ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2026
Addressing undergraduate misconceptions about antimicrobial resistance: a two-phase study of student reasoning and community engagement.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, misconceptions about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) were widespread among undergraduates. Since then, few studies have reexamined students' thinking about AMR, and even fewer have offered strategies for educators to address these misconceptions. In this study, we assessed undergraduate conceptions of AMR using an adapted Cognitive Construal Framework. We then examined two pedagogical strategies for addressing students' AMR misconceptions. Inquiry-based learning positioned students at the center of the process, giving them flexibility to analyze data from communities beyond their own, while community-based learning (CBL) required students to identify issues within their own communities and engage directly with the problems shaping them. We hypothesized that CBL would best prepare students for taking action to correct misconceptions outside the classroom. We found that both student-centered approaches significantly improved students' conceptual understanding of AMR, but CBL marginally increased a student's likelihood of engaging with misconceptions beyond the classroom. Notably, the incorporation of CBL (i.e., connecting AMR concepts to students' own communities) increased student engagement and promoted students' sense of responsibility to act on public health issues outside the classroom. These findings highlight the importance of contextualizing microbiology curricula in ways that are personally meaningful to students and provide a foundation for future research on post-pandemic science education and the enduring impact of COVID-19 on student thinking.
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.