ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2018
Interventions for Supporting and Assessing Science Writing Communication: Cases of Asian English Language Learners.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Inclusivity of Published Science Communication Curricula for Scientists and STEM Students.CBE life sciences education · 2023Article
- Antiracist Opportunities in theJournal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- Intercultural Competency: Steps for Introducing Active Learning Case Studies Internationally in Confucian Heritage Culture.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2019Article
- Applying a Computer-Assisted Tool for Semantic Analysis of Writing: Uses for STEM and ELL.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In seeking to support diversity, one challenge lies in adequately supporting and assessing science cognitions in a writing-intensive Biochemistry laboratory course when highly engaged Asian English language learners (Asian ELLs) struggle to communicate and make novice errors in English. Because they may understand advanced science concepts, but are not being adequately assessed for their deeper scientific understanding, we sought and examined interventions. We hypothesized that inquiry strategies, scaffolded learning through peer evaluation, and individualized tools that build writing communication skills would increase confidence. To assess scientific thinking, Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) software measured underlying analytic and cognitive features of writing despite grammatical errors. To determine whether interventions improved student experience or learning outcomes, we investigated a cross-sectional sample of cases within experimental groups (
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.