Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32544166›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Characterizing college science instruction: The Three-Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol.

Kinsey Bain, Lydia Bender, Paul Bergeron, Marcos D Caballero, Justin H Carmel, Erin M Duffy, Diane Ebert-May, Cori L Fata-Hartley, Deborah G Herrington, James T Laverty and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Examining Science Practices in an Introductory Biology Laboratory Curriculum.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

20 authors.

Kinsey BainDepartment of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0898-1862
Lydia BenderDepartment of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, United States of America.
Paul BergeronDepartment of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Marcos D CaballeroDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Justin H CarmelDepartment of Chemistry & Biochemistry and STEM Transformation Institute, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, United States of America.
Erin M DuffyDepartment of Chemistry & Science, Math, and Technology Education, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, United States of America.
Diane Ebert-MayCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Cori L Fata-HartleyCollege of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Deborah G HerringtonDepartment of Chemistry, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6682-8466
James T LavertyDepartment of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5788-8539
Rebecca L MatzHub for Innovation in Learning and Technology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8220-7720
Paul C NelsonDepartment of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9341-4170
Lynmarie A PoseyDepartment of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7713-0637
Jon R StoltzfusDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Ryan L StoweDepartment of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Ryan D SweederLyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5488-4927
Stuart H TessmerDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Sonia M UnderwoodDepartment of Chemistry & Biochemistry and STEM Transformation Institute, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4919-2758
Mark Urban-LurainCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2243-8252
Melanie M CooperDepartment of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of improving STEM education is of perennial interest, and to this end, the education community needs ways to characterize transformation efforts. Three-dimensional learning (3DL) is one such approach to transformation, in which core ideas of the discipline, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts are combined to support student development of disciplinary expertise. We have previously reported on an approach to the characterization of assessments, the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), that can be used to identify whether assessments have the potential to engage students in 3DL. Here we present the development of a companion, the Three-Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol (3D-LOP), an observation protocol that can reliably distinguish between instruction that has potential for engagement with 3DL and instruction that does not. The 3D-LOP goes beyond other observation protocols, because it is intended not only to characterize the pedagogical approaches being used in the instructional environment, but also to identify whether students are being asked to engage with scientific practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. We demonstrate herein that the 3D-LOP can be used reliably to code for the presence of 3DL; further, we present data that show the utility of the 3D-LOP in differentiating between instruction that has the potential to promote 3DL from instruction that does not. Our team plans to continue using this protocol to evaluate outcomes of instructional transformation projects. We also propose that the 3D-LOP can be used to support practitioners in developing curricular materials and selecting instructional strategies to promote engagement in three-dimensional instruction.

Indexed as

LearningCurriculumEducational MeasurementHumansScienceStudentsUniversities

Identifiers

PMID32544166
PMCPMC7297354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.