A card-sorting tool to measure expert versus novice thinking in scientific research.

IF 4.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Megan F Cole, Clarke O Britton, Denver Roberts, Peter Rubin, Hannah D Shin, Yassin R Watson, Colin Harrison
{"title":"A card-sorting tool to measure expert versus novice thinking in scientific research.","authors":"Megan F Cole, Clarke O Britton, Denver Roberts, Peter Rubin, Hannah D Shin, Yassin R Watson, Colin Harrison","doi":"10.1187/cbe.22-11-0230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Undergraduate research and laboratory experiences provide a wide range of benefits to student learning in science and are integral to imbed authentic research experiences in biology labs. While the benefit of courses with research experience is widely accepted, it can be challenging to measure conceptual research skills in a quick and easily scalable manner. We developed a card-sorting task to differentiate between novice and expert conceptualization of research principles. There were significant differences in the way faculty/postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduate students organized their information, with faculty/postdocs more likely to use deep feature sorting patterns related to research approach. When provided scaffolding of group names reflecting expert-like organization, participant groups were better able to sort by that organization, but undergraduate students did not reach expert levels. Undergraduates with Advanced Placement experience were more likely to display expert-like thinking than undergraduates without Advanced Placement Biology experience and non-PEER (persons excluded because of their Ethnicity or Race) students displayed more expert-like thinking than PEER students. We found evidence of undergraduates in various stages of development toward expert-like thinking in written responses. This card-sorting task can provide a framework for analyzing student's conceptualizations of research and identify areas to provide added scaffolding to help shift from novice-like to expert-like thinking.</p>","PeriodicalId":56321,"journal":{"name":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10756038/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-11-0230","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Undergraduate research and laboratory experiences provide a wide range of benefits to student learning in science and are integral to imbed authentic research experiences in biology labs. While the benefit of courses with research experience is widely accepted, it can be challenging to measure conceptual research skills in a quick and easily scalable manner. We developed a card-sorting task to differentiate between novice and expert conceptualization of research principles. There were significant differences in the way faculty/postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduate students organized their information, with faculty/postdocs more likely to use deep feature sorting patterns related to research approach. When provided scaffolding of group names reflecting expert-like organization, participant groups were better able to sort by that organization, but undergraduate students did not reach expert levels. Undergraduates with Advanced Placement experience were more likely to display expert-like thinking than undergraduates without Advanced Placement Biology experience and non-PEER (persons excluded because of their Ethnicity or Race) students displayed more expert-like thinking than PEER students. We found evidence of undergraduates in various stages of development toward expert-like thinking in written responses. This card-sorting task can provide a framework for analyzing student's conceptualizations of research and identify areas to provide added scaffolding to help shift from novice-like to expert-like thinking.

一种卡片分类工具,用于衡量科学研究中专家与新手的思维。
本科生研究和实验室经验为学生的科学学习提供了广泛的好处,也是将真实的研究经验融入生物实验室不可或缺的一部分。虽然具有研究经验的课程的好处被广泛接受,但以快速且易于扩展的方式衡量概念研究技能可能是一项挑战。我们开发了一个卡片分类任务,以区分新手和专家对研究原理的概念化。教员/博士后、研究生和本科生组织信息的方式存在显著差异,教员/博士后更有可能使用与研究方法相关的深度特征排序模式。当提供反映专家型组织的组名支架时,参与者组能够更好地按照该组织进行排序,但本科生没有达到专家水平。与没有高级安置生物学经验和非PEER(因种族或种族而被排除在外的人)的本科生相比,有高级安置经验的本科生更有可能表现出专家般的思维。我们在书面回复中发现了处于不同发展阶段的本科生倾向于专家式思维的证据。这项卡片分类任务可以为分析学生的研究概念提供一个框架,并确定哪些领域可以提供额外的脚手架,帮助从新手思维转变为专家思维。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cbe-Life Sciences Education
Cbe-Life Sciences Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
13.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). The journal was launched in spring 2002 as Cell Biology Education—A Journal of Life Science Education. The ASCB changed the name of the journal in spring 2006 to better reflect the breadth of its readership and the scope of its submissions. LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The ASCB believes that learning in biology encompasses diverse fields, including math, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, and the interdisciplinary intersections of biology with these fields. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信