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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2024-10, Vol.113 (4), p.818-837
Hauptverfasser: Phillips, Margaret, Reed, Jason B., Zwicky, Dave, Van Epps, Amy S.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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