ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2023
A Scaffolded Module to Improve Scientific Literacy by Engaging Students with Primary Literature Using the Instructor's Research Experience.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To improve students' scientific literacy, I designed a learning module that built upon my personal research experience and interest to actively engage students in reading primary literature. Here, I describe the scaffolded procedure in six steps, each linked to a learning outcome and assessment using Bloom's taxonomy as a framework of increasing from lower-order to higher-order cognition: (i) storytelling and discussion, i.e., remember; (ii) guided reading, i.e., understand; (iii) group reading, i.e., apply; (iv) shared reading, i.e., analyze; (v) self-selected reading, i.e., evaluate; and (vi) research proposal, i.e., create. By using my personal science story as introduction and foundation, students were able to connect to the content and consider the importance of the process of science. By providing a scaffolded introduction and guided support, students were able to read primary literature with less frustration and with greater confidence. I assessed these activities to determine if they increased student engagement and student confidence in reading peer-reviewed scientific papers. Students completed a survey rating their confidence reading scientific papers on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Reported confidence increased following the activities (mean of 1.9 before to 3.2 after) and activities were rated as helpful (mean of 3.1). These activities can be applied to most fields of research, allowing faculty at nonresearch institutions the opportunity to incorporate their research into teaching while achieving successful general education outcomes.
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.