A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews.
Saved in:
| Title: | A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Phillips, Margaret1 (AUTHOR) phill201@purdue.edu, Reed, Jason B.1 (AUTHOR), Zwicky, Dave1 (AUTHOR), Van Epps, Amy S.2 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Engineering Education. Oct2024, Vol. 113 Issue 4, p818-837. 20p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Engineering education, Data extraction, Research questions, Medical sciences, English language |
| Abstract: | Background: Systematic review or systematic literature review (SLR) methodologies are a powerful tool for evidence‐based decision making. The method originated in the medical sciences but has since been adopted by other disciplines, including engineering education (EE). Purpose: We aimed to answer two research questions: (i) To what extent is the SLR research method being applied in EE? (ii) How closely are SLRs published in EE following established reporting guidelines for the methodology? Scope/Method: We searched Inspec, Compendex, and ERIC for engineering‐related SLRs and meta‐analyses (MAs). We included English language papers that contained an explicit SLR search, or where it appeared the methodology was intended by the author(s). We completed a data extraction process for 21 descriptive and quality‐related items, including engineering discipline, which allowed us to identify the EE studies analyzed in this article. Results: This sub‐analysis presents the results of 276 EE‐related reviews. We found the use of SLR/MA methods is growing in EE, with 93% of papers published during 2015–2022. However, we found that authors are not generally following established guidelines for reporting their methods and findings. Conclusions: Not following the best practices for conducting and reporting SLRs can result in the presentation of incorrect summaries and analyses due to missed evidence. Including search experts (e.g., librarians) trained in conducting SLRs can improve review quality. There is also an opportunity for EE‐related publishers to recruit experts trained in conducting SLRs as peer reviewers to participate in evaluating submitted reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Systematic review or systematic literature review (SLR) methodologies are a powerful tool for evidence‐based decision making. The method originated in the medical sciences but has since been adopted by other disciplines, including engineering education (EE). Purpose: We aimed to answer two research questions: (i) To what extent is the SLR research method being applied in EE? (ii) How closely are SLRs published in EE following established reporting guidelines for the methodology? Scope/Method: We searched Inspec, Compendex, and ERIC for engineering‐related SLRs and meta‐analyses (MAs). We included English language papers that contained an explicit SLR search, or where it appeared the methodology was intended by the author(s). We completed a data extraction process for 21 descriptive and quality‐related items, including engineering discipline, which allowed us to identify the EE studies analyzed in this article. Results: This sub‐analysis presents the results of 276 EE‐related reviews. We found the use of SLR/MA methods is growing in EE, with 93% of papers published during 2015–2022. However, we found that authors are not generally following established guidelines for reporting their methods and findings. Conclusions: Not following the best practices for conducting and reporting SLRs can result in the presentation of incorrect summaries and analyses due to missed evidence. Including search experts (e.g., librarians) trained in conducting SLRs can improve review quality. There is also an opportunity for EE‐related publishers to recruit experts trained in conducting SLRs as peer reviewers to participate in evaluating submitted reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10694730 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jee.20549 |
