ArticlePloS one2026
Revealing undergraduate biology students' conception of variability and error bars within graphing.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Creating and interpreting graphs are quantitative reasoning skills all science, technology, engineering, and math students need to develop. In biology, data are lacking in our understanding of how undergraduate students interpret variability across different graph types or what knowledge students have about the data error bars represent. This study analyzed 3506 student responses within a graphing assessment. We developed a code book for students' open-ended responses on the data error bars represent and used chi-square tests to look for significant differences in how students described error bars based on a graph they created and self-reported demographic data. We observed four major categories in how students described error bars: broad terms, error terms, purpose terms, and trend & analysis terms. When responses were linked with a graph the student made, those who created a bar graph with a bar for each data point showed lower understanding of error bars compared to students who themselves created a bar graph with aggregated means and error bars. We also observed differences in how students described error bars based on their major but did not observe differences based on whether students were in introductory or upper-level courses. Our results suggest that students are not receiving enough instruction on variability within graphing even though bar graphs with error bars are a common graph that students are asked to construct. More scaffolded repeated instruction is needed across biology curricula.
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.