Perceived Challenges in Primary Literature in a Master’s Class: Effects of Experience and Instruction

“…for determining Bloom’s levels of the challenges was 0.65 (substantial agreement), while the interrater reliability for lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) versus higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) rating of challenges was 0.74 (substantial agreement as defined in Landis and Koch, 1977).”

“Our analysis was aligned with grounded theory: we examined students’ responses, seeking to describe all challenges identified by the students, as opposed to approaching the data with preconceived hypotheses about the nature of these challenges (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Andrews et al., 2012).”

“This prompted us to re-examine our data and, where appropriate, to identify the level of Bloom’s taxonomy that corresponded to each challenge (Bloom et al., 1956; Anderson et al., 2001).”

“Gradual Acquisition of Competency in Reading Primary Literature The model of domain learning (Alexander et al., 1997; Alexander and Jetton, 2000; Alexander, 2003) provides a useful perspective on the changes in students’ perceptions of the primary literature.”

“Identification of the Bloom’s cognitive levels of the challenges was based on the published descriptions of the cognitive activities associated with each of the Bloom’s levels (Bloom et al., 1956; Anderson et al., 2001; Crowe et al., 2008).”

“…barriers to the primary literature are the unique characteristics of scientific texts: their high informational content, discipline-specific jargon, and the formal writing style that differs from textbooks or informal texts that students often find online (Gehring and Eastman, 2008; Snow, 2010).”

“Gradual Acquisition of Competency in Reading Primary Literature The model of domain learning (Alexander et al., 1997; Alexander and Jetton, 2000; Alexander, 2003) provides a useful perspective on the changes in students’ perceptions of the primary literature.”

“Initial interrater reliability for determining Bloom’s levels of the challenges was 0.65 (substantial agreement), while the interrater reliability for lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) versus higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) rating of challenges was 0.74 (substantial agreement as defined in Landis and Koch, 1977…”

“…aspects of students’ academic self-efficacy, such as being able to understand scientific articles, science literacy, and their sense of belonging to the scientific community (Kozeracki et al., 2006; Hoskins et al., 2011; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013; Van Lacum et al., 2014; Abdullah et al., 2015).”

“Gradual Acquisition of Competency in Reading Primary Literature The model of domain learning (Alexander et al., 1997; Alexander and Jetton, 2000; Alexander, 2003) provides a useful perspective on the changes in students’ perceptions of the primary literature.”

“…aspects of students’ academic self-efficacy, such as being able to understand scientific articles, science literacy, and their sense of belonging to the scientific community (Kozeracki et al., 2006; Hoskins et al., 2011; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013; Van Lacum et al., 2014; Abdullah et al., 2015).”

“Initial interrater reliability for determining Bloom’s levels of the challenges was 0.65 (substantial agreement), while the interrater reliability for lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) versus higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) rating of challenges was 0.74 (substantial agreement as defined in Landis and Koch, 1977…”

“Many studies have described the use of primary literature in the classroom (e.g., Janick-Buckner, 1997; Muench, 2000; Kozeracki et al., 2006; Hoskins et al., 2007; Krontiris-Litowitz, 2013; Round and Campbell, 2013; Sato et al., 2014; Van Lacum et al., 2014; Abdullah et al., 2015).”

“Our analysis was aligned with grounded theory: we examined students’ responses, seeking to describe all challenges identified by the students, as opposed to approaching the data with preconceived hypotheses about the nature of these challenges (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Andrews et al., 2012).”

“Previous studies have presented the instructors’ perspectives on students’ difficulties with the primary literature (Gehring and Eastman, 2008; Krontiris-Litowitz, 2013; Van Lacum et al., 2014).”

“…• 15:ar77, Winter 2016 Some studies have also reported the positive effects of the use of primary literature on students’ science literacy skills (Krontiris-Litowitz, 2013), ability to critically read research articles (Van Lacum et al., 2014), and science process/critical -thinking skills…”

“…science literacy skills (Krontiris-Litowitz, 2013), ability to critically read research articles (Van Lacum et al., 2014), and science process/critical -thinking skills (Hoskins et al., 2007; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013; Segura-Totten and Dalman, 2013; Sato et al., 2014; Abdullah et al., 2015).”

“Previous studies have presented the instructors’ perspectives on students’ difficulties with the primary literature (Gehring and Eastman, 2008; Krontiris-Litowitz, 2013; Van Lacum et al., 2014).”

“A detailed description of this course is provided elsewhere (Abdullah et al., 2015).”

“Students’ difficulty with terminology, or scientific jargon, has been long recognized by instructors (McDonnell et al., 2016, and the references within), and our students also perceived it as a substantial challenge before instruction.”

“Another previously recognized barrier is scientific language, due to its high informational density and its formal writing style (Samuels, 1983; Snow, 2010).”

“…science literacy skills (Krontiris-Litowitz, 2013), ability to critically read research articles (Van Lacum et al., 2014), and science process/critical -thinking skills (Hoskins et al., 2007; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013; Segura-Totten and Dalman, 2013; Sato et al., 2014; Abdullah et al., 2015).”

“Similarly, when master’s students were asked at the beginning of a course about their perceived difficulties with reading primary literature, they reported techniques and experimental data as challenges (Lie et al., 2016).”

“There are many studies (particularly within the biosciences) that address particular pedagogical approaches to teaching reading skills, and subsequent impacts on academic performance and student beliefs about science (e.g. Gottesman & Hoskins, 2013; Kozeracki et al., 2006; Lie et al., 2016; Stevens & Hoskins, 2014).”

“Interestingly, although primary sources are preferred by lecturers as ways in which students are trained to develop scientific thinking skills (Hubbard & Dunbar, 2017; Lie et al., 2016), many master ’ s students find it difficult to gain thorough understanding (Davies, 2011).”

“For instance, while a survey of biology PhD students at one university revealed higher self-efficacy in reading PSL than undergraduates, 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…”

“There is also an implicit assumption that scientific literacy training can be completed by the end of an undergraduate or masters level course, with all researchers and academics adopting ‘expert’ reading approaches (Lie et al., 2016).”

“Primary literature articles are not meant to be read from the ground up, start-to-finish like novels, and beginning graduate students tend to be unaware of this academic norm (Lie et al., 2016).”

“Understanding experimental data, scientific techniques, and drawing or evaluating conclusions have also been identified as challenges (12, 13, 24).”

“Students even at the graduate level have difficulty comprehending primary literature (56), and incorporating primary literature into the curriculum has been shown to positively affect student’s ability to design experiments (57).”

“Such approaches have successfully identified and remedied difficult points related to the use of primary literature by the students (8, 9).”

“They have not yet had the opportunity to develop the skills needed to interpret primary data (6).”

“Professional literature provides educators with an excellent opportunity to train students how to “think like a scientist”: analyze data, draw conclusions, and identify follow-up directions to a scientific investigation [11].”