Search for a command to run...
Undergraduate medical students are increasingly expected to engage in research. Despite having received didactic courses in research methodology during the early years of medical school, they lack hands-on experience in conducting research and managing data, hindering their ability to independently conduct meaningful research. Traditional models of research supervision often rely on content experts who may not have sufficient expertise in study design, data management and statistical analysis.1 Supervisors equally adept in both clinical practice and research methodology are scarce. This creates a mismatch between students' expectations and the support they receive when doing research. Our institution implemented a 1.5-year structured research course sequence, the Scholarly Project (SP) 1 to 3 courses, for Years 4 and 5 medical students. Prior to entering SP1, students are introduced to research methodology during Years 1 to 3. In SP1, students identify their clinical subject-matter (CSM) supervisor whose current research projects match students' research interests and develop their own research plan, which is then jointly reviewed by the course director (a research faculty member with expertise in research design and data analysis). In SP2, students develop their research proposal and apply for ethics approval. In SP3, they carry out data collection, analysis, develop research abstracts and presentations, and for some, draft a manuscript for publication. Throughout SP1–3, students receive continuous guidance from both CSM supervisor and course director. To complete SP3, students communicate their research in a 3-Minute Thesis (3MT) format. They also submit a written reflection to highlight key learning experiences, challenges encountered and personal growth throughout their research journey in SP courses. To date, course outputs include one student conference abstract, four manuscript submissions (one published in a peer-reviewed journal) and a mean student satisfaction course score of 4.63/5, providing illustrative indicators of research competency development and course impact. The effectiveness of the model was evident during the 3MT presentation. Research projects were praised for their clarity, scientific rigour and relevance. Feedback from reviewers, including senior scholars, indicated that many projects achieved standards comparable to undergraduate research outputs in established international medical programmes, although these observations were formative rather than part of a formal evaluation process. In their reflections, students expressed appreciations for the dual support, the opportunity to explore meaningful topics of interest and the deepening in understanding of research and its value. CSM supervisors reported improved clarity in project development and better student engagement in research activities. The main challenge was the limited number of research faculty available for supervision. As an interim solution, students submitted regular progress reports reviewed by the course director to identify and address gaps in technical or statistical support and were encouraged to seek office hours when needed. To strengthen sustainability, the mentor pool is being expanded to include research-track faculty, alongside faculty development for CSM supervisors and near-peer support from senior students. This experience highlights that, even in large cohorts, with the right mentorship and structure, undergraduate students can produce high-quality, meaningful research that prepares them for future scholarly engagement. Siaw Cheok Liew: Conceptualisation; resources; writing the original draft; review and editing. Long Hoang: Conceptualisation; methodology; data collection; project administration; writing the original draft; review and editing. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and contributions of colleagues who assisted in the development of this work. This study was conducted as part of routine educational quality improvement and did not require ethical approval. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.