CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Science Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEvolution and Science Education

Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy

Baram-Tsabari, Ayelet, Yarden, Anat·2005·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.20063
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Learning using primary literature may be a way of developing a capacity for scientific ways of thinking among students. Since reading research articles is a difficult task for novices, we examined the possible benefits of learning using primary literature versus secondary literature, particularly with respect to their influence on the creation and formation of scientific literacy. We report on a comparison between four groups of high school students, each with differing degrees of prior knowledge in biology, who read a domain-related text written in either the scientific research article genre (adapted primary literature) or the popular-scientific genre (secondary literature). Although there was no significant difference in the students' ability to summarize the main ideas of each text, indicating that there was no eminent distinction in their content, we found that students who read adapted primary literature demonstrated better inquiry skills, whereas secondary literature readers comprehended the text better and demonstrated less negative attitudes toward the reading task. Since the scientific content of the two texts was essentially identical, we suggest that the differences in students' performances stem from the structure of the text, dictated by its genre. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 42: 403–428, 2005

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.20063

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Past work has identified differences in students' cognitive and affective behaviors when engaging with PSL versus reading secondary sources.

    “given that past work has identified differences in students’ cognitive and affective behaviors when engaging with PSL versus reading secondary sources (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005).”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A.
Affiliations
Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
Corresponding author
Yarden, Anat
ORCID
Yarden, Anat
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
403-428
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.20063
OpenAlex
W2139266862
Cited by
110
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
14.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 3895 d)
Locations
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
Keywords
textual genres, scientific literacy, primary literature, secondary literature, popular science, biology education, high school students, inquiry skills, text comprehension, reading attitudes, prior knowledge, science education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review