Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37548111›Full record

ArticleFEBS open bio2023

Staff goals, challenges, and use of student inquiry in undergraduate bioscience teaching laboratories.

Emily Coyte

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEBS open bio, 2023. 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily CoyteSchool of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7557-0150
At Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Teaching laboratory practical sessions are major components of undergraduate bioscience curricula, but research into staff perceptions and intentions across institutions in this context is lacking. This study describes a mixed-methods study using questionnaires and follow-up interviews to explore staff perceptions of their goals for UK bioscience teaching labs, the extent to which they incorporate student inquiry and challenges encountered with these sessions. The findings show that staff aim for strong lecture connections, applying taught theory to actively develop students' technical and data handling skills. They value teaching labs as opportunities for authentic contact through hands-on learning with scientific equipment and human connection with staff and other students. Student inquiry (e.g. experimental design decisions) was present in individual elements of teaching labs but not deeply embedded. Staff participants saw teaching labs as first steps to scientific inquiry, often intending to adopt more inquiry activities, but were concerned about time investment and student readiness, especially for early-year students. Staff who used more inquiry showed stronger goal focus on scientific reasoning, research experience and collaboration. Staff enjoy teaching labs and consider them meaningful learning experiences. Time and budget limitations were more constraining than sense of agency, but overriding challenges were student lab anxieties, and finding ways to increase their confidence and preparation for these sessions. These findings collate staff perceptions of teaching labs across UK institutions and could facilitate reflection, discussion and further research on the goals and impact of these prevalent but resource-intensive sessions on training the next generation.

Indexed as

GoalsLaboratoriesCurriculumHumansLearningStudentsanxietybioscienceconnectionskillsstudent inquiryteaching laboratories

Identifiers

PMID37548111
PMCPMC10760353
OpenAlexW4385620510

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.