ArticleBioscience2019
From CREATE Workshop to Course Implementation: Examining Downstream Impacts on Teaching Practices and Student Learning at 4-Year Institutions.
Article in Bioscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- CREATE'ing improvements in first-year students' science efficacy via an online introductory course experience.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2024Article
- Article
- Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom.CBE life sciences education · 2023Review
- Teaching the process of science with primary literature: Using the CREATE pedagogy in ecological courses.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Single, Narrowly Focused CREATE Primary Literature Module Evokes Gains in Genetics Students' Self-Efficacy and Understanding of the Research Process.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The faculty workshop model has long been used for disseminating innovative methods in STEM education. Despite significant investments by researchers and funding agencies, there is a dearth of evidence regarding downstream impacts of faculty development. CREATE is an evidence-based strategy for teaching science using primary literature. In this study, we examined whether workshop-trained faculty applied CREATE methods effectively and whether their students achieved either cognitive or affective gains. We followed 10 workshop alumni at different 4-year institutions throughout the United States. External observations of the teaching indicated a high fidelity of CREATE implementation. The students made significant gains in cognitive (e.g., designing experiments) and affective (e.g., self-efficacy in science process skills) domains. Some student outcomes correlated with particular characteristics (e.g., class size) but not with others (e.g., teaching experience). These findings provide evidence for the robustness of the CREATE dissemination model and provide perspective on factors that may influence pedagogical reform efforts.
Indexed as
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.