FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2892920257> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2892920257 startingPage "7" @default.
• W2892920257 abstract "Background The ability to critically evaluate and use evidence from one’s own work or from primary research literature is invaluable to any researcher. But the benefits of these skills go beyond the needs of scientific research, as the ability to create coherent scientific arguments is based on one’s ability to support claims with evidence (Bugarcic, Colthorpe, Zimbardi, Su, & Jackson, 2014; Toulmin, 2003). The skills required to critically evaluate and use evidence include the ability to identify strengths and weakness of primary literature; to gauge the impact of research findings on a field; to identify gaps in a field that require more research; and to contextualise findings within a field (Blommel & Abate, 2007).Methods This study examined the development of undergraduate science students’ abilities to critically evaluate and use evidence, through an analysis of the discussion sections of their written laboratory reports from an inquiry-based laboratory class. In order to gauge these skills, a model of epistemic levels was developed to analyse the way in which students use evidence to support their claims. In addition, the discussion sections of published scientific research articles were subjected to the same analysis, and comparisons made between student and expert authors.Results The student reports analysed (n=42) used evidence in a variety of ways, using 6.6+/-0.2 of the nine categories identified in the model. Most often referring to literature indirectly (29%), and least commonly highlighting limitations of literature (2%). The reports averaged 25.5+/-1.9 instances of evidence use across 762+/-35 words. The number of references cited varied from 5 to 23, averaging 10.1+/-0.5 per report. There were significant positive correlations between grade and number of references, length, and number of instances of evidence use, with these two latter variables also being strongly correlated. When compared to students, instances of use of evidence in scientific research articles (n=7) were very similar, averaging 7.3+/-0.3 of the nine categories of evidence use. However, expert authors were significantly more likely to refer to their own results than students, with this being the commonest (37%) type of evidence use, and cited significantly more references.Conclusions The inquiry-based curricula provided opportunities for students to development their skills in critical evaluation of evidence use, and the construction of arguments based on their own findings. Analysis of their laboratory reports showed that students, by the completion of the second year of their undergraduate degree program, already have expertise approaching that of published authors. These findings demonstrate that it is possible to provide valuable broad-scale undergraduate experiences to all students in a cohort, giving them exposure to the methods and communication processes of research, and an opportunity to hone their critical evaluation skills.ReferencesBlommel, M. L., & Abate, M. A. (2007). A rubric to assess critical literature evaluation skills. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(4), 63. Bugarcic, A., Colthorpe, K., Zimbardi, K., Su, H. W., & Jackson, K. (2014). The Development of Undergraduate Science Students’ Scientific Argument Skills in Oral Presentations. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(5), 43-60. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument: Cambridge University Press." @default.
• W2892920257 created "2018-10-05" @default.
• W2892920257 creator A5002790066 @default.
• W2892920257 creator A5036347790 @default.
• W2892920257 creator A5050637110 @default.
• W2892920257 creator A5082471707 @default.
• W2892920257 date "2017-08-21" @default.
• W2892920257 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2892920257 title "Assessing critical evaluation skills of undergraduate science students: developing expertise in science communication" @default.
• W2892920257 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2892920257 type Work @default.
• W2892920257 sameAs 2892920257 @default.
• W2892920257 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2892920257 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2892920257 hasAuthorship W2892920257A5002790066 @default.
• W2892920257 hasAuthorship W2892920257A5036347790 @default.
• W2892920257 hasAuthorship W2892920257A5050637110 @default.
• W2892920257 hasAuthorship W2892920257A5082471707 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C127413603 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C136197465 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C145420912 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C154945302 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C15744967 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C202444582 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C2777212361 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C33923547 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C41008148 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C509550671 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C55587333 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C71924100 @default.
• W2892920257 hasConceptScore W2892920257C9652623 @default.
• W2892920257 hasLocation W28929202571 @default.
• W2892920257 hasOpenAccess W2892920257 @default.
• W2892920257 hasPrimaryLocation W28929202571 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W1502263686 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W1530347168 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W1533831347 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W1604990211 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W1618983886 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W1895011030 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2046183553 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2066864088 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2159275035 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2565525822 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2618209812 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2761907942 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2764028421 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W3021118025 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W3043233857 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W3119553783 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W3133628335 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W38755873 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W2605334767 @default.
• W2892920257 hasRelatedWork W3085140674 @default.
• W2892920257 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2892920257 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2892920257 magId "2892920257" @default.
• W2892920257 workType "article" @default.