Rethinking Systematic Review Assignment Design in Graduate Health Science Education from Librarians' Perspectives

Background: This article examines the problematic phenomenon of faculty assigning graduate health science students systematic reviews as semester-based assignments while expecting a health science librarian to be a willing support system for those students. Despite published conduct and reporting guidelines establishing that systematic reviews require a team, time, and methodological expertise, some faculty still turn to full systematic review assignments in the classroom. The authors propose applying cognitive load theory and chunking the systematic review process into manageable steps, allowing both faculty and students to better understand the required methodologies and to enhance educational outcomes. Experience: The authors have often been invited to visit classes where faculty have required students to complete a full systematic review. These assignments often result in frustration among faculty, librarians, and students stemming from the faculty’s limited experience with the methodology and students feeling overwhelmed by the process. While the authors’ experiences with suggesting the adaptable assignments to faculty is limited at the time of this publication, it is the hope of the authors that by sharing these concepts with other health science librarians, the trend of adapting more appropriate review assignments will expand. Discussion: Through applying cognitive load theory and chunking principles to simplify the systematic review process, the authors propose approaches to systematic review research methods that can improve the educational process, ameliorate faculty workload, and enhance student learning outcomes. As a result, students will be more prepared in future research endeavors. Challenges include faculty adoption and acceptance of different approaches to systematic review assignments, and a further burden on the librarians who support these types of assignments. Takeaways: The authors aim to raise faculty awareness of proper systematic review methodologies by offering alternative assignments that enhance student learning outcomes and alleviate the librarian's teaching burden. Initial attempts to promote these adaptations have shown promise, with some faculty successfully revising their syllabi and capstone projects to align with the suggested modifications. Future research will include webinars for faculty on systematic review methodologies, followed by ongoing evaluations of how these modifications impact the health science curriculum.