CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching Practices

The CREATE strategy for intensive analysis of primary literature can be used effectively by newly trained faculty to produce multiple gains in diverse students

Open access
Stevens, Leslie M., Hoskins, Sally G.·2014·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0239PMC PMC4041501
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The CREATE (Consider Read, Elucidate the hypotheses, Analyze and interpret the data, and Think of the next Experiment) strategy aims to demystify scientific research and scientists while building critical thinking, reading/analytical skills, and improved science attitudes through intensive analysis of primary literature. CREATE was developed and piloted at the City College of New York (CCNY), a 4-yr, minority-serving institution, with both upper-level biology majors and first-year students interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. To test the extent to which CREATE strategies are broadly applicable to students at private, public, research-intensive, and/or primarily undergraduate colleges/universities, we trained a cohort of faculty from the New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania area in CREATE pedagogies, then followed a subset, the CREATE implementers (CIs), as they taught all or part of an existing course on their home campuses using CREATE approaches. Evaluation of the workshops, the CIs, and their students was carried out both by the principal investigators and by an outside evaluator working independently. Our data indicate that: intensive workshops change aspects of faculty attitudes about teaching/learning; workshop-trained faculty can effectively design and teach CREATE courses; and students taught by such faculty on multiple campuses make significant cognitive and affective gains that parallel the changes documented previously at CCNY.

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.13-12-0239

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Only one approach-the CREATE method-has led to a number of publications investigating the effectiveness and impact of the approach across different institutions, including both 2-year and 4-year colleges.

    “We identified only one approach—the CREATE method—that has led to a number of publications investigating the effectiveness and impact of the approach across different institutions, including both 2-year and 4-year colleges (Kenyon et al., 2016; Stevens and Hoskins, 2014).”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Stevens and Hoskins, 2014

    The Methods and Conclusions report an evaluation of CREATE across five campuses, and the References list earlier CREATE studies, supporting the claim that its impact has been investigated in multiple publications and institutions. The Discussion describes an expansion to four-year and community colleges as ongoing work, not a completed evaluation of both two-year and four-year colleges. The citing authors’ statement that they identified only one such approach is their own finding, not a claim attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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 [30]

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

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Coe R It's the Effect Size, stupid. What Effect Size is and why it is important Presentation to British Educational Research Association, Annual Conference, held September 12–14, 2002, in Exeter, UK 2002 www.psych.yorku.ca/mcnelles/documents/ESguide.pdf (accessed 23 September 2012)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stevens, L. M., & Hoskins, S. G.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
Corresponding author
Hoskins, Sally G.
ORCID
Stevens, Leslie M.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2014-06
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
224-242
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.13-12-0239
PMC
PMC4041501
OpenAlex
W2142941874
Cited by
62
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4
FWCI
20.51
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)
  • Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Texas Digital Library (University of Texas)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0618536)
  • Carnegie Corporation of New York
  • City University of New York
  • Graduate Center
  • Division of Undergraduate Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
critical thinking, attitudes toward science, faculty professional development, faculty training workshops, diverse students, first-year students, biology education, minority-serving institutions
MeSH terms
Attitude, Curriculum, Education, Faculty, Humans, Science, Students, Universities

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