ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2022
From Novice To Expert: An Assessment To Measure Strategies Students Implement While Learning To Read Primary Scientific Literature.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Happens When Undergraduate Biology Students Meet with Professional Scientists to Discuss Research? An Exploratory Investigation into Scientific Discourse, Motivation, and Sense of Belonging.CBE life sciences 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
- Developing Science Literacy in Students and Society: Theory, Research, and Practice.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
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Primary Scientific Literature (PSL) has been used in undergraduate classrooms as a way to engage students with the research process and to increase science literacy. Most curricula lack any formal training for undergraduates to critically read PSL even though most undergraduate science courses require students to engage with PSL at some level. In addition, there are limited studies exploring the process by which expertise in reading PSL develops in undergraduates. In this study, we adapted behaviors that expert and novice PSL readers exhibit into a quantitative assessment tool, the PSL Reading Strategies Assessment, to evaluate undergraduates' development of reading strategies when learning to read PSL. Factor analysis and reliability measures were implemented to determine the structure of our assessment tool. Our results show the PSL Reading Strategies Assessment is sensitive enough to measure differences among student populations, suggesting that it can be used as a diagnostic tool to guide instructors and researchers as they change curricula, implement new teaching strategies, and strive to develop students' science literacy. Moreover, our data show that developing expert-like reading strategies in students learning to read PSL is not easy. Simply reading a PDF does little to promote the development of reading strategies in students learning to read PSL.
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.