Cited by 23Science Education and PedagogyEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Insights on biology student motivations and challenges when reading and analyzing primary literature

Open access
Howard, Kristen N., Stapleton, Emma K., Nelms, April A., Ryan, Kelsee C., Segura-Totten, Miriam·2021·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Reading primary literature is a popular classroom practice that exposes students to the process of science. However, the analysis of primary literature can be taxing and time-consuming for students. For this reason, it is important to determine the source of student challenges and what motivates them to read primary literature. To better understand students’ challenges, preferences, and motivations towards analyzing primary literature, we held focus groups with biology undergraduates where we asked them about their thoughts and perceptions on this practice. Students felt they struggle with understanding the big picture of an article, certain aspects of scientific literacy like data interpretation and experimental setup, and lack of knowledge of terms and techniques. Further analysis of the data using the achievement goal and expectancy-value theories of motivation revealed that students: 1) demonstrate mastery and performance approach goal orientations, which are typically associated with positive learning outcomes, 2) value the usefulness of reading primary literature, and 3) feel most engaged in the process of reading an article when the topic interests them. We provide pedagogical recommendations based on our findings.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0251275

Cites

82 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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 students report that reading PSL can be difficult and frustrating, which may in turn dissuade faculty from continuing to teach PSL.

    “For instance, many students report that reading such papers can be difficult and frustrating, which may in turn dissuade faculty from continuing to teach PSL (Hubbard and Dunbar, 2017; Lie et al., 2016; Howard et al., 2021).”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Howard et al., 2021

    The Results (Student perceptions of their experience reading primary literature; page not available) report that students found aspects of reading primary literature difficult and frustrating. The Discussion (Implications for practice; page not available) says many instructors are concerned about using the practice because of student resistance. It does not establish that frustration dissuades faculty from continuing to teach it. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some students and expert readers of PSL report more intrinsic motivations for reading PSL, citing innate interest and enjoyment of reading the PSL and wanting to learn more about a given study.

    “However, some students and expert readers of PSL report more intrinsic motivations for reading PSL, citing innate interest and enjoyment of reading the PSL and wanting to learn more about a given study (Hubbard and Dunbar, 2017; Howard et al., 2021).”

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

Authors
Howard, K. N., Stapleton, E. K., Nelms, A. A., Ryan, K. C., & Segura-Totten, M.
Affiliations
  • United States Department of Agriculture (US)
  • University of North Georgia (US)
  • Clemson University (US)
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2021-05-10
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
e0251275
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3160844493
Cited by
23
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of North Georgia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
undergraduate biology students, student motivation, achievement goal theory, expectancy-value theory, mastery orientation, performance goal orientation, scientific literacy, data interpretation, student engagement, scientific method
MeSH terms
Biology, Female, Humans, Literature, Male, Motivation, Publications, Reading, 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