Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41640811›Full record

ArticleJournal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience2025

Exploring the Impact of Online Education on Scientific Presentation Skills in Women Neuroscience Students.

Stacey B B Dutton, Jennifer Larimore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Stacey B B DuttonAgnes Scott College Neuroscience Department.
Jennifer LarimoreNeuroscience Department Agnes Scott College.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pedagogical shifts to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted learning outcomes for STEM students. Many courses have remained online after the pandemic, making it essential to assess the effectiveness of these practices on student skill development. While prior research has examined engagement, confidence, and self-efficacy, less is known about how online learning affects oral scientific communication skills. This study analyzed 23 undergraduate women enrolled in an upper-level neuroscience course at a women's liberal arts college during Fall 2020. Using a pre/post format, we assessed students' growth across three areas: (1) reading and analyzing primary neuroscience articles, (2) designing neuroscience-based experiments, and (3) developing and delivering oral scientific presentations. Assessments included weekly written article analyses and two oral presentations, evaluated with a rubric that measured experimental design, presentation slide quality, and oral communication. Results demonstrated significant improvement in students' ability to critique scientific literature and construct professional presentation slides. In contrast, rubric scores for oral presentation performance showed no statistically significant gains, though this may reflect a ceiling effect, as most students scored at or near the rubric maximum in the pre-assessment. Taken together, these findings suggest that online learning environments can effectively support analytical and written aspects of science communication, while further refinement of assessment tools is needed to determine their impact on oral communication growth.

Indexed as

neuroscience educationremote learningscience communicationundergraduate studentswomen in STEM

Identifiers

PMID41640811
PMCPMC12867018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
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.