CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Testing CREATE at Community Colleges: An Examination of Faculty Perspectives and Diverse Student Gains

Open access
Kenyon, Kristy L., Onorato, Morgan E., Gottesman, Alan J., Hoque, Jamila, Hoskins, Sally G.·2016·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.15-07-0146PMC PMC4803097
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CREATE (Consider, Read, Elucidate the hypotheses, Analyze and interpret the data, and Think of the next Experiment) is an innovative pedagogy for teaching science through the intensive analysis of scientific literature. Initiated at the City College of New York, a minority-serving institution, and regionally expanded in the New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania area, this methodology has had multiple positive impacts on faculty and students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses. To determine whether the CREATE strategy is effective at the community college (2-yr) level, we prepared 2-yr faculty to use CREATE methodologies and investigated CREATE implementation at community colleges in seven regions of the United States. We used outside evaluation combined with pre/postcourse assessments of students to test related hypotheses: 1) workshop-trained 2-yr faculty teach effectively with the CREATE strategy in their first attempt, and 2) 2-yr students in CREATE courses make cognitive and affective gains during their CREATE quarter or semester. Community college students demonstrated positive shifts in experimental design and critical-thinking ability concurrent with gains in attitudes/self-rated learning and maturation of epistemological beliefs about science.

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.15-07-0146

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Since then, the authors and others have revised and implemented the CREATE method in different contexts, with many publications discussing modifications of this approach, assessment of students' cognitive and affective changes, as well as ways to train and support faculty in implementing this technique.

    “Since then, the authors and others have revised and implemented the CREATE method in different contexts, with many publications discussing modifications of this approach, assessment of students’ cognitive and affective changes, as well as ways to train and support faculty in implementing this technique (Hoskins et al., 2007, 2017; Hoskins, 2008, 2010, 2019; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013; Stevens and”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Kenyon et al., 2016

  • 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 Kenyon et al., 2016

  • The body of literature on CREATE includes research that examines the effectiveness of this approach in 2-year colleges, explores how this approach can be modified to guide students to read and think critically about secondary sources, investigates the impact of CREATE on students' attitudes toward science in both introductory and upper-division courses across diverse institutions, assesses the ef

    “For example, this body of literature on CREATE includes research that examines the effectiveness of this approach in 2-year colleges (Kenyon et al., 2016), explores how this approach can be modified to guide students to read and think critically about secondary sources (Hoskins, 2010), investigates the impact of CREATE on students’ attitudes toward science in both introductory and upper-division”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Kenyon et al., 2016

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

3 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Finegold D Notabartolo AS 2010 21st Century Competencies and Their Impact: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review Commissioned for the NRC Project on Research on 21st Century Competencies: A Planning Process on behalf of the Hewlett Foundation. www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Finegold_Notabartolo_Impact_Paper.pdf [October 2011]. http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/21st_Century_Competencies_Impact.pdf (accessed 7 February 2016)
  2. National Research Council How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School expanded 2000 Washington, DC National Academies Press
  3. Taylor B 2004 Debating moral education—topic 3: teaching and learning. Paper presented at Center for Academic Integrity conference, July 2004, at Duke University, Durham, NC [citation from Bers, 2005]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kenyon, K. L., Onorato, M. E., Gottesman, A. J., Hoque, J., & Hoskins, S. G.
Affiliations
  • Hobart and William Smith Colleges (US)
  • City College of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Kenyon, Kristy L.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2016-03
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
ar8
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.15-07-0146
PMC
PMC4803097
OpenAlex
W2289281922
Cited by
32
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
16.27
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)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1021443)
  • Carnegie Corporation of New York
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
community colleges, science education, faculty development, scientific literature analysis, experimental design, critical thinking, epistemological beliefs, student attitudes, minority-serving institutions
MeSH terms
Attitude, Biology, Curriculum, Engineering, Faculty, Humans, Learning, Mathematics, Science, Students, Teaching, Technology, Thinking, United States, 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