ArticleCBE life sciences education2019
Expert-Novice Comparison Reveals Pedagogical Implications for Students' Analysis of Primary Literature.
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using journal article annotations with Zotero to improve scientific literacy in course-based undergraduate research experiences.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Cognitive processes of scientific problem-solving while using simulations: an expert-novice comparison.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Integrating open education practices with data analysis of open science in an undergraduate course.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Article
- Postsecondary biology students' ways of participating in the critique and discussion of primary scientific literature.CBE life sciences education · 2023Article
- Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom.CBE life sciences education · 2023Review
- Discussion of Annotated Research Articles Results in Increases in Scientific Literacy within a Cell Biology Course.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023Article
- Annotations Serve as an On Ramp for Introductory Biology Students Learning to Read Primary Scientific Literature.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023Article
- The Five Core Concepts of Biology as a Framework for Promoting Expert-Like Behaviors in Undergraduates Learning How to Read Primary Scientific Literature.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2022Article
- From Novice To Expert: An Assessment To Measure Strategies Students Implement While Learning To Read Primary Scientific Literature.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2022Article
- Sharing Notes Is Encouraged: Annotating and Cocreating with Hypothes.is and Google Docs.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- Insights on biology student motivations and challenges when reading and analyzing primary literature.PloS one · 2021Article
- Rethinking Assessment: Replacing Traditional Exams with Paper Reviews.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- Teaching in the Time of COVID-19: Creation of a Digital Internship to Develop Scientific Thinking Skills and Create Science Literacy Exercises for Use in Remote Classrooms.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- What Faculty and Students Value When Evaluating Human Digital Anatomy Platforms: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.