Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36256471›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2022

Experience with Scientific Teaching in Face-to-Face Settings Promoted Usage of Evidence-Based Practices during Emergency Remote Teaching.

Mary Durham, Blake Colclasure, Tessa Durham Brooks

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 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

3 authors.

Mary DurhamBiology, Southeast Community College, Lincoln, NE 68520.
Blake ColclasureNatural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Doane University, Crete, NE 68333.
Tessa Durham BrooksBiology, Doane University, Crete, NE 68333.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the Spring of 2020, instructors across the nation scrambled to transition their face-to-face courses to remote/online modalities. Necessarily, teaching practices adapted. This study investigated how the usage of evidence-based practices as defined by scientific teaching (ST) was impacted during this rapid transition. More than 130 science faculty teaching courses in biology, mostly from primarily undergraduate institutions in the U.S. Midwest, completed the Measurement Instrument of Scientific Teaching (MIST) for one course of their choosing (lecture portion only for laboratory-based courses). Participants compared how they taught the course in the face-to-face versus the remote setting. MIST scores declined in every category of ST. An instructor's face-to-face MIST score was the largest predictor for the remote MIST score. Fourteen representative participants completed a follow-up interview to discuss how and why they made the changes they did within each ST category. Interviews uncovered variation in how individual practices were emphasized, scheduled, and implemented in normal teaching environments, how access to resources changed in the Spring of 2020, and how all of these things impacted the way ST practices were adopted in emergency remote teaching. Recommendations for mitigating declines in the use of evidence-based teaching in response to future unexpected events are discussed.

Indexed as

FacultyStudentsEvidence-Based PracticeHumansLaboratoriesTeaching

Identifiers

PMID36256471
PMCPMC9727623

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.