Psychology students' perceptions of the extent to which group-based systematic review methodology at Honours level prepared them for further postgraduate studies.

Abstract

Honours students in Psychology typically form larger cohorts with numbers ranging from 20 to 40 students in comparison to other disciplines that have fewer than 10 students in a cohort. The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) requires Honours students to complete a thesis that is equivalent to 300 notional hours or 30 credits. The learning outcome is that students conduct low level research that prepares them for conceptualizing, executing and writing up a research project. The thesis requirement should also prepare them for future studies. The larger cohorts and revised NQF thesis requirement places increased pressure on the staff compliment of Psychology departments. Some of the ways in which departments have attempted to cope with this increased demand include conducting group-based research projects, and secondary research projects. One of the concerns raised is whether these particular types of methodology prepared students adequately for reactive research in further studies. This study aimed to explore students' subjective perceptions about the extent to which group-based systematic review methodology in the Honours year adequately prepared students for conducting research during their masters-level studies. An explorative study was conducted to explore the experiences of purposively selected recent graduates from two identified Honours programmes that have progressed to Masters level studies. Participants were invited on the basis of being graduates or alumni rather than their registration status as Masters students at particular universities.