ArticleEcology and evolution2022
Real-life research projects improve student engagement and provide reliable data for academics.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social Justice, Science Agency, and Collaborations: Using Participatory Science to Enhance Learning Outcomes in Postsecondary STEM Courses.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- Eco-Microbiology: A Frugal-Circular Framework for Biosafe, Low-Cost Practical Microbiology in Secondary Education.Microbial biotechnology · 2026Review
- Using a Transdisciplinary Approach in Learning Communities for Designing Wearable Stress Management for Vulnerable Populations: Development and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Real-life research projects improve student engagement and provide reliable data for academics.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Student engagement can have a positive influence on student success. Many methods exist for fostering engagement but tend to be generic and require tailoring to specific contexts, subjects, and students. In the case of undergraduate science students, practical classes are a popular tool for increasing engagement. However, despite strong potential for improvement via links with "real life" research projects (RLRPs), few academic staff incorporate research participation with teaching activities. This is potentially due to poor time availability and low opinions of students' ability to collect reliable data. This study aims to examine whether involvement with RLRPs can generate reliable scientific data and also act as a motivational tool for engaging tertiary science students. A preexisting core activity for first-year biology and marine biology students was modified to include a short RLRP component. Student-based data collection and a questionnaire about experiences were used to examine the reliability of student-collected data and student perceptions of RLRPs. Results indicated that error rate in student-collected data was minimal. Irrespective of participating in a "normal" practical class or a class with a RLRP component, students collected equally accurate data. However, when the topic aligned specifically with their degree subject, student accuracy was higher. All students surveyed reported high motivation with the idea of RLRP participation, placing high importance on this from an educational and employability perspective. Yet, students were not confident about participating in RLRPs until they had engaged with one, suggesting that introducing such projects into taught sessions early-on may encourage students to seek further opportunities in the future. In conclusion, incorporating RLRPs into the curriculum of undergraduate science courses has considerable potential benefits for both students and academic staff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.