ArticleCBE life sciences education2022
Motivating and Shaping Scientific Argumentation in Lab Reports.
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 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Life Science Students' Perceptions of Risk Associated with Social Metacognition.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- Supporting Development of Mechanistic Reasoning Across Chemistry and Biology.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- What's in a Prompt? Assignment Prompt Cues Influence Data Analysis, Critique, and Inclusion of Follow-up Experiments.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- Examining Science Practices in an Introductory Biology Laboratory Curriculum.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Writing a lab report can be an opportunity for students to engage in scientific thinking. Yet students' lab reports often do not exhibit evidence of such engagement. Students' writing can appear focused on "filling in" required components and reporting on predetermined conclusions. We conducted a design experiment in an introductory biology laboratory course and examined the impact on students' engagement in argumentation in lab reports. Over two design iterations, students' arguments more often considered and integrated multiple claims, included a broader range of evidence and ideas, and gave appropriate attention to uncertainty in conclusions. We argue that two interrelated changes to the design of the lab course made these shifts possible. First, we restructured the role of instructors to position them as an audience interested in students' thinking. Second, we introduced more uncertainty into the lab activities to provoke consideration of multiple interpretations. We propose that these changes created a different
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.