Insights from an Umbrella Review of Digital Storytelling
EDUCATION SCIENCES, cilt.16, sa.7, ss.1-30, 2026 (ESCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Derleme
- Cilt numarası: 16 Sayı: 7
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Dergi Adı: EDUCATION SCIENCES
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest), Education Collection (ProQuest), Education Source Ultimate (EBSCO), Scopus, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Educational research abstracts (ERA), EBSCO Education Source, Psycinfo, Directory of Open Access Journals
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-30
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- Akdeniz Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
This study synthesised reviews to identify methodological indicators that are instrumental in informing claims regarding digital storytelling (DST) outcomes and effectiveness across fields. An umbrella review methodology was employed, following the PRISMA-ScR reporting framework, with the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework guiding research question formulation. Four databases were searched, yielding 1656 records. Following independent screening by two reviewers, 19 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal was conducted using the JBI checklist, and content and thematic synthesis were subsequently performed using MAXQDA 26. Findings related to publication indicators revealed a gradual increase in DST reviews between 2016 and 2025, with qualitative systematic reviews being the most prevalent type. In terms of geographic distribution, most reviews were conducted by researchers based in Türkiye, with notable gaps in South American and African contexts. Analysis on contextual indicators demonstrated that the majority of reviews adopted a configurative review orientation regarding micro-level practices across health-related, general education, and language education fields. Drawing on participants from both formal and non-formal settings, these reviews primarily reported outcomes across eight domains. Regarding methodological indicators, the analysis revealed a lack of uniformity and considerable variation in the use and reporting of quality assessment, theoretical and pedagogical frameworks, technological tools, and measurement instruments. Key recommendations include prioritising meta-analytic and mixed-method reviews, encouraging research in underrepresented regions, examining DST at meso- and macro-levels, and systematically integrating and reporting key methodological indicators in future reviews.