ArticlePloS one2024
A semantic classification of nominal technical terms in secondary school biology textbooks.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nominal technical terms (NTTs), as crucial builders for disciplinary knowledge, can cause difficulties for students. However, previous studies have rarely associated NTTs with disciplinary knowledge construction. Apart from that, scholars of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) have mainly focused on making wordlists for one specific discipline based on corpora rather than on meanings. Moreover, the current categorization of technical terms cannot reveal their role in constructing disciplinary knowledge. Against this backdrop, we carried out a corpus-based study to classify NTTs in secondary school biology textbooks and to unveil the knowledge constructed by different types of those NTTs. As a result, we found that NTTs in those textbooks could fall into five major categories: Thing, Activity, Semiotic, Place, and Time. We also found intra-disciplinary differences in NTT distributions. The lexicogrammatical analysis indicates that the five types of NTTs can construct different knowledge. With the findings, we put forward implications for teaching biology in secondary schools.
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.