Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39565898›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2024

Exploring Student Sensemaking When Engaging with Anomalous Data.

Adrian Adams, Lauren Barth-Cohen

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. DataVersify: A Framework for Data Literacy Instruction Featuring Scientist Stories.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Adrian AdamsDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.
Lauren Barth-CohenDepartment of Educational Psychology, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In undergraduate research settings, students are likely to encounter anomalous data, that is, data that do not meet their expectations. Most of the research that directly or indirectly captures the role of anomalous data in research settings uses post-hoc reflective interviews or surveys. These data collection approaches focus on recall of past reasoning, rather than analyzing reasoning about anomalous data as it happens. We use the frameworks of sensemaking and epistemological resources to explore in-the-moment how students identify, generate ideas about the cause of, and determine what to do with anomalies. Students participated in think-aloud interviews where they interacted with anomalous data within larger datasets. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed to identify epistemological resources students used when interacting with anomalous data, and how students' reasoning influenced later choices with the data. Results found that students use a variety of resources as they sensemake about anomalous data and determine what to do with the anomalies. Furthermore, the explanation that students generate about the cause of an anomaly impacts whether the student chooses to keep, remove, recollect, or mitigate the anomalous data. Findings highlight the need to understand students' complex reasoning around anomalous data to support students in lab settings.

Indexed as

StudentsFemaleHumansKnowledgeMaleThinking

Identifiers

PMID39565898
PMCPMC11659860

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.