Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27047600›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2016

A Progressive Reading, Writing, and Artistic Module to Support Scientific Literacy.

Stephanie B Stockwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stephanie B StockwellJames Madison University, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, Harrisonburg, VA 22807.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific literacy, marked by the ability and willingness to engage with scientific information, is supported through a new genre of citizen science-course-based research in association with undergraduate laboratories. A three-phased progressive learning module was developed to enhance student engagement in such contexts while supporting three learning outcomes: I) present an argument based on evidence, II) analyze science and scientists within a social context, and III) experience, reflect upon, and communicate the nature of scientific discovery. Phase I entails guided reading and reflection of citizen science-themed texts. In Phase II, students write, peer-review, and edit position and counterpoint papers inspired by the following prompt, "Nonscientists should do scientific research." Phase III involves two creative assignments intended to communicate the true nature of science. Students work collaboratively to develop public service announcement-like poster campaigns to debunk a common misconception about the nature of science or scientists. Individually, they create a work of art to communicate a specific message about the raw experience of performing scientific research. Suggestions for implementation and modifications are provided. Strengths of the module include the development of transferable skills, temporal distribution of grading demands, minimal in-class time needed for implementation, and the inclusion of artistic projects to support affective learning domains. This citizen science-themed learning module is an excellent complement to laboratory coursework, as it serves to surprise, challenge, and inspire students while promoting disciplinary values.

Identifiers

PMID27047600
PMCPMC4798826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.