Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39008712›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2024

It Takes Two: Online and In-person Discussions Offer Complementary Learning Opportunities for Students.

Kylea R Garces, Aaron N Sexton, Abigail Hazelwood, Nathan Steffens, Linda Fuselier, Natalie Christian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Kylea R GarcesDepartment of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292.
Aaron N SextonDepartment of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292.
Abigail HazelwoodDepartment of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292.
Nathan SteffensDepartment of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292.
Linda FuselierDepartment of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292.
Natalie ChristianDepartment of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discussions play a significant role in facilitating student learning through engagement with course material and promotion of critical thinking. Discussions provide space for social learning where ideas are deliberated, internalized, and knowledge is cocreated through socioemotional interactions. With the increase of internet-based and hybrid courses, there is a need to evaluate the degree to which online discussion modalities facilitate quality discussions and enhance student achievement. We assessed the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards and traditional face-to-face discussions via qualitative (thematic coding and discussion network analysis) and quantitative (Bloom's taxonomy) techniques and evaluated student perceptions via precourse and postcourse surveys. We found differential strengths of the two formats. Online discussions increased response complexity, while in-person discussions fostered improved connections with course material. Themes related to sharing of personal identity, humanity and verbal immediacy were more frequent throughout in-person discussions. Survey responses suggested that a sense of community was an external motivator for preference of in-person discussions, while anxiety was a factor influencing online discussion preference. Our findings suggest that online and in-person discussions are complementary, and work in tandem to facilitate complex student thinking through online environments and social learning within the classroom.

Indexed as

InternetLearningStudentsCurriculumFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39008712
PMCPMC11440744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.