Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29749844›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2018

Teaching Assistant Attention and Responsiveness to Student Reasoning in Written Work.

Cynthia F C Hill, Julia S Gouvea, David Hammer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Cynthia F C HillDepartment of Education, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
Julia S GouveaDepartment of Education, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
David HammerDepartment of Education, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Instructors communicate what they value about students' written work through their comments and feedback, and this feedback has the potential to direct how students approach writing assignments. In this study, we examined how graduate student teaching assistants (TAs) attended and responded to students' written lab reports in an introductory biology course. We collected and analyzed marked lab reports from five TAs and interviewed them about their marking decisions. The results show that TAs attended mainly to writing style and form in their markings and comments on lab reports. However, there were occasions when they attended to students' scientific reasoning in their markings and during interviews. We provide evidence that TAs' understanding of the purpose of the laboratory course and assessment structure influenced their attention. We also provide evidence that TAs could shift their attention from style and form to reasoning in response to moment-to-moment contextual cues. Building on these results, we discuss course design and professional development that reframes labs and reports to focus on students' biological reasoning.

Indexed as

AttentionLaboratoriesProblem SolvingStudentsTeachingWritingFeedbackHumans

Identifiers

PMID29749844
PMCPMC5998315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.