PROMOTING AN INCLUSIVE IMAGE OF SCIENTISTS AMONG STUDENTS: TOWARDS RESEARCH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE

This study aims at investigating the effects of a teaching intervention, the design of which is informed by evidence from educational theories and research data, on students’ images of scientists. A quasi-experimental design with a non-equivalent pre-test–post-test control group (CG) was used to compare the outcomes of the intervention. The subjects of the study were 63 grade 6 (aged 12 and 13) students who were in two different classes and taught by two different teachers. The study was undertaken in ten class hours over a 4-week period, during which the topics related to matter and heat concepts were covered as a part of the regular Turkish Science and Technology Curriculum. Before the intervention, there was no significant difference between the two classes in terms of their achievements in the Science and Technology course (t(63) = −0.943, p > 0.05). Accordingly, one of the classes was randomly selected as the experimental group (EG). A modified version of the Draw-a-Scientist Test, in conjunction with individual interviews, was used to assess students’ images of scientists at the beginning and end of the study. The results showed that students who had followed evidence-informed instruction had significant gains from the pre-test to the post-test regarding their images of scientists compared to students with traditional instruction. Many students in the EG started to view scientists as realistic people rather than as extraordinary people or mythical creatures. Nevertheless, several students in the CG held images of scientists and their work which fit a stereotype of scientists as male, bald, bespectacled, wearing a laboratory coat, working alone in a laboratory environment and having a limited social life. Some possible implications for teaching and further research are discussed.     

Utilization of biological variation data in the interpretation of laboratory test results – survey about clinicians’ opinion and knowledge

IntroductionTo interpret test results correctly, understanding of the variations that affect test results is essential. The aim of this study is: 1) to evaluate the clinicians’ knowledge and opinion concerning biological variation (BV), and 2) to investigate if clinicians use BV in the interpretation of test results.Materials and methodsThis study uses a questionnaire comprising open-ended and close-ended questions. Questions were selected from the real-life numerical examples of interpretation of test results, the knowledge about main sources of variations in laboratories and the opinion of clinicians on BV. A total of 399 clinicians were interviewed, and the answers were evaluated using a scoring system ranked from A (clinician has the highest level of knowledge and the ability of using BV data) to D (clinician has no knowledge about variations in laboratory). The results were presented as number (N) and percentage (%).ResultsAltogether, 60.4% of clinicians have knowledge of pre-analytical and analytical variations; but only 3.5% of them have knowledge related to BV. The number of clinicians using BV data or reference change value (RCV) to interpret measurements results was zero, while 79.4% of clinicians accepted that the difference between two measurements results located within the reference interval may be significant.ConclusionsClinicians do not use BV data or tools derived from BV such as RCV to interpret test results. It is recommended that BV should be included in the medical school curriculum, and clinicians should be encouraged to use BV data for safe and valid interpretation of test results.