Reciprocal Benefits of Engaging Undergraduate Researchers in Conducting a Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Purpose This project used a reflective practice framework to examine outcomes of an undergraduate student–faculty collaborative research project. The project examined benefits of undergraduate contributions to a large-scale systematic review and explore benefits to the students. Conclusions Throughout a large literature search process, two student researchers documented their reflections, including field notes and written reflections about their personal learning. Students completed searches of articles about speech and language impairments associated with right hemisphere damage. In the process, a repository of articles was created for further examination by a writing committee of the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences. Student accuracy in identifying potential articles that met inclusion criteria was measured by comparing student inclusions to those identified by committee members. Authors examined student reflection outcomes in the context of existing research about student–faculty collaborative research outcomes. Broad-based student outcomes included improvements in understanding the research process, collaboration skills, and confidence, along with opportunities to network/disseminate findings, focus career interests, and foster continued interest in research. Outcomes specific to the project included an increase in topic knowledge and increased accuracy in identifying articles that met inclusion criteria. The two undergraduate student researchers were able to search and identify potential articles for the systematic review. This provided an opportunity to become more proficient in searching databases and interpreting articles. Beyond direct contributions to the systematic review project, both undergraduates reported growth as student learners, researchers, and future clinicians. The students also report ongoing interests in research and considering academic careers.

Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs

“…The Land and Booth (2020) course was scheduled in the penultimate year of the program in order to provide students with the skills needed to conduct a systematic review/meta-analysis capstone project in the final year. Case studies and student reflections have shown that students perceive their participation in systematic reviews as leading to their growth as student learners and researchers, and helps form their identities as academics (Look et al, 2020;Pickering et al, 2015).…”

Role and Level of Engagement of Peer Researchers in Systematic Reviews: A Review Article

“…There was no uniformity in the number of peerresearchers involved in the consulted systematic reviews: it varied from one [21] to three [19] Two articles included two peer-researchers (18,20). None of the seven articles described a rationale as to why they chose a certain number of peer researchers.…”

“…There is a diversity in characteristics of peerresearchers involved in the different articles. Four articles reported the involvement of patients as peer researchers [18,19,20,21], one study mentions salaried workers, health trainers, volunteer health champions, and program coordinators as peer researchers [22], while in one other study undergraduate students were mentioned as peer researchers, and in another study members of Canada's indigenous community (from Nunatsiavut) were included as peer researcher [22].…”

“…Although one study stated that peer-researchers participated in the design, methodology, and analysis of the results, there is no detailed description of roles during each stage [19]. Interpretation of findings, gaps in studies, interpreting the abstracted data in a realist framework, and outlining the context and outcomes of individual studies were some roles described in one systematic review [21]. Conversely, tasks such as identification of study design or comparison groups in addition to assessments of bias or quality of studies were classified as activities that peer-researchers were unable to execute [21].…”

“…Interpretation of findings, gaps in studies, interpreting the abstracted data in a realist framework, and outlining the context and outcomes of individual studies were some roles described in one systematic review [21]. Conversely, tasks such as identification of study design or comparison groups in addition to assessments of bias or quality of studies were classified as activities that peer-researchers were unable to execute [21]. There is no step-by-step process described on how peer researchers were instructed to carry out these roles.…”