Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35722631›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical education2022

The Scientific Method as a Scaffold to Enhance Communication Skills in Chemistry.

Thomas D Montgomery, Joanne Rae Buchbinder, Ellen S Gawalt, Robbie J Iuliucci, Andrew S Koch, Evangelia Kotsikorou, Patrick E Lackey, Min Soo Lim, Jeffrey Joseph Rohde, Alexander J Rupprecht and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

13 authors.

Thomas D MontgomeryDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15282, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6526-8564
Joanne Rae BuchbinderDepartment of Educational Studies, St. Mary's College of Maryland, 47645 College Drive, St. Mary's City, Maryland 20686, United States.
Ellen S GawaltDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15282, United States.
Robbie J IuliucciDepartment of Chemistry, Washington and Jefferson College, 60 South Lincoln Street, Washington, Pennsylvania 15301, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6714-1842
Andrew S KochDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, St. Mary's College of Maryland, 18952 E. Fisher Drive, St. Mary's City, Maryland 20686, United States.
Evangelia KotsikorouDepartment of Chemistry, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1201 W University Drive, Edinburg, Texas 78539, United States.
Patrick E LackeyDepartment of Chemistry, Westminster College, 319 S Market Street, New Wilmington, Pennsylvania 16172, United States.
Min Soo LimDepartment of Chemistry, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, 1 Morrow Way, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania 16057, United States.
Jeffrey Joseph RohdeDepartment of Chemistry, Physics, and Engineering, Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1235 University Blvd., Steubenville, Ohio 43952, United States.
Alexander J RupprechtDepartment of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Concord University, 1000 Vermillion Street, Athens, West Virginia 24712, United States.
Matthew N SrnecDepartment of Chemistry, Physics, and Engineering, Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1235 University Blvd., Steubenville, Ohio 43952, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5386-1603
Brandon VernierDepartment of Natural Science, Bethune-Cookman University, 640 Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Blvd., Daytona Beach, Florida 32114, United States.
Jeffrey D EvanseckDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15282, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific success in the field of chemistry depends upon the mastery of a wide range of soft skills, most notably scientific writing and speaking. However, training for scientific communication is typically limited at the undergraduate level, where students struggle to express themselves in a clear and logical manner. The underlying issue is deeper than basic technical skills; rather, it is a problem of students' unawareness of a fundamental and strategic framework for writing and speaking with a purpose. The methodology has been implemented for individual mentorship and in our regional summer research program to deliver a blueprint of thought and reasoning that endows students with the confidence and skills to become more effective communicators. Our didactic process intertwines undergraduate research with the scientific method and is partitioned into six steps, referred to as "phases", to allow for focused and deep thinking on the essential components of the scientific method. The phases are designed to challenge the student in their zone of proximal development so they learn to extract and ultimately comprehend the elements of the scientific method through focused written and oral assignments. Students then compile their newly acquired knowledge to create a compelling and logical story, using their persuasive written and oral presentations to complete a research proposal, final report, and formal 20 min presentation. We find that such an approach delivers the necessary guidance to promote the logical framework that improves writing and speaking skills. Over the past decade, we have witnessed both qualitative and quantitative gains in the students' confidence in their abilities and skills (developed by this process), preparing them for future careers as young scientists.

Identifiers

PMID35722631
PMCPMC9202561

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.