University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Educational research has as one of its goals the provision of research evidence to support or change practice and in recent years there has been considerable debate over what constitutes „good evidence‟. Broadly speaking, there has been an increasing focus on research methods which have apparent claims to greater objectivity – such as systematic reviewing and meta-analysis – when compared to the narrative reviews previously more common in the educational research paradigm. This paper draws on our experience of conducting systematic reviews of the impact of thinking skills interventions on learners and teachers for the EPPI-Centre‟s Research Evidence in Education Library (REEL) commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills. It examines the benefits of systematic reviewing for reinforcing the „evidence base ‟ and its limitations in terms of providing guidance for new developments