Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42576266›Full record

ArticleBiochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Cultivating Enduring Changes in Assessment Through a Life Sciences Community of Practice.

Ludmila Tyler, Peter J Kennelly, Shelly Engelman, Jennifer Loertscher, Jennifer C Bobenko, Yufeng Wei, Kirsten F Block, Kathryn M McCulloch, Vishwa D Trivedi, Kimberly T Lane and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 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

13 authors.

Ludmila TylerBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1974-4050
Peter J KennellyDepartment of Biochemistry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6280-6745
Shelly EngelmanResearch and Evaluation Consultant, Custom EduEval LLC, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-6491
Jennifer LoertscherDepartment of Chemistry, Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0530-5212
Jennifer C BobenkoDepartment of Natural Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8108-1403
Yufeng WeiDepartment of Chemistry and Physics, Kean University, Union, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-8488
Kirsten F BlockAmerican Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4401-3754
Kathryn M McCullochDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9077-3821
Vishwa D TrivediDepartment of Natural Sciences, Bethune Cookman University, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8753-1880
Kimberly T LaneDepartment of Chemistry, Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3701-6439
Kimberly J Linenberger CortesDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA.
Victoria Del Gaizo MooreDepartment of Chemistry, Elon University, Elon, North Carolina, USA.
Daniel R DriesSchmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange, California, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation 2018204National Science Foundation 2120673
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To provide instructors with personally relevant, discipline-based training in assessment, the Community for the Assessment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Learning (CABL) conducted a series of six participant-centered workshops between July 2020 and January 2024. Key features of the workshops included emphasizing backward design, peer editing, and the use of participant-generated questions and rubrics as teaching tools. Five of the workshops focused on summative assessment and one on alternative assessment, with half offered virtually and the latter half delivered in person. In total, 110 unique scientist-educators participated. To investigate how effective these CABL workshops were in fostering changes in assessment attitudes and practices, attendees completed an Exit Survey at the end of each workshop and responded to a single Follow-Up Survey administered in the spring of 2024. Six of the 48 respondents to the Follow-Up Survey participated in Focus Groups. Exit Survey responses indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the structure and content of the workshops and their immediate positive impact on knowledge about assessment. The Follow-Up Survey revealed lasting impacts: Sixty percent of respondents reported revising their overall approach to assessment, while nearly a third described specific actions they had taken to implement inclusive teaching practices. Focus Group participants noted that transformative change could occur through both adopting best practices and disseminating knowledge to their professional networks. Together, these findings suggest that the participant-centered CABL workshops catalyzed changes in assessment perspectives and self-reported practices among a substantive portion of attendees.

Indexed as

Biological Science DisciplinesEducational MeasurementCommunity of PracticeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTeachingassessmentcommunitypeer learningprofessional developmentworkshops

Identifiers

PMID42576266
PMCPMC13576885

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.