Quotation Accuracy Matters: An Examination of How an Influential Meta-Analysis on Active Learning Has Been Cited

Abstract

When previous research is cited incorrectly, misinformation can infiltrate scientific discourse and undermine scholarly knowledge. One of the more damaging citation issues involves incorrectly citing article content (called quotation errors); therefore, investigating quotation accuracy is an important research endeavor. One field where quotation accuracy is needed is in the learning sciences given its impact on pedagogy. An integral article in pedagogical discussions surrounding how to teach at the college level is the meta-analysis on active learning by Freeman et al. The Freeman et al. meta-analysis compared active learning to traditional lecture in terms of its effects on student learning and has been important in national initiatives on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) reform. Given its influence coupled with the impact quotation errors could have in scientific discourse, we used citation context analysis to analyze whether assertions in the citing text that related to the efficacy of lecture and active learning were supported by what was explicitly stated in the cited meta-analysis. Assertions were analyzed undersupported, unsupported, or irrelevant for purposes of study categories. The most prevalent supported category related to active learning being more effective than lecture; the most prevalent unsupported category related to the effectiveness of specific activities/approaches other than the general approach of active learning. Overall, the percentage of supported assertions was 47.67%, and the percentage of unsupported assertions was 26.01%. Furthermore, the percentage of articles containing at least one unsupported assertion was 34.77%. Proactive measures are needed to reduce the incidence of quotation errors to ensure robust scientific integrity.

Declining citation accuracy in polar research

“…These error rates fall within the ranges reported for other fields (e.g. learning sciences 26% (Martella et al, 2021), general science 25% (Smith & Cumberledge, 2020)) and seem to suggest such error rates to be relatively consistent in recent years between various academic fields.…”

“…Citation inaccuracies can take many forms, ranging from easily detectible bibliographic errors to more significant errors whereby important information is misinterpreted or misrepresented (Martella et al, 2021). When errors misrepresent published data, quotes, claims and/or interpretations, they are termed "quotation errors" to distinguish these from the broader group of inaccurate citations that include bibliographic and typographical errors (Martella et al, 2021;Smith & Cumberledge, 2020). The accuracy of citation practices has been assessed for a number of fields, notably in many medical fields (reviewed in Jergas & Baethge, 2015), ecology (e.g.…”

“…Haussmann, McIntyre, Bumby, & Loubser, 2013), learning sciences (e.g. Martella et al, 2021) and, more recently, general high-impact science journals (e.g. Smith & Cumberledge, 2020).…”

“…These findings are typically worrisome, with many studies suggesting that more than 20% of the citations in their respective fields are inaccurate (e.g. Jergas & Baethge, 2015;Martella et al, 2021;Todd et al, 2010).…”

Contribution of Academia Colleague as a Clinical Model to the Professional Development of Pre-Service Teachers

“…As a result, they experience a feeling of significance and their basic psychological needs are further satisfied, which further strengthens self-perceptions and motivation, and so on. That is, it is a spiraling process in which experiences of satisfying needs, motivation, and constructive actions reinforce each other (Martella et al, 2021). Numerous studies have shown that there are several ways of working and treating teachers and educators that directly support the students' needs and their positive self-perceptions (Reeve et al, 2014;Ruzek et al, 2016).…”