Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35939528›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2022

Postsecondary Faculty Attitudes and Beliefs about Writing-Based Pedagogies in the STEM Classroom.

Solaire A Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Anne Ruggles Gere, Jason E Dowd, Robert J Thompson, Audrey S Halim, Julie A Reynolds, Leslie A Schiff, Pamela Flash, Ginger V Shultz

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences 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
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Solaire A Finkenstaedt-QuinnDepartment of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
Anne Ruggles GereSweetland Center for Writing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
Jason E DowdOnRamps, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705.
Robert J ThompsonDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Audrey S HalimDepartment of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
Julie A ReynoldsDepartment of Biology, Duke University, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Leslie A SchiffDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Pamela FlashCenter for Writing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Ginger V ShultzDepartment of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Minnesota · USDuke University · USThe University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Writing is an important skill for communicating knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and an aid to developing students' communication skills, content knowledge, and disciplinary thinking. Despite the importance of writing, its incorporation into the undergraduate STEM curriculum is uneven. Research indicates that understanding faculty beliefs is important when trying to propagate evidence-based instructional practices, yet faculty beliefs about writing pedagogies are not yet broadly characterized for STEM teaching at the undergraduate level. Based on a nationwide cross-disciplinary survey at research-intensive institutions, this work aims to understand the extent to which writing is assigned in undergraduate STEM courses and the factors that influence faculty members' beliefs about, and reported use of, writing-based pedagogies. Faculty attitudes about the effectiveness of writing practices did not differ between faculty who assign and do not assign writing; rather, beliefs about the influence of social factors and contextually imposed instructional constraints informed their decisions to use or not use writing. Our findings indicate that strategies to increase the use of writing need to specifically target the factors that influence faculty decisions to assign or not assign writing. It is not faculty beliefs about effectiveness, but rather faculty beliefs about behavioral control and constraints at the departmental level that need to be targeted.

Indexed as

ScienceStudentsHumansMathematicsTeachingTechnologyWriting

Identifiers

PMID35939528
PMCPMC9582815
OpenAlexW4290666410

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.