should be double-spaced , including the abstract, block quotations, bulleted text, and the reference list. Single-spacing is allowed in tables when it is useful in making the table clearer. Do not leave blank lines after paragraphs or before sub-headings. However, if a heading or subheading is the last line on a page, use a page break to move it to the top of the next page. The Abstract, Introduction (beginning with the title), the References, and all tables and figures begin on new pages.

Please use the five subheadings as appropriate based on the 7th edition of the APA style manual. In addition to being on the title page, the title should also be placed at the beginning of the Introduction (in lieu of the word, “Introduction,” which should not appear) and the title at the beginning of the Introduction should be a Level 1 heading.

Tables and figures are to be placed after the references—all tables precede all figures—and should not be included in the body of the text. Each figure and table should begin on a separate page. Do NOT use the “Place Table 5 here” or “Place Figure 1 here” convention. The tables and figures will be placed nearest to where they are mentioned as appropriate when copyediting is done.

Figures and tables should present data to the reader in a clear and unambiguous manner, and should be referred to in the text. If the illustration/table/figure and text are redundant, eliminate the illustration or reduce the amount of detail provided in text. The use of lines in tables is limited (please consult the APA style manual for formatting guidelines ). Figure captions should be placed at the bottom of the figure. One high-quality electronic version of each figure must be submitted with the manuscript. Tables will be typeset. Note that any figures and tables uploaded separately from the main manuscript will still count toward the total 65-page limit.

Italics can be used for emphasis or contrast in special situations but should be used sparingly. Ideally, sentence structure should be used for these issues. All words to be set in italics (e.g., book titles, journal names) should be typed in italics. There should be no underlined text . Abbreviations and acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are mentioned unless they are found as entries in their abbreviated form in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , 11th ed., 2003 (e.g., “IQ” can be used without being spelled out). Mathematical symbols and symbols for vectors should be clearly formatted in italics and boldface, respectively.

You can use the footnote or endnote feature of Microsoft Word. However, notes are only for explanations or amplifications of textual material that cannot be incorporated into the regular text; they are not for reference information. Moreover, notes are distracting to readers and expensive to produce and should be used sparingly and avoided whenever possible.

The reference list should contain only references that are cited in the text. Its accuracy and completeness are the responsibility of the authors. Reference each publicly available dataset with its title, author, date, and a persistent Web identifier such as a digital object identifier (doi), a handle, or a uniform resource name (URN). If necessary, this last element may be replaced by a web address. Additionally, any references that were included in the analysis but not cited in-text in the main manuscript can be included in a separate reference list that is uploaded as a Supplementary File for Review (this may assist in meeting the page limit).

Authors should anonymize their manuscripts for review . Anonymizing does not mean removing all self-citations. Authors should only anonymize citations of limited circulation (e.g., forthcoming, in press, unpublished) that point to the author. Publications already in the extant literature (e.g., books, book chapters, journal articles) should be cited normally, but authors should include self-citations judiciously . When anonymizing, please use “Author” or “Authors” as in the examples below and place this alphabetically in the reference list and not where the author’s actual name would typically appear.

For examples of common types of references, consult the APA 7th edition manual, or visit the webpage here: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references

How to Get Help with the Quality of English in Your Submission

Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using the services of a professional English-language editing company. We highlight some of these companies at  https://languageservices.sagepub.com/en/ .

Please be aware that Sage has no affiliation with these companies and makes no endorsement of them. An author's use of these services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the particular company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.

Copyright Information Accepted authors will be asked to  assign copyright  to AERA, in return for which AERA grants several rights to authors.

Permission to reproduce your own published material

No written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from this journal, or to make photocopies for classroom use. Authors are granted permission, without fee, to photocopy their own material or make printouts from the final pdf of their article. Copies must include a full and accurate bibliographic citation and the following credit line: “Copyright [year] by the American Educational Research Association; reproduced with permission from the publisher.” Written permission must be obtained to reproduce or reprint material in circumstances other than those just described. Please review Sage Publishing’s  Journal Permissions  for further information on policies and fees.

Permission to submit material for which you do not own copyright

Authors who wish to use material, such as figures or tables, for which they do not own the copyright must obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher) and submit it along with their manuscript. However, no written or oral permission is necessary to reproduce a table, a figure, or an excerpt of fewer than 500 words from an AERA journal.

Copyright transfer agreements for accepted works with more than one author

This journal uses a transfer of copyright agreement that requires just one author (the corresponding author) to sign on behalf of all authors. Please identify the corresponding author for your work when submitting your manuscript for review. The corresponding author will be responsible for the following:

1. Ensuring that all authors are identified on the copyright agreement, and notifying the editorial office of any changes in the authorship.

2. Securing written permission (by letter or e-mail) from each co-author to sign the copyright agreement on the co-author’s behalf.

3. Warranting and indemnifying the journal owner and publisher on behalf of all co-authors. Although such instances are very rare, you should be aware that in the event that a co-author has included content in his or her portion of the article that infringes the copyright of another or is otherwise in violation of any other warranty listed in the agreement, you will be the sole author indemnifying the publisher and the editor of the journal against such violation.

Please contact the publications office at  AERA  if you have questions or if you prefer to use a copyright agreement for all coauthors to sign.

Right of Reply

The right of reply policy encourages comments on recently published articles in AERA publications. They are, of course, subject to the same editorial review and decision process as articles. If the comment is accepted for publication, the editor shall inform the author of the original article. If the author submits a reply to the comment, the reply is also subject to editorial review and decision. The editor may allot a specific amount of journal space for the comment (ordinarily about 1,500 words) and for the reply (ordinarily about 750 words). The reply may appear in the same issue as the comment or in a later issue (Council, June 1980).

If an article is accepted for publication in an AERA journal that, in the judgment of the editor, has as its main theme or thrust a critique of a specific piece of work or a specific line of work associated with an individual or program of research, then the individual or representative of the research program whose work is critiqued should be notified in advance about the upcoming publication and given the opportunity to reply, ideally in the same issue. The author of the original article should also be notified. Normal guidelines for length and review of the reply and publication of a rejoinder by the original article’s author(s) should be followed. Articles in the format “an open letter to …” may constitute prototypical exemplars of the category defined here, but other formats may well be used, and would be included under the qualifications for response prescribed here (Council, January 2002).

Sage Choice and Open Access

If you or your funder wish your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in Sage Choice, subject to payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let Sage know directly if you are choosing Sage Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit  Sage Choice . For more information on open access options and compliance at Sage, including self author archiving deposits (green open access) visit  Sage Publishing Policies  on our Journal Author Gateway.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

Subscription Information

To purchase a non-standard subscription or a back issue, please contact SAGE Customer Services for availability.

[email protected]  +44 (0) 20 7324 8701