Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31120395›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2019

Supports: A Key Factor in Faculty Implementation of Evidence-Based Teaching.

Meghan E Bathgate, Oriana R Aragón, Andrew J Cavanagh, Jennifer Frederick, Mark J Graham

Open access · diamondAbstract read
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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
21.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Student perceptions of inclusive pedagogy in undergraduate STEM classrooms.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Data-rich textbook figures promote core competencies: Comparison of two textbooks.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Meghan E BathgatePoorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511.
Oriana R AragónPoorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511.
Andrew J CavanaghPoorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511.
Jennifer FrederickPoorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511.
Mark J GrahamDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511.
Yale University · US

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute 52008374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based teaching (EBT), such as active learning and formative assessment, benefits student learning but is not present in many college science classrooms. The choices faculty make about how to teach their science courses are influenced by their personal beliefs and motivations, as well as their departmental structures and institutional cultures. With data from 584 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty trained in EBT, we compare which of the following factors most relate to faculty's use of EBT: 1) faculty's personal motivations (e.g., teaching value, confidence, beliefs about intelligence); and 2) their experiences with their institutional teaching environments (e.g., departmental support, student enthusiasm). Faculty's perceived

Indexed as

FacultyProblem-Based LearningFemaleHumansMaleMotivationRegression AnalysisStudentsTeaching

Identifiers

PMID31120395
PMCPMC6755207
OpenAlexW2945093263

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.