ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2024
Peer-reviewed presentation exchange in an undergraduate classroom.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading, presenting, and discussing peer-reviewed scientific reports, case studies, and reviews are essential to modern biology education. These exercises model crucial aspects of students' future professional activities and introduce the students to the current scientific concepts and methodology, data analysis, and presentation. A common format for working with primary literature is a journal club: presenting and discussing research literature in front of peers, which has many merits. However, in large modern classrooms, this format is very time-consuming and stressful, especially since presenting is not a commonly taught skill. We argue that student groups for whom the current educational and professional paradigms present a challenge due to a historical lack of representation or wellness issues are deprived of a key educational opportunity. To solve this problem, we formulated an approach called Peer-Reviewed Presentation Exchange (PRPE), which focuses on collaborative analysis, presentation, and review of research literature that includes (i) voice-narrated research presentations by students, (ii) checklists generated by the instructor to establish expectations for an informative presentation or review, and (iii) presentation assignment and peer review process. We tested this approach in an undergraduate cell biology class over 3 years. Pre- and post-assessments show significant gains in self-efficacy and knowledge not only by students who presented but also by the students who reviewed the presentations; therefore, peer-reviewed presentations are an effective tool for learning. Exit surveys show that the approach is seen as beneficial by most students. Our approach allows every student to speak and ask questions in a low-stress creative environment. It is an excellent customizable, trackable, and scalable low-stakes assessment tool.
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.