A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews
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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2024-10, Vol.113 (4), p.818-837 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 837 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 818 |
container_title | Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) |
container_volume | 113 |
creator | Phillips, Margaret Reed, Jason B. Zwicky, Dave Van Epps, Amy S. |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jee.20549 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3118620509</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3118620509</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3329-f8e48ca738ed9ba4080194a43acaf077934beedc008be53a020156b500b3a57d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PwzAMhiMEEmVw4B9U4sShm9OkbSJxmabypUlc4BylqTul2tqStEz993R0V062rMe23oeQewpLChCvasRlDAmXFySIaSoiKRhckoBCKiOeMbgmN97XACAhzQLytA69aTvb7EKHPxaPYVuF2Oxsg-hOUywHo3vbNqEffY-HqTdn1N-Sq0rvPd6d64J8Peefm9do-_HytllvI8NYLKNKIBdGZ0xgKQvNQQCVXHOmja4gyyTjBWJpAESBCdMQA03SIgEomE6yki3Iw3y3c-33gL5XdTu4ZnqpGKUinQKDnKjHmTKu9d5hpTpnD9qNioI6yVGTHPUnZ2JXM3u0exz_B9V7ns8bv-suZTk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3118620509</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Phillips, Margaret ; Reed, Jason B. ; Zwicky, Dave ; Van Epps, Amy S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Margaret ; Reed, Jason B. ; Zwicky, Dave ; Van Epps, Amy S.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-4730</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-9830</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jee.20549</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Best practice ; Engineering education ; evidence synthesis ; Guidelines ; knowledge synthesis ; librarians ; Literature reviews ; Medical science ; meta‐analysis ; research methods ; systematic reviews</subject><ispartof>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.), 2024-10, Vol.113 (4), p.818-837</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Engineering Education.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3329-f8e48ca738ed9ba4080194a43acaf077934beedc008be53a020156b500b3a57d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3329-f8e48ca738ed9ba4080194a43acaf077934beedc008be53a020156b500b3a57d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5986-5952 ; 0000-0002-2702-0840 ; 0000-0003-4511-8355 ; 0000-0001-6712-9413</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjee.20549$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjee.20549$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reed, Jason B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwicky, Dave</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Epps, Amy S.</creatorcontrib><title>A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews</title><title>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</title><description>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.</description><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Engineering education</subject><subject>evidence synthesis</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>knowledge synthesis</subject><subject>librarians</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Medical science</subject><subject>meta‐analysis</subject><subject>research methods</subject><subject>systematic reviews</subject><issn>1069-4730</issn><issn>2168-9830</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1PwzAMhiMEEmVw4B9U4sShm9OkbSJxmabypUlc4BylqTul2tqStEz993R0V062rMe23oeQewpLChCvasRlDAmXFySIaSoiKRhckoBCKiOeMbgmN97XACAhzQLytA69aTvb7EKHPxaPYVuF2Oxsg-hOUywHo3vbNqEffY-HqTdn1N-Sq0rvPd6d64J8Peefm9do-_HytllvI8NYLKNKIBdGZ0xgKQvNQQCVXHOmja4gyyTjBWJpAESBCdMQA03SIgEomE6yki3Iw3y3c-33gL5XdTu4ZnqpGKUinQKDnKjHmTKu9d5hpTpnD9qNioI6yVGTHPUnZ2JXM3u0exz_B9V7ns8bv-suZTk</recordid><startdate>202410</startdate><enddate>202410</enddate><creator>Phillips, Margaret</creator><creator>Reed, Jason B.</creator><creator>Zwicky, Dave</creator><creator>Van Epps, Amy S.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4T-</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5986-5952</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2702-0840</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4511-8355</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-9413</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202410</creationdate><title>A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews</title><author>Phillips, Margaret ; Reed, Jason B. ; Zwicky, Dave ; Van Epps, Amy S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3329-f8e48ca738ed9ba4080194a43acaf077934beedc008be53a020156b500b3a57d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Engineering education</topic><topic>evidence synthesis</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>knowledge synthesis</topic><topic>librarians</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Medical science</topic><topic>meta‐analysis</topic><topic>research methods</topic><topic>systematic reviews</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reed, Jason B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwicky, Dave</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Epps, Amy S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><jtitle>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Phillips, Margaret</au><au>Reed, Jason B.</au><au>Zwicky, Dave</au><au>Van Epps, Amy S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews</atitle><jtitle>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle><date>2024-10</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>113</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>818</spage><epage>837</epage><pages>818-837</pages><issn>1069-4730</issn><eissn>2168-9830</eissn><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><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/jee.20549</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5986-5952</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2702-0840</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4511-8355</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-9413</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1069-4730 |
ispartof | Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.), 2024-10, Vol.113 (4), p.818-837 |
issn | 1069-4730 2168-9830 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3118620509 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Best practice Engineering education evidence synthesis Guidelines knowledge synthesis librarians Literature reviews Medical science meta‐analysis research methods systematic reviews |
title | A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T15%3A50%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20scoping%20review%20of%20engineering%20education%20systematic%20reviews&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20engineering%20education%20(Washington,%20D.C.)&rft.au=Phillips,%20Margaret&rft.date=2024-10&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=818&rft.epage=837&rft.pages=818-837&rft.issn=1069-4730&rft.eissn=2168-9830&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jee.20549&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3118620509%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3118620509&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |