CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Practice makes pretty good: Assessment of primary literature reading abilities across multiple large-enrollment biology laboratory courses

Open access
Sato, Brian K., Kadandale, Pavan, He, Wenliang, Murata, Paige M. N., Latif, Yama, Warschauer, Mark·2014·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.14-02-0025PMC PMC4255354
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Primary literature is essential for scientific communication and is commonly utilized in undergraduate biology education. Despite this, there is often little time spent training our students how to critically analyze a paper. To address this, we introduced a primary literature module in multiple upper-division laboratory courses. In this module, instructors conduct classroom discussions that dissect a paper as researchers do. While previous work has identified classroom interventions that improve primary literature comprehension within a single course, our goal was to determine whether including a scientific paper module in our classes could produce long-term benefits. On the basis of performance in an assessment exam, we found that our module resulted in longitudinal gains, including increased comprehension and critical-thinking abilities in subsequent lab courses. These learning gains were specific to courses utilizing our module, as no longitudinal gains were seen in students who had taken other upper-division labs that lacked extensive primary literature discussion. In addition, we assessed whether performance on our assessment correlated with a variety of factors, including grade point average, course performance, research background, and self-reported confidence in understanding of the article. Furthermore, all of the study conclusions are independent of biology disciplines, as we observe similar trends within each course.

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.14-02-0025

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Many strategy papers rely on anecdotal evidence that undergraduates adopt superficial reading strategies and lack analytical skills, and make a tacit assumption that more experienced researchers read the literature correctly.

    “Many of these ‘strategy’ papers rely on anecdotal evidence that undergraduates adopt superficial reading strategies and lack analytical skills [17], and make a tacit assumption that more experienced researchers read the literature ‘correctly’.”

    From Perceptions of scientific research literature and strategies for reading papers depend on academic career stage (2017) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says that, based on personal communication and classroom discussions, the average student lacks the skill of critically reading scientific papers. It does not say that many strategy papers rely on anecdotal evidence, that students use superficial reading strategies, or that those papers assume experienced researchers read correctly. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Benefits of reading PSL can persist in the long term, with students demonstrating improved scientific process skills and academic advantages in subsequent courses.

    “These benefits can persist in the long term, with students demonstrating improved scientific process skills and academic advantages in subsequent courses (Kozeracki et al., 2006; Sato et al., 2014).”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Sato et al., 2014

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sato, B. K., Kadandale, P., He, W., Murata, P. M. N., Latif, Y., & Warschauer, M.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Sato, Brian K.
ORCID
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2014-12
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
677-686
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.14-02-0025
PMC
PMC4255354
OpenAlex
W2096215774
Cited by
58
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
23.92
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)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of California, Irvine
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
critical thinking, classroom discussion, student self-confidence, research background, grade point average
MeSH terms
Biology, Communication, Curriculum, Educational Measurement, Periodicals as Topic, Reading, Regression Analysis, Universities, Models, Educational

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