使用初级特征分析量表评估学生评论已发表的初级科学文献的技能。

Manuel F Varela, Marvin M F Lutnesky, Marcy P Osgood
{"title":"使用初级特征分析量表评估学生评论已发表的初级科学文献的技能。","authors":"Manuel F Varela,&nbsp;Marvin M F Lutnesky,&nbsp;Marcy P Osgood","doi":"10.1128/me.6.1.20-27.2005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Instructor evaluation of progressive student skills in the analysis of primary literature is critical for the development of these skills in young scientists. Students in a senior or graduate-level one-semester course in Immunology at a Masters-level comprehensive university were assessed for abilities (primary traits) to recognize and evaluate the following elements of a scientific paper: Hypothesis and Rationale, Significance, Methods, Results, Critical Thinking and Analysis, and Conclusions. We tested the hypotheses that average recognition scores vary among elements and that scores change with time differently by trait. Recognition scores (scaled 1 to 5), and differences in scores were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), regression, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (n = 10 papers over 103 days). By multiple comparisons testing, we found that recognition scores statistically fell into two groups: high scores (for Hypothesis and Rationale, Significance, Methods, and Conclusions) and low scores (for Results and Critical Thinking and Analysis). Recognition scores only significantly changed with time (increased) for Hypothesis and Rationale and Results. ANCOVA showed that changes in recognition scores for these elements were not significantly different in slope (F1,16 = 0.254, P = 0.621) but the Results trait was significantly lower in elevation (F1,17 = 12.456, P = 0.003). Thus, students improved with similar trajectories, but starting and ending with lower Results scores. We conclude that students have greatest difficulty evaluating Results and critically evaluating scientific validity. Our findings show extant student skills, and the significant increase in some traits shows learning. This study demonstrates that students start with variable recognition skills and that student skills may be learned at differential rates. Faculty can use these findings or the primary trait analysis scoring scale to focus on specific paper elements for which they desire to improve recognition.</p>","PeriodicalId":89824,"journal":{"name":"Microbiology education","volume":"6 ","pages":"20-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633135/pdf/jmbe-6-1-20.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of student skills for critiquing published primary scientific literature using a primary trait analysis scale.\",\"authors\":\"Manuel F Varela,&nbsp;Marvin M F Lutnesky,&nbsp;Marcy P Osgood\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/me.6.1.20-27.2005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Instructor evaluation of progressive student skills in the analysis of primary literature is critical for the development of these skills in young scientists. Students in a senior or graduate-level one-semester course in Immunology at a Masters-level comprehensive university were assessed for abilities (primary traits) to recognize and evaluate the following elements of a scientific paper: Hypothesis and Rationale, Significance, Methods, Results, Critical Thinking and Analysis, and Conclusions. We tested the hypotheses that average recognition scores vary among elements and that scores change with time differently by trait. Recognition scores (scaled 1 to 5), and differences in scores were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), regression, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (n = 10 papers over 103 days). By multiple comparisons testing, we found that recognition scores statistically fell into two groups: high scores (for Hypothesis and Rationale, Significance, Methods, and Conclusions) and low scores (for Results and Critical Thinking and Analysis). Recognition scores only significantly changed with time (increased) for Hypothesis and Rationale and Results. ANCOVA showed that changes in recognition scores for these elements were not significantly different in slope (F1,16 = 0.254, P = 0.621) but the Results trait was significantly lower in elevation (F1,17 = 12.456, P = 0.003). Thus, students improved with similar trajectories, but starting and ending with lower Results scores. We conclude that students have greatest difficulty evaluating Results and critically evaluating scientific validity. Our findings show extant student skills, and the significant increase in some traits shows learning. This study demonstrates that students start with variable recognition skills and that student skills may be learned at differential rates. Faculty can use these findings or the primary trait analysis scoring scale to focus on specific paper elements for which they desire to improve recognition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89824,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microbiology education\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"20-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633135/pdf/jmbe-6-1-20.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microbiology education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/me.6.1.20-27.2005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbiology education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/me.6.1.20-27.2005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

教师评价学生在原始文献分析中的进步技能对青年科学家这些技能的发展至关重要。本研究评估了在一所综合性大学攻读免疫学硕士或研究生一学期课程的学生识别和评价科学论文以下要素的能力(主要特征):假设和基本原理、意义、方法、结果、批判性思维和分析以及结论。我们测试了这样的假设,即平均识别分数在元素之间是不同的,分数随时间的变化因特征而异。采用方差分析(ANOVA)、回归分析和协方差分析(ANCOVA) (n = 10篇论文,103天)对识别得分(1至5分)和得分差异进行分析。通过多重比较检验,我们发现认知得分在统计上分为两组:高分组(假设和基本原理、意义、方法和结论)和低分组(结果和批判性思维和分析)。假设、基本原理和结果的认知得分仅随时间显著改变(增加)。ANCOVA结果显示,在坡度上,这些要素的识别得分变化不显著(F1,16 = 0.254, P = 0.621),但在海拔上,结果性状的识别得分显著降低(F1,17 = 12.456, P = 0.003)。因此,学生们的进步轨迹相似,但开始和结束时的成绩都较低。我们的结论是,学生在评估结果和批判性地评估科学有效性方面存在最大的困难。我们的研究结果显示了学生的现有技能,一些特征的显著提高表明了学习能力。本研究表明,学生从不同的识别技能开始,学生的技能可能以不同的速度学习。教师可以使用这些发现或主要特征分析评分量表来关注他们希望提高认可度的特定论文元素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of student skills for critiquing published primary scientific literature using a primary trait analysis scale.

Instructor evaluation of progressive student skills in the analysis of primary literature is critical for the development of these skills in young scientists. Students in a senior or graduate-level one-semester course in Immunology at a Masters-level comprehensive university were assessed for abilities (primary traits) to recognize and evaluate the following elements of a scientific paper: Hypothesis and Rationale, Significance, Methods, Results, Critical Thinking and Analysis, and Conclusions. We tested the hypotheses that average recognition scores vary among elements and that scores change with time differently by trait. Recognition scores (scaled 1 to 5), and differences in scores were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), regression, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (n = 10 papers over 103 days). By multiple comparisons testing, we found that recognition scores statistically fell into two groups: high scores (for Hypothesis and Rationale, Significance, Methods, and Conclusions) and low scores (for Results and Critical Thinking and Analysis). Recognition scores only significantly changed with time (increased) for Hypothesis and Rationale and Results. ANCOVA showed that changes in recognition scores for these elements were not significantly different in slope (F1,16 = 0.254, P = 0.621) but the Results trait was significantly lower in elevation (F1,17 = 12.456, P = 0.003). Thus, students improved with similar trajectories, but starting and ending with lower Results scores. We conclude that students have greatest difficulty evaluating Results and critically evaluating scientific validity. Our findings show extant student skills, and the significant increase in some traits shows learning. This study demonstrates that students start with variable recognition skills and that student skills may be learned at differential rates. Faculty can use these findings or the primary trait analysis scoring scale to focus on specific paper elements for which they desire to improve recognition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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