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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Figure 1. Overview of the C.R.E.A.T.E process. Papers 1–4 form a “module”—a series published by the same lab group as they followed a particular question in sequential studies. See Table 1 for details of each step of the C.R.E.A.T.E analysis. Variations on this approach, for example, discussing papers from different lab groups with conflicting data, or using the method in shorter-term analysis of newspaper/Internet reports of science studies, are also effective (see Hoskins, 2008, 2010). *Defining/discussing grant panel criteria is done during this iteration only.
Figure 1. Overview of the C.R.E.A.T.E process. Papers 1–4 form a “module”—a series published by the same lab group as they followed a particular question in sequential studies. See Table 1 for details of each step of the C.R.E.A.T.E analysis. Variations on this approach, for example, discussing papers from different lab groups with conflicting data, or using the method in shorter-term analysis of newspaper/Internet reports of science studies, are also effective (see Hoskins, 2008, 2010). *Defining/discussing grant panel criteria is done during this iteration only.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 93 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. American Association for Higher Education, 2000, Targeting Curricular Change: Reform in Undergraduate Education in Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1989, Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology
  3. Atwell R, 2004, The long road ahead: barriers to minority participation persist. In: Reflections on 20 Years of Minorities in Higher Education and the ACE Annual Status Report
  4. Aulls M, 2008, Inquiry in Education, vol. I: The Conceptual Foundations for Research as a Curricular Imperative
  5. Bloom BS, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a Committee of College and University Examiners, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain
  6. Butler D, 2008, Inquiry in Education, vol. II., 301
  7. Chaplin S, 2009, J Coll Sci Teach, 39, 72
  8. Chickering AW, 1987, AAHE Bull, 39, 3
  9. DePass A, 2009, Understanding Interventions That Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers: Summary of a Workshop
  10. Herreid CF, 1994, J Coll Sci Teach, 23, 221
  11. Herreid CF, 1994, J Coll Sci Teach, 23, 349
  12. Hoskins S, 2008, J Undergrad Neurosci Educ, 6, A40
  13. Janick-Buckner D, 1997, J Coll Sci Teach, 27, 29
  14. Klionsky DJ, 1998, J Coll Sci Teach, 27, 334
  15. Kozeracki CA, 2006, Cell Biol Educ, 5, 340
  16. Malcom SM, 2005, A System of Solutions: Every School, Every Student
  17. Nordell S, 2009, Bioscene: J Coll Biol Teach, 35, 35
  18. Novak J, 1991, Sci Teach, 58, 45
  19. Pulmones R, 2010, Asia-Pacific Educ Res, 19, 143
  20. Sadler TD, 2010, J Coll Sci Teach, 39, 43
  21. Schinske JN, 2008, Science Teach, 75, 49
  22. Schommer-Aikins M, 2002, Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, 103
  23. Schwartz D, 2006, The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 283
  24. Shore B, 2008, Inquiry in Education, vol. II: Overcoming Barriers to Successful Implementation
  25. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), 2000, Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

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