ArticleCBE life sciences education2019
Use of the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills Reveals That Fundamental Literacy Is an Important Contributor to Scientific Literacy.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting inclusivity in ecology, evolution, and behavioral biology education through course-based undergraduate research experiences.Bioscience · 2024Article
- Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom.CBE life sciences education · 2023Review
- What College Biology Students Know about How Vaccines Work.CBE life sciences education · 2022Article
- Building Connections to Biology and Community through Service-Learning and Research Experiences.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2022Article
- A Vision for University Biology Education for Non-science Majors.CBE life sciences education · 2022Article
- [DNVF Memorandum Health Literacy (Part 2) - Operationalisation and Measuring of Health Literacy from a Health Services Research Perspective].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2022Article
- Reading science: A mixed-methods study of alternative grading with a molecular biology journal club.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
College science courses aim to teach students both disciplinary knowledge and scientific literacy skills. Several instruments have been developed to assess students' scientific literacy skills, but few studies have reported how demographic differences may play a role. The goal of this study was to determine whether demographic factors differentially impact students' scientific literacy skills. We assessed more than 700 students using the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS), a validated instrument developed to assess scientific literacy in college science courses. Interestingly, we found that Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) reading score was the strongest predictor of TOSLS performance, suggesting that fundamental literacy (reading comprehension) is a critical component of scientific literacy skills. Additionally, we found significant differences in raw scientific literacy skills on the basis of ethnicity (underrepresented minority [URM] vs. non-URM), major (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [STEM] vs. non-STEM), year of college (e.g., senior vs. freshman), grade point average (GPA), and SAT math scores. However, when using multivariate regression models, we found no difference based on ethnicity. These data suggest that students' aptitude and level of training (based on GPA, SAT scores, STEM or non-STEM major, and year of college) are significantly correlated with scientific literacy skills and thus could be used as predictors for student success in courses that assess scientific literacy skills.
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.