Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100647›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2021

Automated Writing Assessments Measure Undergraduate Learning after Completion of a Computer-Based Cellular Respiration Tutorial.

Juli D Uhl, Kamali N Sripathi, Eli Meir, John Merrill, Mark Urban-Lurain, Kevin C Haudek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 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. 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

6 authors.

Juli D UhlCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Kamali N SripathiUC Davis Genome Center, Biomedical Engineering, Davis, CA 95616.
Eli MeirSimBiotic Software, Inc., Missoula, MT 59807.
John MerrillDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Mark Urban-LurainCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Kevin C HaudekCREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The focus of biology education has shifted from memorization to conceptual understanding of core biological concepts such as matter and energy relationships. To examine undergraduate learning about matter and energy, we incorporated constructed-response (CR) questions into an interactive computer-based tutorial. The objective of this tutorial is to teach students about matter and energy and help dispel common misconceptions through the context of cellular respiration. We used a constructed-response classifier (CRC) tool to categorize ideas in responses to three CR questions and measure changes in student thinking about cellular respiration. Our data set includes 841 undergraduates from 19 geographically diverse institutions including two-year colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions, and research-intensive colleges and universities. We found students from all institution types included more scientific ideas in CRs post-tutorial. Students used an average of 2.1 ideas in CRs and frequently used both scientific and developing ideas. We found this mixed thinking persisted after the tutorial regardless of institution type. Students' multiple-choice (MC) selections were correlated with their CRs, but CRs revealed more mixed thinking than would be inferred from MC responses. Our study shows a CRC tool can measure student learning after a computer-based tutorial and provides more complete information than MC responses.

Indexed as

LearningStudentsCell RespirationComputersHumansWriting

Identifiers

PMID34100647
PMCPMC8715822

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.