Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36112624›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2022

Learning Introductory Biology: Students' Concept-Building Approaches Predict Transfer on Biology Exams.

Mark A McDaniel, Michael J Cahill, Regina F Frey, Lisa B Limeri, Paula P Lemons

Abstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Mark A McDanielCenter for Integrative Research on Cognition, Learning, and Education, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130.
Michael J CahillCenter for Integrative Research on Cognition, Learning, and Education, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130.
Regina F FreyDepartment of Chemistry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.
Lisa B LimeriDepartment of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409.
Paula P LemonsDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have found that students' concept-building approaches, identified a priori with a cognitive psychology laboratory task, are associated with student exam performances in chemistry classes. Abstraction learners (those who extract the principles underlying related examples) performed better than exemplar learners (those who focus on memorizing the training exemplars and responses) on transfer exam questions but not retention questions, after accounting for general ability. We extended these findings to introductory biology courses in which active-learning techniques were used to try to foster deep conceptual learning. Exams were constructed to contain both transfer and retention questions. Abstraction learners demonstrated better performance than exemplar learners on the transfer questions but not on the retention questions. These results were not moderated by indices of crystallized or fluid intelligence. Our central interpretation is that students identified as abstraction learners appear to construct a deep understanding of the concepts (presumably based on abstract underpinnings), thereby enabling them to apply and generalize the concepts to scenarios and instantiations not seen during instruction (transfer questions). By contrast, other students appear to base their representations on memorized instructed examples, leading to good performance on retention questions but not transfer questions.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementStudentsBiologyHumansLearningProblem-Based Learning

Identifiers

PMID36112624
PMCPMC9727612

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.