Expert–Novice Comparison Reveals Pedagogical Implications for Students’ Analysis of Primary Literature

Abstract

Student engagement in the analysis of primary scientific literature increases critical thinking, scientific literacy, data evaluation, and science process skills. However, little is known about the process by which expertise in reading scientific articles develops. For this reason, we decided to compare how faculty experts and student novices engage with a research article. We performed think-aloud interviews of biology faculty and undergraduates as they read through a scientific article. We analyzed these interviews using qualitative methods. We grounded data interpretation in cognitive load theory and the ICAP (interactive, constructive, active, and passive) framework. Our results revealed that faculty have more complex schemas than students and that they reduce cognitive load through two main mechanisms: summarizing and note-taking. Faculty also engage with articles at a higher cognitive level, described as constructive by the ICAP framework, when compared with students. More complex schemas, effectively lowering cognitive load, and deeper engagement with the text may help explain why faculty encounter fewer comprehension difficulties than students in our study. Finally, faculty analyze and evaluate data more often than students when reading the text. Findings include a discussion of successful pedagogical approaches for instructors wishing to enhance undergraduates’ comprehension and analysis of research articles.

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

“…Some students noted that these issues could increase cognitive load when reading scientific articles (Cognitive load, sample quote, Table 3). This finding aligns with results from think-aloud interviews of students while they read a research article, where we found that they did not manage the cognitive load associated with reading the article as well as faculty [45]. The top student recommendation for professors to help them better understand primary literature was to provide help with determining the big picture of the study (Table 4, Question 4).…”

“…when reading a research article, faculty summarize portions of the text more often than students and that their summaries more often contain an evaluation or analysis of material [45]. We also found that summarizing was a key way in which faculty managed their cognitive load when reading primary literature [45]. This suggests that the issues with understanding the big picture of a study that students voiced in the focus groups might also be linked to their inability to manage cognitive load.…”

“…We met as a group to discuss our coding and resolve inconsistencies until there was complete agreement between all coders, and we established consensus validation by avoiding double coding instances. While simultaneously coding the focus group data, MS-T coded data from think-aloud interviews of students and faculty reading through a research article [45]. We discuss this to bring transparency to our work because our analysis of the think-aloud data informed the coding of the focus group data.…”

“…While we do not have comparable data on articles read for the rest of the biology major population, the data from the study population align with our anecdotal observations that, as students progress through the biology program, they read more research articles in courses and as part of their involvement in research. As an additional note about the study participants, nine of the students simultaneously volunteered to participate in a separate but related study [45].…”

Sharing Notes Is Encouraged: Annotating and Cocreating with Hypothes.is and Google Docs †

“…Reading primary literature can be challenging for those unfamiliar with terminology or methodology (1)(2)(3). Often, students highlight long passages or read over unfamiliar jargon without fully comprehending the significance and details of a study.…”