Cross-sectional analysis highlights student experiences in a novel research methodology module, suggesting teaching improvements.
Background: Teaching research methodology (RM) to rehabilitation undergraduates is challenging. Students perceive research modules as daunting and struggle to link clinical and research components. Innovative approaches are needed to better prepare students for practice and research. Aim: This study aimed to describe student feedback on a new RM module for rehabilitation undergraduates. Setting: The study was conducted at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Methods: This cross-sectional study analysed anonymous survey feedback throughout pilot implementation. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data thematically. The total sample included 93 3rd-year students (47 physiotherapy, 26 speech-language therapy), with 46 physiotherapy students continuing in their 4th year. Response rates ranged from 13.0% to 69.6%. Results: Most students found the pace and number of activities appropriate. Online engagement was high (69% always engaged). Interest in research decreased from module start (68.5% interested or very interested) to end (43.8%). Topic-specific feedback showed the highest ratings for ethics (8.9/10) and equity (8.7/10). Students appreciated interactive elements and creative teaching approaches but desired more discipline-specific content. Few students reported feeling ‘very confident’ in applying research skills despite high ratings for learning outcome clarity. Conclusion: The new module demonstrated the value of innovative pedagogical approaches in making research concepts accessible, particularly through scaffolded storytelling and equity-focused content. Persistent challenges exist in maintaining interest and building application confidence. Contribution: This study provides recommendations for rehabilitation sciences RM teaching. Similar designs should balance creative analogies with discipline-specific applications, provide structured opportunities for practical application, and consider multimedia resource quality and quantity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: