Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32742546›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2020

Increased Scaffolding and Inquiry in an Introductory Biology Lab Enhance Experimental Design Skills and Sense of Scientific Ability.

Tess L Killpack, Sara M Fulmer, Julie A Roden, Jocelyne L Dolce, Christa D Skow

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Can We Quantify If It's a CURE?Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023
    Article
  6. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tess L KillpackBiology Department, Salem State University, Salem, MA 01970, USA.
Sara M FulmerOffice of Teaching and Learning, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Julie A RodenDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA.
Jocelyne L DolceDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA.
Christa D SkowDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA.
Wellesley College · USSalem State University · USUniversity of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a model for the process of redesigning the laboratory curriculum in Introductory Organismal Biology to increase opportunities for meaningful inquiry and increase student recognition of their scientific skill development. We created scaffolded modules and assignments to allow students to build and practice key skills in experimental design, data analysis, and scientific writing. Using the Tool for Interrelated Experimental Design, we showed significantly higher gains in experimental design scores in the redesigned course and a more consistent pattern of gains across a range of initial student scores compared with the original format. Students who completed the redesigned course rated themselves significantly higher in experimental design, data collection, and data analysis skills compared with students in the original format. Scores on the Laboratory Course Activity Survey were high for both formats and did not significantly differ. However, on written course evaluations, students in the redesigned course were more likely to report that they engaged in "real science" and their "own experiments." They also had increased recognition of their specific analytical and writing skill development. Our results demonstrate that intentional, scaffolded instruction using inquiry modules can increase experimental design skills and sense of scientific ability in an introductory biology course.

Identifiers

PMID32742546
PMCPMC7386323
OpenAlexW4246337384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.