Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37399176›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Breaking the mold: Study strategies of students who improve their achievement on introductory biology exams.

Amanda J Sebesta, Elena Bray Speth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. 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
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amanda J SebestaDepartment of Biology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6777-8763
Elena Bray SpethDepartment of Biology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4850-2475
Saint Louis University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Students' use of learning strategies (i.e., what students do when studying) is linked to their achievement in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses, and several study strategies have been individually associated with course and exam grades in multiple contexts. In this study, we surveyed students in a learner-centered, large-enrollment introductory biology course about their study strategies. We aimed to identify groups of strategies that students often reported together, possibly reflecting broader approaches to studying. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three groups of study strategies frequently co-reported (which we named housekeeping strategies, use of course materials, and metacognitive strategies). These strategy groups map onto a model of learning that associates specific suites of strategies to phases of learning, which correspond to different levels of cognitive and metacognitive engagement. Consistent with previous work, only some study strategies were significantly associated with exam scores: students reporting higher use of course materials and of metacognitive strategies earned higher scores on the first course exam. Students who improved on the subsequent course exam reported increasing their use of housekeeping strategies and of course materials. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of students' approaches to studying in introductory college biology and of the relationships between study strategies and achievement. This work may support instructors in adopting intentional classroom practices to foster students' development as self-regulated learners, able to identify expectations and criteria for success and to implement appropriate and effective study strategies.

Indexed as

BiologyMetacognitionCurriculumEducational MeasurementHumansLearningStudents

Identifiers

PMID37399176
PMCPMC10317239
OpenAlexW4382932110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.