Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30821603›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2019

Prevailing Questions and Methodologies in Biology Education Research: A Longitudinal Analysis of Research in CBE-Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research.

Stanley M Lo, Grant E Gardner, Joshua Reid, Velta Napoleon-Fanis, Penny Carroll, Emily Smith, Brian K Sato

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Stanley M LoSection of Cell and Developmental Biology, Division of Biological Sciences, and Program in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093.
Grant E GardnerDepartment of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132.
Joshua ReidDepartment of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132.
Velta Napoleon-FanisDepartment of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132.
Penny CarrollDepartment of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132.
Emily SmithDepartment of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132.
Brian K SatoDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biology education research (BER) is a growing field, as evidenced by the increasing number of publications in CBE-Life Sciences Education ( LSE) and expanding participation at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) annual meetings. To facilitate an introspective and reflective discussion on how research within LSE and at SABER has matured, we conducted a content analysis of LSE research articles ( n = 339, from 2002 to 2015) and SABER abstracts ( n = 652, from 2011 to 2015) to examine three related intraresearch parameters: research questions, study contexts, and methodologies. Qualitative data analysis took a combination of deductive and inductive approaches, followed by statistical analyses to determine the correlations among different parameters. We identified existing research questions, study contexts, and methodologies in LSE articles and SABER abstracts and then compared and contrasted these parameters between the two data sources. LSE articles were most commonly guided by descriptive research questions, whereas SABER abstracts were most commonly guided by causal research questions. Research published in LSE and presented at SABER both prioritize undergraduate classrooms as the study context and quantitative methodologies. In this paper, we examine these research trends longitudinally and discuss implications for the future of BER as a scholarly field.

Indexed as

Biological Science DisciplinesBiologyFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMalePublicationsResearchSocieties, ScientificStudents

Identifiers

PMID30821603
PMCPMC6757219

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.