Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33326682›Full record

ArticleBiochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology2021

Introductory biology undergraduate students' mixed ideas about genetic information flow.

Juli D Uhl, Kamali N Sripathi, Jenifer N Saldanha, Rosa A Moscarella, John Merrill, Mark Urban-Lurain, Kevin C Haudek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Introductory biology undergraduate students' mixed ideas about genetic information flow.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Juli D UhlCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1569-7122
Kamali N SripathiUC Davis Genome Center, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2002-8540
Jenifer N SaldanhaCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Rosa A MoscarellaBiology Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6263-7555
John MerrillDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Mark Urban-LurainCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2243-8252
Kevin C HaudekCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1422-6038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The core concept of genetic information flow was identified in recent calls to improve undergraduate biology education. Previous work shows that students have difficulty differentiating between the three processes of the Central Dogma (CD; replication, transcription, and translation). We built upon this work by developing and applying an analytic coding rubric to 1050 student written responses to a three-question item about the CD. Each response was previously coded only for correctness using a holistic rubric. Our rubric captures subtleties of student conceptual understanding of each process that previous work has not yet captured at a large scale. Regardless of holistic correctness scores, student responses included five or six distinct ideas. By analyzing common co-occurring rubric categories in student responses, we found a common pair representing two normative ideas about the molecules produced by each CD process. By applying analytic coding to student responses preinstruction and postinstruction, we found student thinking about the processes involved was most prone to change. The combined strengths of analytic and holistic rubrics allow us to reveal mixed ideas about the CD processes and provide a detailed picture of which conceptual ideas students draw upon when explaining each CD process.

Indexed as

CurriculumTranscription, GeneticBiologyDNAHumansMolecular BiologyRNAStudentsThinkingDNARNAinformation flow and transferrubricsstudent thinkingundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID33326682
PMCPMC8246993

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.