Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35496687›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2022

Undergraduates' Experiences with Online and in-Person Courses Provide Opportunities for Improving Student-Centered Biology Laboratory Instruction.

Mark A Sarvary, Frank R Castelli, Mitra Asgari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Biosafety Level 2 Training Programs at Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Nudge or not, university teachers have mixed feelings about online teaching.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2023
    Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Mark A SarvaryInvestigative Biology Teaching Laboratories, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2973-3107
Frank R CastelliInvestigative Biology Teaching Laboratories, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4517-8315
Mitra AsgariSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3326-9626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biology laboratory courses with hands-on activities faced many challenges when switched to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. The transition back to in-person instruction presents an opportunity to redesign courses with greater student input. Undergraduates in an ∼350-student laboratory course were surveyed about their preferences for online or in-person instruction of specific laboratory course components. We predicted that students who have taken a virtual laboratory course prefer keeping some of the components online. We also hypothesized that their preferences are affected by their experience with online-only or with both online and in-person instruction. The results showed that students would like to move the laboratory component and group meetings back to in-person instruction, even if they never experienced college-level in-person courses. Also, many components, including the lectures, exams, assignment submission, and office hours are preferred to be held online. Surprisingly, students who have only taken online courses would rather give group presentations in person, while those who experienced both online and in-person instruction were undecided. Group presentations were the only component where the preference of the two groups significantly differed. Self-assessed learning gains showed that students performed very well in both the online semesters and the in-person semesters. Therefore, the preferences measured in this study were likely developed based on students' future expectations and personal gains, and not only on their metacognitive decisions and academic performances. This study provides considerations for redesigning components of laboratory courses to be more student-centered after the pandemic.

Indexed as

face-to-face instructioninquiry-based laboratorymetacognition.online learningpandemic pedagogystudent-centered teachingundergraduates

Identifiers

PMID35496687
PMCPMC9053021

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.