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

Abstract

Structured analysis of primary literature, including one flawed and two conflicting papers, highly increased students’ self-efficacy, but a significant increase in performance was observed only for some aspects of science-process skills.

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

“…Previous studies have reported that undergraduate courses that offered structured analysis of primary literature were associated with significant increases in students’ performance in questions assessing Bloom’s HOCS (Hoskins et al , 2007; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013; Segura-Totten and Dalman, 2013). In a study conducted in the course we described here, we detected a significant increase in students’ ability to design an experiment but not in students’ ability to interpret data, draw conclusions, or evaluate a hypothesis based on the data, although our conclusions were limited by high preinstructional performance of our students in this test (Abdullah et al , 2015). A primary literature–based assessment that systematically evaluates students’ skills in the various aspects of reading primary literature (i.e., identifying hypothesis, understanding experimental setup, interpreting data, placing the paper in its broader context) would be very valuable in providing an objective evaluation of students’ skills and difficulties in critically reading scientific articles.…”

“…A detailed description of this course is provided elsewhere (Abdullah et al , 2015). In brief, the course was designed for master’s students with the goal of providing training in critical analysis of primary literature.…”

“…In addition to the question about the most challenging aspects of the primary literature, the survey included questions about students’ self-efficacy in a number of skills related to the primary literature (Abdullah et al , 2015; Supplemental Material, Appendix C). The precourse (but not the postcourse) survey also included questions about students’ demographics, majors, and previous exposure to primary literature (Supplemental Material, Appendix C).…”

“…, 2014; Abdullah et al , 2015). Analysis of primary literature has frequently been associated with gains in multiple 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). 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.…”

“…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 (Hoskins et al , 2007; Gottesman and Hoskins, 2013; Segura-Totten and Dalman, 2013; Sato et al , 2014; Abdullah et al , 2015). …”