ArticlePloS one2021
Insights on biology student motivations and challenges when reading and analyzing primary literature.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Integrating open education practices with data analysis of open science in an undergraduate course.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom.CBE life sciences education · 2023Review
- A Scaffolded Module to Improve Scientific Literacy by Engaging Students with Primary Literature Using the Instructor's Research Experience.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023Article
- 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
- Discussion of Annotated Research Articles Results in Increases in Scientific Literacy within a Cell Biology Course.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023Article
- A Novel Undergraduate Seminar Course Celebrating Scientific Contributions by Scientists from Historically Marginalized Communities.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2022Article
- Article
- Diving into research without wading through content: A skills-based cell biology course emphasizing the unknown.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.