ArticleCBE life sciences education
Perceived Challenges in Primary Literature in a Master's Class: Effects of Experience and Instruction.
Article in CBE life sciences education. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survey of student perceptions and use of artificial intelligence when reading primary literature in the biological sciences.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Maximizing science communication skills in a primary scientific literature-based cancer biology course: practical implementation methods.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
- Peer-reviewed presentation exchange in an undergraduate classroom.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2024Article
- Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom.CBE life sciences education · 2023Review
- Synthesizing Research Narratives to Reveal the Big Picture: a CREATE(S) Intervention Modified for Journal Club Improves Undergraduate Science Literacy.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023Article
- Expert-Novice Comparison Reveals Pedagogical Implications for Students' Analysis of Primary Literature.CBE life sciences education · 2019Article
- Perceptions of scientific research literature and strategies for reading papers depend on academic career stage.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary literature offers rich opportunities to teach students how to "think like a scientist," but the challenges students face when they attempt to read research articles are not well understood. Here, we present an analysis of what master's students perceive as the most challenging aspects of engaging with primary literature. We examined 69 pairs of pre- and postcourse responses from students enrolled in a master's-level course that offered a structured analysis of primary literature. On the basis of these responses, we identified six categories of challenges. Before instruction, "techniques" and "experimental data" were the most frequently identified categories of challenges. The majority of difficulties students perceived in the primary literature corresponded to Bloom's lower-order cognitive skills. After instruction, "conclusions" were identified as the most difficult aspect of primary literature, and the frequency of challenges that corresponded to higher-order cognitive skills increased significantly among students who reported less experience with primary literature. These changes are consistent with a more competent perception of the primary literature, in which these students increasingly focus on challenges requiring critical thinking. Students' difficulties identified here can inform the design of instructional approaches aimed to teach students how to critically read scientific papers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.