Cited by 46Science Education and PedagogyEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentInnovative Teaching Methods

Critical Analysis of Primary Literature in a Master’s-Level Class: Effects on Self-Efficacy and Science-Process Skills

Open access
Abdullah, Christopher, Parris, Julian, Lie, Richard, Guzdar, Amy, Tour, Ella·2015·CBE—Life Sciences Education

Abstract

The ability to think analytically and creatively is crucial for success in the modern workforce, particularly for graduate students, who often aim to become physicians or researchers. Analysis of the primary literature provides an excellent opportunity to practice these skills. We describe a course that includes a structured analysis of four research papers from diverse fields of biology and group exercises in proposing experiments that would follow up on these papers. To facilitate a critical approach to primary literature, we included a paper with questionable data interpretation and two papers investigating the same biological question yet reaching opposite conclusions. We report a significant increase in students’ self-efficacy in analyzing data from research papers, evaluating authors’ conclusions, and designing experiments. Using our science-process skills test, we observe a statistically significant increase in students’ ability to propose an experiment that matches the goal of investigation. We also detect gains in interpretation of controls and quantitative analysis of data. No statistically significant changes were observed in questions that tested the skills of interpretation, inference, and evaluation.

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.14-10-0180

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.

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?

  • Master's students in biology report having similar challenges as undergraduates in comprehending the experiments, figures, and language used in PSL.

    “other studies identified that master’s students in biology report having similar challenges as undergraduates in comprehending the experiments, figures, and language used in PSL, and may also have relatively low self-efficacy in some of the skills needed to read PSL (Abdullah et al., 2015; Lie et al., 2016; Hubbard and Dunbar, 2017).”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Abdullah et al., 2015

    The Introduction says the biology master’s students often felt unprepared to interpret primary literature. Methods > Course Activities reports survey-identified difficulties with unfamiliar background and experimental techniques, supporting the claim about challenges with experiments. Our copy does not report comparable difficulties with figures or language, or establish that the master’s students’ challenges were similar to undergraduates’. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Master's students in biology may have relatively low self-efficacy in some of the skills needed to read PSL.

    “other studies identified that master’s students in biology report having similar challenges as undergraduates in comprehending the experiments, figures, and language used in PSL, and may also have relatively low self-efficacy in some of the skills needed to read PSL (Abdullah et al., 2015; Lie et al., 2016; Hubbard and Dunbar, 2017).”

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 40 · Cited by 46

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Facione PA Facione NC California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Form A & B Test Manual 1998 Millbrae, CA California Academic Press

Authors
Abdullah, C., Parris, J., Lie, R., Guzdar, A., & Tour, E.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Tour, Ella
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2015-09
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
ar34
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1895011030
Cited by
46
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.65
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
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Association of American Medical Colleges
  • University of California, San Diego
  • Division of Undergraduate Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
Keywords
self-efficacy, science process skills, postgraduate research training, experimental design, data interpretation, quantitative data analysis
MeSH terms
Biology, California, Curriculum, Education, Graduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Publications, Research, Science, Statistics as Topic, Students, Thinking, Universities, Models, Educational, Self Efficacy

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