CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 211Science Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesInnovative Teaching Methods

The C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates’ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefs

Open access
Hoskins, Sally G., Lopatto, David, Stevens, Leslie M.·2011·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027PMC PMC3228655
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The C.R.E.A.T.E. (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret data, Think of the next Experiment) method uses intensive analysis of primary literature in the undergraduate classroom to demystify and humanize science. We have reported previously that the method improves students' critical thinking and content integration abilities, while at the same time enhancing their self-reported understanding of "who does science, and why." We report here the results of an assessment that addressed C.R.E.A.T.E. students' attitudes about the nature of science, beliefs about learning, and confidence in their ability to read, analyze, and explain research articles. Using a Likert-style survey administered pre- and postcourse, we found significant changes in students' confidence in their ability to read and analyze primary literature, self-assessed understanding of the nature of science, and epistemological beliefs (e.g., their sense of whether knowledge is certain and scientific talent innate). Thus, within a single semester, the inexpensive C.R.E.A.T.E. method can shift not just students' analytical abilities and understanding of scientists as people, but can also positively affect students' confidence with analysis of primary literature, their insight into the processes of science, and their beliefs about learning.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Undergraduates using these approaches have significantly increased performance in critical thinking tests, and report increased interest in primary research when interviewed after being taught specific reading strategies.

    “Undergraduates using these approaches have significantly increased performance in critical thinking tests, and report increased interest in primary research when interviewed after being taught specific reading strategies [11,15].”

    From Perceptions of scientific research literature and strategies for reading papers depend on academic career stage (2017) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports that previous work found pre- to postcourse gains in C.R.E.A.T.E. students’ critical-thinking abilities and changes in attitudes assessed through postcourse interviews. It does not establish significant improvement on critical-thinking tests or say that interviewed students reported increased interest in primary research. This paper’s Results concern survey responses rather than critical-thinking test performance. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A variety of teaching strategies for introducing papers to undergraduate students have been described, many of which have been demonstrated to increase student confidence and skill in the use of research literature.

    “A variety of teaching strategies for introducing papers undergraduate students have been described, many of which have been demonstrated to increase student confidence and skill in the use of research literature [6,11,15,16,30–32].”

    From Perceptions of scientific research literature and strategies for reading papers depend on academic career stage (2017) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Introduction describes several approaches to teaching with primary literature, and the Discussion reports increased confidence in reading and understanding it after the C.R.E.A.T.E. course. However, the Methods describe surveys of students’ self-rated abilities, not a demonstration that their research-literature skills improved. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Guided literature explorations increase students' overall confidence in their ability to interpret data.

    “This finding complements a recent report by Hoskins et al. (2011), which shows that guided literature explorations increase students’ overall confidence in their ability to interpret data.”

    From Figure Facts: Encouraging Undergraduates to Take a Data-Centered Approach to Reading Primary Literature (2013) · cites this paper as Hoskins et al. (2011)

  • The author of the 2008 CREATE paper continued refining the approach and teaching using CREATE, and then gathered data to examine the impact of the CREATE method on both student attitudes toward and abilities gained in reading PSL, finding positive gains.

    “However, the author of this 2008 paper continued refining the approach and teaching using CREATE, and then gathered data to examine the impact of the CREATE method on both student attitudes toward and abilities gained in reading PSL, finding positive gains (Hoskins et al., 2011).”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Hoskins et al., 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology 1989 Washington, DC AAAS www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1 (accessed 23 July 2011)
  2. Butler D Pollock C Nomme K Nakonechny J Shore B. Aulls M. Delcourt M. Promoting authentic inquiry in the sciences: challenges faced in redefining university students’ scientific epistemology Inquiry in Education, vol. II. 2008 New York Routledge 301 324
  3. DePass A Chubin D Understanding Interventions That Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers: Summary of a Workshop 2009 Washington, DC National Academies Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hoskins, S. G., Lopatto, D., & Stevens, L. M.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • Grinnell College (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Hoskins, Sally G.
ORCID
Stevens, Leslie M.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2011-12
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
368-378
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027
PMC
PMC3228655
OpenAlex
W2119334827
Cited by
207
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 1
FWCI
43.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0311117, 1021443, 0618536)
  • Carnegie Corporation of New York
  • City University of New York
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
Keywords
undergraduate science education, self-efficacy, attitudes toward science, nature of science, epistemological beliefs, beliefs about learning, critical thinking, demystification of science
MeSH terms
Attitude, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Periodicals as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Science, Students, Knowledge, 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