Perceived Educational Value and Enjoyment of Mandatory Research Assignment by Final-Year Veterinary Medicine Students

Abstract

Background

The popularity of undergraduate research programs in medical curricula has grown during the last decade. The aims of this prospective e-survey study were to investigate perceived educational value and enjoyment of mandatory research assignment by final-year veterinary medicine students, and to identify potential action points to improve the undergraduate research experience.

Methods

An online questionnaire composed of 19 best-answer multiple choice questions was developed with dedicated software using the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys. The questionnaire could be accessed via either a hyperlink or a QR code and was distributed to a total of 121 students graduated during the academic years 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025. Data from 52 students were analyzed, using descriptive statistics and analysis of proportions. The Cronbach's alpha test was utilized to assess internal consistency of the questionnaire items.

Results

There was a positive association between the approachability/availability of supervisors and perceived clarity of both the assignment and expectations (P = .005). Half of the students (26 of 52, 50%) “somewhat agreed” that the project was a good opportunity to learn about research methodology and deepen their knowledge of an interesting topic. Only 4 of 52 (8%) of the students “strongly agreed” that the final compulsory oral presentation was a good opportunity to practice talking for an audience. Feedback from their supervisor was received at completion of the research assignment only by 31 of 52 (60%) students. The most suggested action point to improve undergraduate research experience was to make available a list of potential project titles (17 of 40, 43%).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the undergraduate research experience was often undermined by time pressures and limited supervisory engagement. Key areas for improvement include clearer guidance, improved supervisor engagement, consistent delivery of constructive feedback, and offering predefined research topics to support students with limited research experience.

Introduction

Over the past decade, undergraduate exposure to research has grown significantly, as reflected in the increasing number of undergraduate research programs and the integration of research components into medical curricula.^1,2 Consequently, completing a research assignment prior to graduation has become a key requirement in many medical education programs. This practice is widely viewed by educators as a way to enhance students’ understanding of research methodology, promote an evidence-based approach, and foster both critical thinking and literature appraisal skills. ³

The accelerating pace of scientific output further underscores the importance of training students to critically evaluate information in order to engage effectively in evidence-based medicine. Undergraduate research programs are believed to support this goal by helping students develop the ability to assess scientific literature, identify methodological strengths and weaknesses, and apply findings to clinical practice.

However, despite these recognized benefits, compulsory research assignments are not always well received by students. Particularly during the final year of study—often packed with clinical rotations, examinations, and preparations for future career steps—students may perceive such assignments as an added source of stress and pressure, rather than an enriching educational experience.

Given this context, the primary aim of the present study was to explore how a cohort of final-year veterinary medicine students perceived a mandatory research assignment, focusing on its educational value and the extent to which it was enjoyable. A secondary objective was to identify the challenges students encountered during the research process and suggest potential areas for improving the undergraduate research experience.

Methods

Study Design, Study Population, and Recruitment of Participants

This prospective e-survey study utilized a questionnaire distributed to a total of 121 students (graduated at the end of the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) through commercially available software (Qualtrics XM Institute 2019, UT, USA) and accessed online via either a hyperlink or a QR code. Written informed consent for data publication was obtained from all participants by having them read a study information sheet and indicate their agreement by ticking a designated box prior to accessing the questionnaire. Both the hyperlink and the QR code were distributed to the students by the authors, with the assistance of the Student Tutorial Office. For this purpose, a laminated sheet with both the QR code and the hyperlink was printed and made available to the students in various areas of the Department, including the hospital and the main classroom. Data was collected between June 2024 and June 2025 and analyzed in July 2025.

Inclusion criteria were veterinary medicine students graduated at the University of Cambridge at the end of the academic years 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025. Exclusion criteria were participants who did not consent to data publication and graduation years other than 2023 to 2024. For the cohort of students who was given access to the questionnaire, completion of a research project before their final-year examination was a compulsory component of the study curriculum; they could choose between 3 options: a standard research project (either prospective or retrospective), a qualitative literature review, and a critically appraised topic. The project was allocated a total duration of 18 months, with the submission deadline for the project draft set at the end of the clinical rotation period, approximately 4 weeks prior to the final-year examinations.

The study and questionnaire design were guided by the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) recommendations (online Appendix 1).^4,5 The questionnaire was composed of 19 best-answer multiple choice questions (online Appendix 2). In agreement with the CHERRIES guidelines, response templates were developed using Likert scales for 14 out of 19 questions. Three questions had non-Likert multiple answers option, while the remaining 2 questions had a binary outcome (yes or no). The items and topics to be included in the questionnaire were determined by the authors after a brief informal interview with 5 final-year students (year 2024) who had started working on their project.

Measures to Ensure Quality of Data

To prevent duplicate submissions, cookies were utilized, and participants’ internet protocol (IP) addresses and unique personal identifier (ID) were recorded. Other tools extrapolated by software and used to detect bots and ensure data quality were “reCAPTCHA Score” and “Relevant ID Duplicate Score.”

All data were fully anonymized, and no IP or ID were recorded on the data sheet accessible by the researcher. The collected electronic data were secured with password protection, accessible only to the primary investigator. Initially stored on the Qualtrics platform, the data were later exported into a Microsoft Excel (Version 365, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) file for statistical analysis following the completion of data collection.

Data Analysis

Participation rate was calculated as the number of students to whom the online survey was made accessible by the number of students who actually accessed it. The completion rate was determined by dividing the number of participants who fully completed the questionnaire by the total number who accessed it but did not submit a complete response. Responses in which less than 80% of the questionnaire was completed were excluded from data analysis.

Descriptive statistics and analysis of proportions were used. A chi-square test of independence was used in conjunction with contingency tables to detect associations between categorical variables. The Cronbach's alpha test was used to measure internal consistency of the questionnaire items. ⁶

Commercially available statistical software was used (SigmaStat 3.5 and SigmaPlot 10, Systat; SPSS, version 28, IBM Corp.). Statistical significance was set as P values of .05 or less.

Results

Survey Participation and Presentation of Results

The vast majority of the students of the study cohort (115 of 121, 95%) opted for a standard research project, while only 6 of 121 (5%) selected a qualitative literature review. None of the students chose to conduct a critically appraised topic.

Participation rate was 0.58, with 70 of 121 students accessing the online survey and compiling the questionnaire either partially or completely. Completion rate was 0.57, based on 40 participants who fully completed the questionnaire and 70 subjects that accessed the online survey. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient calculated on 17 standardized items was .90, indicating excellent internal consistency of the questionnaire. ⁷

Data are presented from 52 students that completed at least 80% the questionnaire. Because not all the 52 participants responded to every question, the denominators accompanying the proportions (%) and corresponding counts (n) always reflected the number of respondents to each specific item. When proportions included decimal values, to ensure that rounded proportions summed to exactly 100%, a rounding-to-total method was applied, whereby decimal values were adjusted based on remainder size after initial rounding. ⁸ In the data reported below, the quoted terms correspond to the original response categories as phrased in the actual questionnaire.

Demographic Data

The majority of the students were females (36 of 52, 69%) while 9 of 52 (17%) were males, and the remaining 7 of 52 (14%) preferred not to answer this question. The most represented age range was 20 to 25 years (47 of 52 students, 90%), followed by 26 to 29 years (2 of 52 students, 4%). The age ranges 30 to 35 and 36 to 40 years were reported by 1 student each (1 of 52, 2%), while 1 of 52 student (2%) preferred not to answer this question.

Approachability of Supervisors and Deadlines

Most students (22 of 52, 42%) “strongly agreed” that their supervisor was approachable and it was easy to arrange meetings with them, while 13 of 52 (25%) “somewhat agreed” with this statement, 9 of 52 (17%) “somewhat disagreed,” 7 of 52 (14%) “strongly disagreed” and the remaining 1 of 52 (2%) “neither agreed nor disagreed.” Regarding perceived clarity of the research assignment, 21 of 52 (40%) participants “somewhat agreed” that the assignment was clear to them, and they understood what was expected of them. However, 7 of 52 (14%) “strongly disagreed” with this statement, 7 of 52 (14%) “strongly agreed,” 11 of 52 (21%) “somewhat disagreed,” and the remaining 6 of 52 (11%) “neither agreed nor disagreed.”

The deadlines were found “somewhat unreasonable” and incompatible with their final-year busy schedule by 23 of 52 (44%) students, “extremely unreasonable” by 13 of 52 (25%) students, and “neither reasonable nor unreasonable” by 3 of 52 (6%) students. On the contrary, the deadlines were perceived as “somewhat reasonable” and compatible with their busy schedule by 11 of 52 (21%) students, and as “extremely reasonable” by only 2 of 52 (4%) of them. By the time they had to finalize their research title, 19 of 52 (36%) students “somewhat agreed” that they had clear ideas of which research topic they wanted to focus on, while 11 of 52 (21%) “strongly disagreed” with this statement, 10 of 52 (19%) “strongly agreed,” 6 of 52 (12%) “somewhat disagreed,” and 6 of 52 (12%) “neither agreed nor disagreed.” Additionally, 43 of 52 (83%) had identified and nominated their supervisor by this time, while the remaining 9 of 52 (17%) had failed to do so.

There was a positive association between the approachability/availability of supervisors and perceived clarity of both the assignment and expectations (P = .005).

Perceived Educational Value and Enjoyment

Most students (27 of 52, 52%) “somewhat agreed” that the project assignment encouraged them to revise topics relevant for their future career, while only 7 of 52 (13%) “strongly agreed” with this statement, 7 of 52 (13%) “somewhat disagreed,” 6 of 52 (12%) “strongly disagreed,” and 5 of 52 (10%) “neither agreed nor disagreed.” Half of the students (26 of 52, 50%) “somewhat agreed” that the project assignment was a good opportunity to learn about research methodology and deepen their knowledge of a topic they were interested in (Figure 1). On the other hand, 18 of 52 (35%) participants “somewhat agreed” that the project assignment was a waste of time and would have preferred to focus on exam preparation instead, 16 of 52 (31%) “strongly agreed” with this statement, 9 of 52 (17%) “somewhat disagreed,” 7 of 52 (13%) “neither agreed nor disagreed,” and only 2 of 52 (4%) “strongly disagreed.”

Figure 1.

The histograms represent the proportions (and numbers, at the top of each column) of students selecting as response option each of the proposed Likert-scale levels of agreement, to the statement “The research project assignment was a good opportunity to learn about research methods and deepen my knowledge on a topic I am interested in.” This best-answer multiple choice question was part of an e-survey delivered to a cohort of final-year veterinary medicine students.

Only 4 of 52 (8%) of the students “strongly agreed” that the compulsory oral presentation of their project's findings was a good opportunity to practice talking for an audience (Figure 2). On the contrary, 19 of 52 (37%) of the students “somewhat agreed” that the oral presentation was perceived as scary and as an unnecessary source of stress after the busiest time of their final year. Only 6 of 52 (11%) “strongly disagreed” with the above statement, while 19 of 52 (37%) “somewhat agreed,” 5 of 52 (10%) “somewhat disagreed,” and the remaining 8 of 52 (15%) of them “neither agreed nor disagreed.”

Figure 2.

The histograms represent the proportions (and numbers, at the top of each column) of students selecting as response option each of the proposed Likert-scale levels of agreement, to the statement “The compulsory oral presentation of my research findings was a good opportunity to practice talking in front of an audience and to improve my communication skills.” This best-answer multiple choice question was part of an e-survey delivered to a cohort of final-year veterinary medicine students.

Feedback

Most students (31 of 52, 60%) had reportedly received feedback from their supervisor after submission of the project draft, while 21 of 52 (40%) had not. Among the 31 students who received feedback, the latter was perceived as “moderately useful” by 12 of 31 (39%) of them, as “slightly useful” by 11 of 31 (35%), “very useful” by 3 of 31 (10%), “not at all useful” by 3 of 31 (10%), and “extremely useful” only by 2 of 31 (6%) of them. The received feedback was reported as “very specific” by 10 of 31 (32%) students, “moderately specific” by 10 of 31 (32%), “slightly specific” by 7 of 31 (23%), “extremely specific” by 3 of 31 (10%), and “not at all specific” by only 1 of 31 (3%) of them.

No association was found between the degree of usefulness and that of specificity of the feedback delivered to the students after submission of their project (P = .262).

Future Perspectives and Areas of Improvement

After having worked on their project, only 7 of 52 (14%) students would reportedly consider further training/qualifications in research following graduation, while 33 of 52 (63%) would not consider this path and the remaining 12 of 52 (23%) would maybe consider it. However, 8 of 40 (20%) and 14 of 40 (35%) of students, respectively, “strongly agreed” and “somewhat agreed” that the opportunity to publish their research project would be relevant to their future profession, while only 8 of 40 (20%) “somewhat disagreed” with this statement, 6 of 40 (15%) “neither agreed nor disagreed,” and 4 of 40 (10%) of them “strongly disagreed.”

When asked their opinion on whether the students’ research project should remain as a compulsory component of the study curriculum, most students (29 of 52, 56%) responded that it should not, with the remaining 25 of 52 (44%) thinking that it should.

Potential areas of improvement and action points suggested by the students are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

The histograms represent the proportions (and numbers, at the top of each column) of students selecting each of the available response options to the question: “In your opinion, what would be most helpful to improve the research project experience for the students?” This best-answer multiple choice question was part of an e-survey delivered to a cohort of final-year veterinary medicine students.

Discussion

This e-survey study highlights that, although exposure to research during undergraduate clinical studies is widely acknowledged for its educational value, most students in this cohort perceived the compulsory research assignment as an added source of stress during an already demanding period. A key challenge reported by students was the project deadline—likely due to its close proximity to examination dates, leading to overlap between research finalization and exam preparation.

Although half of the students perceived the project assignment as a learning opportunity, a worryingly high proportion (35%) considered it a waste of time and would have preferred to focus on exam preparation instead. This perception may reflect the anxiety generated by the close temporal proximity of the research project deadline and final-year examinations. In addition, it is important to consider that students’ perceptions of their own needs may be distorted, as they might not fully understand what knowledge and skills are required for professional practice until they actually enter the workforce.

A notable finding was the association between the perceived clarity of the assignment and the approachability of supervisors. This suggests that students may feel more comfortable seeking clarification when supervisors are perceived as available and supportive. The importance of this mentoring relationship is further underlined by the fact that approximately one-third of participants identified improved supervisor engagement as a potential enhancement to the research experience. These results align with previous findings that show a positive correlation between supervisor attitude and students’ academic flourishing. ⁹

Another recommendation from students was to provide a predefined list of potential project titles for future cohorts. This likely reflects the fact that not all undergraduates have a strong natural interest in, or confidence with, independently generating research ideas. While research-based teaching during the preclinical years typically covers the fundamentals of methodology and scientific inquiry, students at this stage may lack the comprehensive understanding of the literature needed to identify original and feasible research topics.^10,11

Feedback emerged as a critical but underdelivered component of the experience. Surprisingly, only a minority of students reported receiving feedback, which could suggest either low supervisor engagement or students’ discomfort in actively seeking it. When feedback was provided, it was generally well received. However, no clear association was found between the specificity of the feedback and its perceived usefulness. This was unexpected, as effective feedback is traditionally characterized as specific, timely, and supportive of self-assessment.^12,13 These findings may indicate that, in this particular context, even general or informal feedback can be perceived as helpful, especially when feedback is otherwise lacking. It is also possible that students value the interactional aspect of feedback, intended as the sense of acknowledgment and guidance that result from receiving it, more than its technical quality and precision. This suggests that students may process feedback less in terms of its informational content and more in terms of its motivational or relational function.

Students’ perceptions of the final oral presentation were mixed. While some viewed it as an opportunity to enhance public speaking skills, others appeared less enthusiastic. Prior research suggests that structured practice—such as through workshops and peer-led sessions—can significantly improve communication skills, self-efficacy, and confidence in clinical presentations. ¹⁴ Presentation skills are increasingly important not only for academic and research roles but also for real-world clinical practice, including case discussions and difficult conversations with clients.^15–17 It is possible that students with academic or public-sector aspirations value these skills more than those intending to enter private practice. Moreover, the lukewarm reception to the oral presentation component may be related to the limited feedback students reportedly received from supervisors. Evidence shows that both peer and faculty feedback can substantially enhance presentation quality, supporting the value of rehearsal and reflective critique in skill and competence development. ¹⁸

Most students did not perceive the research experience as transformative or perspective-shifting, and only a few indicated an interest in pursuing a research career postgraduation. When asked whether the research project should remain a compulsory component of the curriculum, the majority responded negatively. These findings suggest that, while mandatory research assignments can serve as an important platform for developing academic curiosity and foundational research skills, they are unlikely to significantly influence career trajectories for students whose interests lie elsewhere.

This study has limitations. Owing to the descriptive nature of the study, sample size calculation could not be performed, and the study sample was a relatively small cohort of students and is therefore unlikely to represent the whole population of veterinary medicine students. The suboptimal participation and completion rates further limit the representativeness of the sample, a factor that should be considered when critically interpreting of the study results. Another limitation to be acknowledged is the use of a questionnaire that had not been validated previously. Nevertheless, the excellent internal consistency as demonstrated by Cronbach's analysis should have mitigated this, suggesting that the questionnaire was a sufficiently valid tool for this investigation.

Conclusion

This study adds to existing knowledge on undergraduate research by providing insights into how final-year veterinary medicine students—a group less frequently studied in this context—experience it. While the educational merits of research training are widely acknowledged, findings suggest that the experience was often overshadowed by time pressures and limited supervisory engagement. Key areas for improvement include clearer guidance, greater supervisor involvement, structured feedback, and offering predefined research topics to better support students with limited research experience.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-mde-10.1177_23821205261422805 - Supplemental material for Perceived Educational Value and Enjoyment of Mandatory Research Assignment by Final-Year Veterinary Medicine Students

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-mde-10.1177_23821205261422805 for Perceived Educational Value and Enjoyment of Mandatory Research Assignment by Final-Year Veterinary Medicine Students by Chiara Adami, Giovanni Franchino, Paul Freeman and Lisa Cardoso Alves in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-mde-10.1177_23821205261422805 - Supplemental material for Perceived Educational Value and Enjoyment of Mandatory Research Assignment by Final-Year Veterinary Medicine Students

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-mde-10.1177_23821205261422805 for Perceived Educational Value and Enjoyment of Mandatory Research Assignment by Final-Year Veterinary Medicine Students by Chiara Adami, Giovanni Franchino, Paul Freeman and Lisa Cardoso Alves in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development