Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100648›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2021

Modeling and Measuring Tree-Reading Skills in Undergraduate and Graduate Students.

Thilo Schramm, Anika Jose, Philipp Schmiemann

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. 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

3 authors.

Thilo SchrammDepartment of Biology Education, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.
Anika JoseDepartment of Biology Education, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.
Philipp SchmiemannDepartment of Biology Education, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolutionary trees are central to learning about evolutionary processes, yet students at all educational levels struggle to read and interpret them. The synthetic tree-reading model (STREAM), based on published and not yet empirically tested models, was tested to determine whether the assumed hierarchy of the model could be substantiated and how far students' skills could be distinguished empirically. We developed a tree-reading test instrument based on STREAM and assessed it with 592 undergraduate and graduate biology students. Following item response theory, we conducted a dimensional analysis and evaluated item difficulty. Investigating item difficulty and the resulting Wright map showed that skill levels displayed a broad scatter of overlapping item difficulty. Furthermore, the skill level assumed easiest was actually the third most difficult. No conclusive evidence of the hierarchical nature of the model was obtained. Dimensional analysis showed that a five-dimensional model outperformed all other reasonable models, corroborating that the skills could be arranged in empirically differentiable groups. Consequently, we revised the STREAM by discarding the hierarchical organization, using a five-dimensional organization instead. Comparison of the revised STREAM with another recently published approach showed that, although these two instruments have a different focus, they are supplemental approaches that show comparable results.

Indexed as

ReadingStudentsHumansLearning

Identifiers

PMID34100648
PMCPMC8715814

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.