ArticleCBE life sciences education2023
A card-sorting tool to measure expert versus novice thinking in scientific research.
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 3D Object-Based Card-Sorting: A Method for Eliciting Multimodal Reasoning in Chemistry.Journal of chemical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Undergraduate research and laboratory experiences provide a wide range of benefits to student learning in science and are integral to imbed authentic research experiences in biology labs. While the benefit of courses with research experience is widely accepted, it can be challenging to measure conceptual research skills in a quick and easily scalable manner. We developed a card-sorting task to differentiate between novice and expert conceptualization of research principles. There were significant differences in the way faculty/postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduate students organized their information, with faculty/postdocs more likely to use deep feature sorting patterns related to research approach. When provided scaffolding of group names reflecting expert-like organization, participant groups were better able to sort by that organization, but undergraduate students did not reach expert levels. Undergraduates with Advanced Placement experience were more likely to display expert-like thinking than undergraduates without Advanced Placement Biology experience and non-PEER (persons excluded because of their Ethnicity or Race) students displayed more expert-like thinking than PEER students. We found evidence of undergraduates in various stages of development toward expert-like thinking in written responses. This card-sorting task can provide a framework for analyzing student's conceptualizations of research and identify areas to provide added scaffolding to help shift from novice-like to expert-like thinking.
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.