Original Research

Lessons from student feedback on a novel research methodology module for undergraduate rehabilitation sciences at a South African university

Karina Berner, Conran Joseph, Quinette A. Louw

Received: 09 May 2025; Accepted: 28 Oct. 2025; Published: 08 Jan. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

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.

Keywords: interprofessional education; online health education; South African health education; student feedback; research competencies; research methodology education; research methods training; undergraduate rehabilitation sciences.

Introduction

It is well documented that teaching research methodology (RM) to undergraduate students is challenging, and the same holds true in the context of rehabilitation sciences (Charumbira, Berner & Louw 2021). A persistent challenge in rehabilitation education is that students perceive research training as intimidating and struggle to understand its relevance to clinical practice (Reddy 2018; Tiwari, Arya & Bansal 2017). This disconnect can lead to a lack of motivation and engagement, potentially impacting the development of crucial professional competencies (Peachey, Baller & Schubert 2018). Moreover, educators in rehabilitation sciences have reported time constraints, a lack of integration between theory and practice, and variable student motivation and confidence as common issues encountered in undergraduate evidence-based health care teaching and learning, particularly research-focused courses (Schoonees, Rohwer & Young 2017).

For rehabilitation undergraduates, these obstacles are compounded by the evolving landscape of rehabilitation research. Recent advances in the field have called for a paradigm shift towards broader, interdisciplinary rehabilitation research that moves beyond traditional approaches (Greenhalgh et al. 2014; Negrini 2019). This includes a shift towards more interprofessional approaches, acknowledging that rehabilitation interventions often require coordinated input from multiple disciplines to address complex patient needs effectively (Ciapponi et al. 2017; Hustoft et al. 2019). In addition, growing evidence suggests that traditional evidence hierarchies – which prioritise randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews – are often unsuitable for rehabilitation sciences, where interventions are typically complex, context-dependent and difficult to standardise (Greenhalgh et al. 2014). The multimodal, highly individualised nature of rehabilitation interventions often makes them poorly suited to conventional experimental designs, necessitating more flexible approaches to evidence generation and evaluation (Meyer & Wulff 2019; Negrini 2019; Negrini et al. 2019).

Of particular importance is the growing recognition that equity considerations must be central to rehabilitation education (Quigley, Myezwa & McArthur 2023; Sekome et al. 2023). Rehabilitation professionals work in contexts deeply affected by social determinants of health, requiring them to understand how factors such as socio-economic status, education, gender, sexuality, race and disability impact health outcomes and access to rehabilitation services (Quigley et al. 2023). The PROGRESS-Plus framework (Place of residence, race and ethnicity, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital, plus age, disability, and sexual orientation) offers a structured approach to considering these factors in rehabilitation research and practice (Cochrane Methods Equity, n.d.). In South Africa specifically, where historical and persistent inequities shape healthcare access and outcomes, preparing rehabilitation students to conduct and consume research through an equity lens becomes not just pedagogically sound but ethically imperative.

Additionally, clear guidance on essential research competencies for rehabilitation students remains lacking, with a prevailing overemphasis on evidence-based practice skills at the expense of other crucial areas such as soft skills and professional ethics (Charumbira et al. 2021). This imbalance may result in graduates who lack confidence in designing and conducting contextually relevant research. Inconsistencies in teaching methods and timing of research skills introduction have furthermore highlighted a need for a tailored, multi-tiered approach to research competency development in rehabilitation curricula (Charumbira et al. 2021; Helgøy et al. 2021; Reddy 2018).

In response to these challenges, innovative approaches to RM education are needed to better prepare rehabilitation students for the realities of current and evolving clinical practice and research (Berman 2013; Vuurberg et al. 2019). Such approaches should balance methodological rigour with creative engagement strategies while fostering critical consciousness about equity and diversity in rehabilitation research. Stellenbosch University’s Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences recently undertook a comprehensive situational analysis to revise undergraduate RM training (Berner et al. 2022). This process involved multiple steps, including consideration of the unique needs of rehabilitation practice, the transforming global rehabilitation research landscape, and the complexity of rehabilitation in terms of what it is, and its varying degree and extent of availability. Simultaneously, a scoping review on research competencies for undergraduate rehabilitation students (Charumbira et al. 2021), a document review of existing research methods training in the department was conducted, and stakeholder input was sought at various levels (Berner et al. 2022). The resulting redesigned module adopted a competency-focused design aimed at cultivating specific research skills identified during the situational analysis (Berner et al. 2022).

The module design is grounded in constructivist educational theory, emphasising active knowledge construction over passive learning. Content promotes research understanding through collaborative work, scaffolding and self-guided learning, focusing on the ‘what and why’ of research rather than merely procedural steps (Berner et al. 2022; Goldmann et al. 2018). It incorporates creative teaching strategies such as storytelling and real-world analogies to make abstract concepts accessible while connecting RM to clinical practice through a case study project based on students’ clinical rotations. A key feature is its emphasis on equity in rehabilitation research, teaching students to consider how social determinants shape rehabilitation needs and outcomes using frameworks such as PROGRESS-Plus.

The module also acknowledges the changing nature of evidence in rehabilitation practice, which may be largely because of the challenges related to the adoption – namely, transferability – of rehabilitation interventions that are often multimodal and containing principles that may not yet be part of local rehabilitation packages and interventions. The module introduces students to a range of research designs and concepts with a view of cultivating pragmatic researchers skilled in using the strengths of various methodological approaches – quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods – to address different rehabilitation questions (i.e. methodological pluralism) (Onwuegbuzie & Leech 2005a, 2005b). The module furthermore emphasises the importance of patient-centred approaches, encouraging students to consider how research can incorporate patient priorities, preferences and experiences as legitimate sources of knowledge. Content delivery is through a fully online blended approach (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton 2018). The online format was adopted prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for pedagogical and institutional reasons: to accommodate differing timetables across rehabilitation divisions, facilitate interprofessional learning and align with the university’s strategic emphasis on technology-enhanced education (Berner et al. 2022).

Given the evolving landscape of rehabilitation research and education, continuous evaluation of RM training remains essential. As immediate stakeholders and experts in their learning experience, student feedback is crucial in tertiary education, providing valuable data for quality improvement and accountability (Okogbaa 2016). Their expectations and preferences regarding research education change over time and are influenced by various factors including cultural context, gender, age and institutional setting (Munabi et al. 2016). These shifting perspectives necessitate regular reassessment of teaching approaches, even when addressing seemingly persistent challenges in research education. Understanding how students respond to innovative teaching strategies, equity-focused content and blended learning approaches can inform refinements to RM modules and contribute to broader conversations about effective research education in complex rehabilitation settings. This study aimed to describe student feedback on a newly developed RM module for undergraduate rehabilitation students, with particular focus on content, delivery methods and student engagement.

Research methods and design

Study design and setting

This cross-sectional study reports on anonymous student feedback collected via routine quality assurance surveys from undergraduate students in the Divisions of Physiotherapy and Speech-Language Therapy at Stellenbosch University’s Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western Cape, South Africa.

Population and sampling strategy

This study used a census approach, inviting all undergraduate students enrolled in aspects of the research methods module across two programmes to participate. This included Bachelor of Science (BSc) Physiotherapy students enrolled in the RM 372 module in 2021 and the subsequent RM 472 module in 2022, and Bachelor of Speech-Language and Hearing Therapy students taking the Speech-Language and Hearing Therapy (SPH) 364: ‘Research as a Professional Function’ module in 2023. No exclusion criteria were applied beyond voluntary non-participation, with the aim to provide comprehensive representation of student perspectives on the new module. By analysing routinely collected educational feedback rather than conducting specialised research surveys, we obtained a more naturalistic representation of student perspectives, although we anticipated variable response rates across different questionnaires. This approach potentially reduced certain response biases common in targeted research surveys, while acknowledging the inherent limitation of typically lower response rates observed in educational feedback collection.

Module design and implementation

The online RM training module was implemented starting 2021, and its conceptualisation and design have been reported in detail (Berner et al. 2022). The module was designed to comply with the Health Professions Council of South Africa’s (HPCSA) minimum requirements for RM training across rehabilitation (Berner et al. 2022). The module extends over the 2 final years of the 4-year academic programme (commencement coinciding with the rehabilitation students’ first clinical rotations, i.e. in their 3rd year of study). Initially piloted with 3rd-year physiotherapy students in semester two of 2021, the module continued into their 4th year (2022). Selected content was subsequently integrated into the 3rd-year Speech-Language Therapy research curriculum in semester two of 2023.

The module was designed to cultivate a culture of students as ‘doers and translators’ of clinical research, rather than passive users. Twenty-two core competencies were compiled from a situational analysis (leadership meetings, scoping review and content review) and were synthesised into five categories namely (1) core research competencies specific to rehabilitation, (2) reasoning and thinking skills, (3) soft skills, (4) inquiry and scientific literature and (5) evidence-based practice (Berner et al. 2022). Examples of ‘fun’ elements included the use of a scaffolded real-world storytelling approach, such as using a ‘how to design the perfect holiday’ narrative to explain research concepts. An overview of the module topics, learning objectives, and examples of learning and teaching activities for each session is provided in Online Appendix 1. The fully online mode included a blend of short podcasts, interactive online activities, synchronous online check-in sessions and group projects. A strong asynchronous learning element applied, particularly in terms of listening to podcasts and interacting with learning resources, to enable students to have foundational conceptual knowledge by the time they engaged with peers and facilitators during synchronous sessions. A case study approach with a focus on equity factors – linking to students’ clinical rotations and incorporating a limited but systematic literature review – was used for the main research project to provide real-world application. The research project incorporated a custom-developed framework (Patient-FIT) to structure data collection and facilitate comparisons between case patients and literature findings. Patient-FIT is an acronym for PROGRESS-Plus, Accessibility of care, TIDieR elements of intervention, Empowerment of end-user, Networks, Timeliness, and Funding, Information and communication technology, and Threats. This framework was designed to assess equity and contextual factors that might influence rehabilitation intervention outcomes (Berner et al. 2022), thereby supporting the translation of evidence into context-specific clinical practice. Patient-FIT incorporates several key elements: PROGRESS-Plus factors (Cochrane Methods Equity 2018), healthcare access dimensions, TIDieR intervention components (Hoffmann et al. 2014), patient empowerment considerations, support networks, intervention timing, funding sources, information and communication technology availability, and potential implementation threats.

Data collection tool

The survey instrument used was adapted from Stellenbosch University’s Teaching and Learning standardised questionnaire for undergraduate module evaluation (Stellenbosch University Centre for Teaching and Learning), which was modified to address the specific requirements of the RM module. The questionnaire explored multiple dimensions of the learning experience, including students’ interest in research, module pacing, clarity of learning objectives, content delivery methods, learning activities, online participation, workload and confidence in applying knowledge gained. It employed a mix of Likert scales (ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), numerical ratings (such as rating topics out of 10 for learning experience and out of 5 for interest and clarity), and open-ended questions to capture both quantitative and qualitative data. This article primarily focuses on the quantitative metrics (although qualitative justifications to rating questions are presented here), while the in-depth qualitative perspectives specifically focusing on the module’s online nature are reported elsewhere (Louw et al. 2025).

The instrument comprised both overall module evaluation sections and topic-specific feedback components, allowing for comprehensive assessment of both general impressions and reactions to particular content areas. While this tailored approach enhanced the specificity of the evaluation, potential limitations include questionnaire fatigue given the multiple administration points. Online Appendix 2 lists the questions and response options used across all surveys.

Data collection procedures

Data collection began in June 2021 and continued throughout the module implementation. Students completed surveys at multiple time points: after each topic and through three longer evaluation forms (at module start, 3rd-year conclusion and 4th-year completion). The full survey (20 min – 30 min) was completed at the start and end of the 3rd-year physiotherapy module in 2021 and at the end of the 4th-year module in 2022. The short topic survey (5 min – 10 min) was completed after each topic was taught. Speech-Language and Hearing Therapy students similarly provided feedback on their selected topics (as these students only completed selected topics rather than the full module, they did not complete the end-of-module survey). Surveys were primarily administered through Stellenbosch University’s Learning Management System (SUNLearn), although speech-language therapy students had the option to complete paper-based forms.

Data analysis

Quantitative data from module evaluation questionnaires were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28.0. Likert scale ratings were reported as frequencies and percentages. Topic-specific feedback included ratings out of 10 for learning experience, and out of 5 for interest and clarity, accompanied by a brief narrative justification. These scores were presented as mean values, while the qualitative justifications were analysed using a deductive thematic approach, guided by a predetermined framework of themes (positive feedback, challenges and/or frustrations and suggestions for improvement).

Ethical considerations

The study received full ethical approval from the Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee on 15 December 2021 (ethics approval number: N21/11/130), including both the retrospective use of feedback collected anonymously before the ethics approval date (2021) and the prospective collection of data (2022–2023). The study followed institutional and national ethical standards and adhered to the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments. Participation in the survey was voluntary, with anonymity maintained throughout. All participants were provided with an informed consent document alongside the survey. For digital submissions, consent was confirmed when participants selected the agreement option prior to completing the online questionnaire. Students who completed paper-based feedback signed a separate consent form, which was collected independently from their survey responses to preserve anonymity.

Results

Sample description

Table 1 summarises the sample demographic characteristics and response rates. The total number of 3rd-year physiotherapy students enrolled on the RM 372 module (2021) was 47 students (85% women) with a mean (standard deviation [s.d.]) age of 22.5 (2.4) years at module commencement. All students (100%) responded to at least one of the questionnaires throughout the year. The total number of 4th-year physiotherapy students enrolled on the RM 472 module (2022) was 46 students (85% women) with a mean (s.d.) age of 23.0 (2.4) years at module commencement. Overall, 43% of the class (85% women) responded to any of the topic-related questionnaires. The total number of 3rd-year speech-language therapy students enrolled on the SPH 364 module (2023) was 26 students (100% women) with a mean age of 21.8 (0.8) years at module commencement. Overall, 10 students (38%) responded to any of the surveys on the selected topics presented in this programme.

Overall impressions on module design and implementation strategies

The longer surveys on overall impressions were administered at three time points during the module. However, as a result of the low response rate (13%, n = 6 out of 47 students) for the midway survey, only data from the initial and final surveys were included in the analysis. Table 2 presents the student feedback on aspects of the module design and implementation strategies collected from these questionnaires. Response rates were 37.6% initially (60% physiotherapy, 27% speech-language therapy students) and 69.6% for the final physiotherapy-only survey. Key findings include a decrease in student (any) interest levels from 68.6% to 43.8% and generally positive responses regarding module content presentation, engagement with online activities, and assessment relevance. Most students (71%) found the number of practical activities appropriate, while 69% felt there were too many YouTube videos. Most students reported learning from peers and feeling confident in applying the material, with 82.8% agreeing that learning activities contributed to their understanding of research methods.

Feedback on specific topics

Figure 1 summarises the feedback on the topics presented during the module and related comments. Students rated all topics above 7 (10 representing an optimal learning experience). In terms of positive experiences, students appreciated clear, concise explanations and interactive elements that made complex research concepts accessible. The use of relatable analogies, practical examples and visual aids was frequently highlighted as effective learning tools. Many found the content interesting and valuable, particularly when directly related to their future careers in rehabilitation sciences. Main frustrations included remaining difficulty grasping certain complex concepts, maintaining concentration during longer or end-of-week sessions, and managing the volume of information within limited time. Some students found certain topics repetitive or felt that the timing of sessions within their broader curriculum could have been optimised. Common suggestions centred on making sessions even more interactive and hands-on, with students desiring more opportunities to practise research skills. Many recommended using more discipline-specific examples to enhance relevance. There were also suggestions to consider the timing and length of sessions to maximise attention and learning.

FIGURE 1: Students’ feedback on specific module topics, including example quotations on positive aspects (✓), frustrations (↓), and suggestions for improvement (→).

FIGURE 1 (Continues...): Students’ feedback on specific module topics, including example quotations on positive aspects (✓), frustrations (↓), and suggestions for improvement (→).

FIGURE 1 (Continues...): Students’ feedback on specific module topics, including example quotations on positive aspects (✓), frustrations (↓), and suggestions for improvement (→).

Discussion

This study described student feedback on a newly developed research training module for undergraduate rehabilitation students at a South African university. Students generally appreciated the creative teaching approaches and clear learning objectives, while expressing concerns regarding research interest over time and confidence in applying research skills. Interpreted against the content and design features of the new module, the findings provide insights into aspects of implementing research methods training for undergraduate rehabilitation students: innovative approaches to RM education, the interplay between creative teaching strategies and professional relevance, and the challenges of sustaining student engagement throughout the learning journey.

The module yielded generally positive feedback, with most students rating the pace as ‘just right’. This finding suggests that the stepwise approach to presenting content allowed for incremental mastery of interrelated research concepts. Moreover, the module was structured to strategically include regular break periods, along with interactive elements and varied teaching formats – design elements that reportedly may contribute to students’ cognitive assimilation and analytical abilities (Lodge & Harrison 2019).

The value of innovative pedagogy in research methods education becomes increasingly important as educational landscapes evolve (Dixit et al. 2024), alongside the continuing need to reimagine how RM is taught to better prepare rehabilitation practitioners for evidence-informed practice in complex healthcare contexts (Berner et al. 2022). While evidence suggests that innovative pedagogical approaches can increase student engagement over time (Dixit et al. 2024), our single pilot implementation cycle prevents commentary in our context and on longer-term impacts. The student feedback indicated a decrease in research interest from module commencement to completion. Although we cannot determine whether the online mode contributed to the decline in interest, students’ strong engagement and positive feedback on the online organisation in our related qualitative study (Louw et al. 2025) suggest the format was unlikely to be a primary barrier. Instead, this observation seems to echo a fundamental challenge in rehabilitation research education. However, it should be observed that these findings may reflect different students responding at different time points rather than a true decrease in individual interest levels, given the difference in response rates. Nevertheless, the results align with observations that clinical interests often overshadow research motivations as rehabilitation students progress (Boshnjaku et al. 2023) – despite efforts to mitigate this, as it is well recognised that strengthening connections between academic and clinical settings remains central to improving evidence-based practice training in rehabilitation curricula (Boshnjaku et al. 2023). The new module’s knowledge translation-focused project, involving clinical stakeholders and case patients along with a literature review, aligns with evidence that such projects may reduce the research-practice gap in rehabilitation sciences (Roberge-Dao et al. 2019). Future longitudinal research will evaluate this project’s impact in this regard.

The module’s ‘fun’ storytelling approaches, like the ‘Bake Us a Cake’ design lecture and ‘Perfect Holiday’ narrative for developing research questions, not only received positive feedback but also revealed a dichotomy between engaging pedagogy and professional relevance. While these creative analogies successfully made abstract concepts accessible, students’ comments requesting more discipline-specific examples suggest the need for direct application to rehabilitation contexts. The incorporation of fun elements aligns with reports that most students value enjoyment in learning as it contributes to motivation and performance (particularly in online learning), although educators should be mindful that some students may perceive fun activities as detracting from learning focus (Okada & Sheehy 2020). Based on our findings, maintaining creative teaching analogies but pairing them immediately with discipline-specific applications may be a more preferable approach. This balance would maintain engagement while reinforcing professional relevance, which appears essential for students in health and rehabilitation sciences (Boshnjaku et al. 2023; Reddy 2018).

The highest-rated topics – ethics and equity in health research – were noteworthy. Content connecting RM to social justice imperatives in rehabilitation may create powerful learning experiences. The timing of these topics within the RM module (3rd year of the 4-year degree) also coincides with the students’ first clinical placements for service delivery in settings such as community health centres and clinics and rural district hospitals. As part of selecting a case participant for the research project, students were encouraged to converse with various stakeholders during their clinical rotation (including the patient) to ensure a project that aligns with aspects of equity and the patient’s context and needs. The module’s emphasis on equity resonated strongly with students. While the central role of including diversity, inclusion and equity in undergraduate rehabilitation education has been acknowledged (Sekome et al. 2023), there is a lack of studies examining equity-focused content as a research competency (Charumbira et al. 2021) or its impact on student engagement in RM education – particularly in contexts facing high levels of inequity in health and rehabilitation care – and these aspects warrant further investigation in future research.

Despite the module’s focus on knowledge translation and its goal of bridging the gap between research and clinical practice, the confidence findings after pilot implementation reveal a persistent challenge in RM education. Few students reported feeling ‘very confident’ in applying specific research skills. This confidence gap persists despite students assigning high ratings for learning outcome clarity and content presentation. The discrepancy between conceptual understanding and application confidence suggests that additional strategies are needed to strengthen students’ sense of competence. The case study approach to the research project was designed to provide authentic context for research skill application. While innovative and aligned with the changing landscape of evidence in rehabilitation sciences (Berner et al. 2022), the limited confidence reported suggests this approach needs further enhancement for future iterations. Undergraduate health sciences students often experience ‘research readiness anxiety’ when transitioning from theoretical understanding to practical application of research skills (Marais et al. 2019). This phenomenon is common, and developing positive research attitudes can help reduce students’ perceived barriers to applying research in practice (Peachey et al. 2018). Implementing more structured opportunities for practical application throughout the module, such as small-scale data collection exercises relevant to students’ clinical experiences, may provide opportunity for improving specific skills towards application confidence. Collaborative, peer-led research activities embedded within clinical practice environments have been shown to enhance student confidence in applying research skills (Peachey et al. 2018), suggesting that incorporating such activities tied to clinical rotations could further bridge the theory-practice divide.

Student feedback on learning resources revealed that while the content was generally well-received, most students felt there were too many external videos. The integration of technology in education requires educators to carefully evaluate which digital tools best support specific learning objectives. A systematic review of the use of online technology in physiotherapy curricula (Mącznik, Ribeiro & Baxter 2015) found that personal preferences for different learning formats can influence engagement with digital resources. Despite our efforts to vary the types of multimedia resources, this particular cohort appeared to prefer other formats. A balanced approach that strategically integrates selected high-quality multimedia elements can enhance the connection between learning objectives and content delivery. Future iterations of the module should consider both the quantity and format of digital resources to better align with student preferences while strategically matching these to specific learning objectives. Regular reviews of all multimedia content should be conducted to ensure continuous alignment with learning objectives, remove redundant materials and replace less effective resources with more targeted alternatives.

Implications for practice

Based on our learnings following pilot implementation of an innovative, online RM module for rehabilitation undergraduates, we offer the following practical recommendations:

• Create a RM roadmap: Develop and share a visual representation of how research concepts, along with course objectives and outcomes, build upon each other and contribute to the final research project. This roadmap should be introduced at the beginning of the module and referenced regularly to help students understand connections between topics.
• Enhance application opportunities: Implement structured, progressive application exercises that move from simple to complex, allowing students to build confidence incrementally while receiving regular feedback on their performance. Small-scale data collection exercises linked to clinical experiences is one example.
• Balance creative and discipline-specific content: Maintain engaging analogies but immediately pair them with rehabilitation-specific examples to reinforce professional relevance.
• Diversify and streamline multimedia resources: Ensure a diverse, targeted set of multimedia resources that align closely with specific learning objectives. Conduct regular reviews of all digital content to ensure alignment with student preferences and learning goals.
• Prioritise equity-focused content: Expand examples that address health disparities relevant to local rehabilitation contexts and the application of frameworks such as the PROGRESS-Plus to enhance overall engagement with RM.
• Introduce more opportunities for peer-led research activities connected to clinical rotations (and clinical modules) to bridge the theory-practice divide and address the confidence gap identified in applying research skills.

Strengths and limitations

Collecting both immediate and longer-term feedback across multiple topics provided a relatively comprehensive view of the module’s reception. Combining quantitative survey ratings with qualitative comments enabled a nuanced understanding of student experiences. However, several limitations should be observed. Firstly, response rates varied considerably across surveys, potentially introducing selection bias. Secondly, the study focuses exclusively on student perceptions and does not assess objective measures of learning outcomes or research competency development. Thirdly, the study captures a relatively short timeframe and a first-time implementation, and thus cannot speak to the long-term impact of the module on students’ research skills or attitudes. Fourthly, although the survey instrument was adapted from an established institutional quality assurance tool, it was not subjected to formal psychometric validation following modifications. This limits our ability to make claims about measurement precision or consistency. However, we retained the original question wording where possible, made only contextual adaptations (such as inserting relevant topic names), and triangulated quantitative ratings with qualitative responses to strengthen the interpretation of the findings. Findings should be interpreted as student perceptions of their learning experiences rather than as validated measures of educational effectiveness. Finally, the study was conducted at a single South African university, limiting the generalisability of findings to other institutional contexts. Different resource availability, student demographics and curriculum structures across institutions may influence how similar pedagogical approaches are received elsewhere. Multi-institutional research would strengthen the external validity of these findings.

We envisage future research to include longitudinal studies tracking how research competencies develop over time and after graduation, and evaluations of how specific module components contribute to research confidence and competence. Future research should explore relationships between student perceptions and measured learning outcomes to provide a more complete picture of module effectiveness. In addition, investigating faculty perspectives on teaching the RM coursework would provide valuable complementary insights.

Conclusion

This study described undergraduate rehabilitation students’ feedback on a newly developed RM module at a South African university. Our findings confirm that while persistent challenges exist – particularly in maintaining interest and building application confidence – innovative approaches can make research concepts more accessible. Students particularly valued content that connected RM to equity elements, especially relevant in settings with pronounced healthcare inequities. The scaffolded storytelling and equity-focused case studies employed in this module offer transferable strategies for other rehabilitation programmes, although these should be balanced with discipline-specific applications and structured opportunities for practical application. Future RM teaching should carefully consider both quality and quantity of multimedia resources while strengthening explicit connections between theory and clinical practice.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all study participants. They are also grateful to all relevant staff from the Stellenbosch University Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences who were involved in the implementation and evaluation of the new research methods module.

Karina Berner, Conran Joseph and Quinette A. Louw declare that they are editors/editorial board members of Rehabilitation Advances in Developing Health Systems (RADHS) journal. The authors have no competing interest to declare.

Karina Berner: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Conran Joseph: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Quinette A. Louw: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The datasets generated and analysed during this study are not publicly available because of privacy restrictions of the SUNLearn platform and coursework copyright vesting in Stellenbosch University, but are available from the corresponding author, Karina Berner, on reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References