ArticleCBE life sciences education2021
Automated Writing Assessments Measure Undergraduate Learning after Completion of a Computer-Based Cellular Respiration Tutorial.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Designing Activities to Teach Higher-Order Skills: How Feedback and Constraint Affect Learning of Experimental Design.CBE life sciences education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.