Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32870084›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2020

Learning Analytics to Assess Beliefs about Science: Evolution of Expertise as Seen through Biological Inquiry.

Melanie E Peffer, Niloofar Ramezani, David Quigley, Emily Royse, Chloe Bruce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Melanie E PefferInstitute of Cognitive Science, Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology.
Niloofar RamezaniDepartment of Statistics, Volgenau School of Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030.
David QuigleyInstitute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309.
Emily RoyseSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639.
Chloe BruceApplied Mathematics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epistemological beliefs about science (EBAS) or beliefs about the nature of science knowledge, and how that knowledge is generated during inquiry, are an essential yet difficult to assess component of science literacy. Leveraging learning analytics to capture and analyze student practices in simulated or game-based authentic science activities is a potential avenue for assessing EBAS. Our previous work characterized inquiry practices of experts and novices engaged in simulated authentic science inquiry and suggested that practices may reflect EBAS. Here, we extend our prior qualitative work to quantitatively examine differences in practices and EBAS between non-science majors, biology majors, and biology graduates. We observed that inquiry practices of non-science majors and biology graduates were similar to the novice and expert practices, respectively, in our prior work. However, biology majors sometimes appeared to act like their undergraduate peers (e.g., performing fewer planning actions) but other times were more similar to biology graduates (e.g., performing complex investigations). We noted that cognitive constructs like metacognition were also important for understanding which practices were most likely to be reflective of EBAS. This work advances how to assess EBAS using learning analytics and raises questions regarding the development of cognitive processes like EBAS among aspiring biologists.

Indexed as

ScienceBiological ProductsCultureEducational MeasurementHumansLearningBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID32870084
PMCPMC8711811

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.