ArticleCBE life sciences education2020
Factors Influencing Quality of Team Discussion: Discourse Analysis in an Undergraduate Team-Based Learning Biology Course.
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological Principles Successfully Guide Students' Generative Mechanistic Reasoning.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- What Happens When Undergraduate Biology Students Meet with Professional Scientists to Discuss Research? An Exploratory Investigation into Scientific Discourse, Motivation, and Sense of Belonging.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- Comparing the Performance of ChatGPT-4 and Medical Students on MCQs at Varied Levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Forming Groups in a Large-Enrollment Biology Class: Group Permanence Matters More than Group Size.CBE life sciences education · 2023Article
- Very Short Answer Questions in Team-Based Learning: Limited Effect on Peer Elaboration and Memory.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- Look Who's Talking: Teaching and Discourse Practices across Discipline, Position, Experience, and Class Size in STEM College Classrooms.Bioscience · 2021Article
- Reconsidering the Share of a Think-Pair-Share: Emerging Limitations, Alternatives, and Opportunities for Research.CBE life sciences education · 2021Article
- A Pandemic Crash Course: Learning to Teach Equitably in Synchronous Online Classes.CBE life sciences education · 2020Article
- Student Behaviors and Interactions Influence Group Discussions in an Introductory Biology Lab Setting.CBE life sciences education · 2020Article
- Implementing Team-Based Learning in Basic Sciences Education in Pakistan: A Contextual Rationale for Low-Resource Settings.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
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
Group activities as part of active-learning pedagogies are thought to be effective in promoting student learning in part because of the quality of discussion they engender in student teams. Not much is known, however, about which instructional factors are most important in achieving productive conversation or how these factors may differ among different collaborative pedagogies. We explored what provokes meaningful group discussions in a university physiology course taught using team-based learning (TBL). We were most interested in discussions that evoke explanations that go beyond statements of basic facts and into disciplinary reasoning. Using transcribed conversations of four randomly selected teams three times throughout the semester, we analyzed three distinct discursive phenomena-conceptual explanations, re-evaluations, and co-construction-that occurred in productive conversations. In this paper, we provide examples from student discussions showing the role of each of these elements in moving students toward conceptual understanding. These phenomena were more likely to occur in response to higher-order questions in Bloom's taxonomy. Preclass preparation and student accountability as part of TBL may be important factors in this finding. We share implications for practice based on our results.
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.