Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39808720›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2025

Spontaneous Anthropocentric Language Use in University Students' Explanations of Biological Concepts Varies by Topic and Predicts Misconception Agreement.

Catie Nielson, Emma Pitt, Michal Fux, Kristin de Nesnera, Nicole Betz, Jessica S Leffers, Kimberly D Tanner, John D Coley

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2025. 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. Review
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

8 authors.

Catie NielsonDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115.
Emma PittDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115.
Michal FuxDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139.
Kristin de NesneraDepartment of Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60660.
Nicole BetzDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115.
Jessica S LeffersDepartment of Psychology, St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, MD, 20686.
Kimberly D TannerDepartment of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, 94132.
John D ColeyDepartment of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research has shown that students employ intuitive thinking when understanding scientific concepts. Three types of intuitive thinking-essentialist, teleological, and anthropic thinking-are used in biology learning and can lead to misconceptions. However, it is unknown how commonly these types of intuitive thinking, or cognitive construals, are used spontaneously in students' explanations across biological concepts and whether this usage is related to endorsement of construal-consistent misconceptions. In this study, we examined how frequently undergraduate students across two U.S. universities (

Indexed as

BiologyConcept FormationLanguageStudentsComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleThinkingUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39808720
PMCPMC11974531

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.