Margaret Phillips, Jason B. Reed, Dave Zwicky, Amy S. Van Epps
{"title":"工程学教育系统性审查的范围界定审查","authors":"Margaret Phillips, Jason B. Reed, Dave Zwicky, Amy S. Van Epps","doi":"10.1002/jee.20549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>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).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>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?</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Scope/Method</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"818-837"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20549","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of engineering education systematic reviews\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Phillips, Jason B. Reed, Dave Zwicky, Amy S. Van Epps\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jee.20549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>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).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>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?</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Scope/Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>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.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"volume\":\"113 4\",\"pages\":\"818-837\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20549\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20549\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20549","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景 系统综述或系统文献综述(SLR)方法是循证决策的有力工具。这种方法起源于医学科学,但后来被其他学科采用,包括工程教育 (EE)。 目的 我们旨在回答两个研究问题:(i) SLR 研究方法在工程教育中的应用程度如何?(ii) 在 EE 中发表的 SLR 在多大程度上遵循了该方法的既定报告准则? 范围/方法 我们检索了 Inspec、Compendex 和 ERIC 中与工程相关的 SLR 和荟萃分析 (MA)。我们收录了包含明确 SLR 检索的英文论文,或作者似乎有意采用该方法的论文。我们完成了 21 个描述性和质量相关项目(包括工程学科)的数据提取过程,从而确定了本文分析的 EE 研究。 结果 本子分析介绍了 276 篇 EE 相关综述的结果。我们发现,SLR/MA 方法在 EE 中的使用越来越多,在 2015-2022 年间发表的论文中占 93%。然而,我们发现,作者在报告其方法和研究结果时普遍没有遵循既定的指导方针。 结论 不遵循开展和报告 SLR 的最佳实践,可能会因遗漏证据而导致提交不正确的摘要和分析。让受过进行 SLR 培训的检索专家(如图书馆员)参与进来可以提高综述质量。与电子工程相关的出版商也有机会招募在进行 SLR 方面受过培训的专家作为同行评审员,参与评估提交的综述。
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 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.