ArticleCBE life sciences education2026
What's in a Prompt? Assignment Prompt Cues Influence Data Analysis, Critique, and Inclusion of Follow-up Experiments.
Article in CBE life sciences 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important goal of STEM education is to develop the ability to think like a scientist: to critically analyze evidence, form evidence-based claims, and think of follow-up experiments. When designing assignments to foster these skills, it is important to consider the effect of prompt design. To investigate this effect, we provided 110 upper-division biology majors with three prompts that asked them to interpret the same figure from a scientific paper but differed in the cues and in the context of the task, presenting it as an argument-building, Sense-making, or Grant-reviewer activity. Responses by biology faculty served as a benchmark of thinking like a scientist. The Argument and Sense-making prompts elicited more complete interpretations of the data than the Grant reviewer prompt, but students responding to all three prompts struggled to form claims based on multiple panels of the figure. Inclusion of cues to critique the data and offer follow-up experiments in the Sense-making and Grant reviewer prompts resulted in most responses including these scientific practices. The Grant reviewer prompt elicited critical evaluation of the data to support an argument for or against "funding." Our results indicate that prompt design substantially influences what scientific skills students will demonstrate.
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.