From Novice To Expert: An Assessment To Measure Strategies Students Implement While Learning To Read Primary Scientific Literature
Open accessAbstract
Primary Scientific Literature (PSL) has been used in undergraduate classrooms as a way to engage students with the research process and to increase science literacy. Most curricula lack any formal training for undergraduates to critically read PSL even though most undergraduate science courses require students to engage with PSL at some level.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The PSL Reading Strategies Assessment can be used to provide insight into how students are approaching the assigned PSL readings.
“the PSL Reading Strategies Assessment, which can be used to provide insight into how students are approaching the assigned PSL readings (Lee et al., 2022).”
From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- [2]Lo SM, Luu TB, Tran J. 2020. A modified CREATE intervention improves student cognitive and affective outcomes in an upper-division genetics course. J Microbiol Biol Educ 21: 21.1.36. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1881. PMC7198224 32431773 · DOI
- [3]McCartney M, Childers C, Baiduc RR, Barnicle K. 2018. Annotated primary literature: a professional development opportunity in science communication for graduate students and postdocs. J Microbiol Biol Educ 19: 19.1.20. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439. PMC5969403 29904517 · DOI
- [4]Schmid KM, Wiles JR. 2019. An Introduction to Biological Research Course for Undergraduate Biology Students. J Coll Sci Teach 049: 48– 52. doi: 10.2505/4/jcst19_049_01_48. · DOI
- [6]Sandefur CI, Gordy C. 2016. Undergraduate journal club as an intervention to improve student development in applying the scientific process. J College Sci Teach 45: 52– 58. doi: 10.2505/4/jcst16_045_04_52. PMC4874504 27212737 · DOI
- [8]Beck CW. 2019. Integrating primary literature in a lecture course using a modified version of the C.R.E.A.T.E. Approach. CS 6. doi: 10.24918/cs.2019.25. · DOI
- [17]Kararo M, McCartney M. 2019. Annotated primary scientific literature: a pedagogical tool for undergraduate courses. PLoS Biol 17: e3000103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000103. 30625129 PMC6342315 · DOI
- [19]Chatzikyriakidou K, Manrique C, Janelle Tacloban M, McCartney M. 2021. Exploring primary scientific literature through the lens of the 5 core concepts of biology. CS 8. doi: 10.24918/cs.2021.5. · DOI
- [22]Nelms AA, Segura-Totten M. 2019. Expert–novice comparison reveals pedagogical implications for students’ analysis of primary literature. CBE Life Sci Educ 18: ar56. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-05-0077. 31675277 PMC6829068 · DOI · Paper page
- [23]Marsh TL, Guenther MF, Raimondi SL. 2015. When do students “learn-to-comprehend” scientific sources? Evaluation of a critical skill in undergraduates progressing through a science major. J Microbiol Biol Educ 16: 13– 20. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.828. 25949752 PMC4416498 · DOI
- [24]Gallo M, Rinaldo V. 2012. Towards a mastery understanding of critical reading in biology: the use of highlighting by students to assess their value judgment of the importance of primary literature. J Microbiol Biol Educ 13: 142– 149. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v13i2.493. 23653801 PMC3577314 · DOI
- [25]Lennox R, Hepburn K, Leaman E, van Houten N. 2020. ‘I’m probably just gonna skim’: an assessment of undergraduate students’ primary scientific literature reading approaches. Int J Science Education 42: 1409– 1429. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2020.1765044. · DOI
- [28]Tabachnick BG, Ullman JB. 2019. Using multivariate statistics. Pearson, Boston, MA.
- [30]Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition, Pearson, New York, NY.
- [31]Brunner M, Süß H-M. 2005. Analyzing the reliability of multidimensional measures: an example from intelligence research. Educ Psychol Meas 65: 227– 240. doi: 10.1177/0013164404268669. · DOI
- [32]Stommel M, Wills C. 2004. Clinical research: Concepts and principles for advanced practice nurses. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
- [33]Knekta E, Runyon C, Eddy S. 2019. One size doesn’t fit all: using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research. CBE Life Sci Educ 18: rm1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-04-0064. 30821600 PMC6757227 · DOI
- [34]Yong AG, Pearce S. 2013. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials Quantitative Methods Psychology 9: 79– 94. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079. · DOI · Paper page
- [35]Riazi AM. 2016. The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. Routledge, Oxfordshire, England.
- [37]Ericsson KA. 2018. The differential influence of experience, practice, anddeliberate practice on the development of superior individual performance of experts, p 745– 769. In Williams AM, Kozbelt A, Ericsson KA, Hoffman RR (ed), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
- [38]Segura-Totten M, Dalman NE. 2013. The CREATE method does not result in greater gains in critical thinking than a more traditional method of analyzing the primary literature. J Microbiol Biol Educ 14: 166– 175. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506. 24358379 PMC3867753 · DOI
- [39]Chatzikyriakidou K, Tacloban MJ, Concepcion K, McCartney M. 2022. The five core concepts of biology as a framework for promoting expert-like behaviors in undergraduates learning how to read primary scientific literature. Rev J Microb Biology Edu e00059-22. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00059-22. PMC9753625 36532206 · DOI
- Authors
- Lee, S., Zhong, M., Foster, C., Segura-Totten, M., & McCartney, M.
- Affiliations
- Auburn University (US)
- East Tennessee State University (US)
- University of North Georgia, Department of Biology, Dahlonega, Georgia, USA
- Florida International University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McCartney, Melissa
- Venue
- Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2022-12-15
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1935-7877 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-7885
- PMC
- PMC9753651
- OpenAlex
- W4309758604
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 3.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007444, R25HL145817)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Keywords
- reading strategies, expert-novice differences, undergraduate science education, scientific literacy, scale development, diagnostic assessment, reading comprehension
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
