1887

Using Primary Literature to Teach Science Literacy to Introductory Biology Students

    Author: Johanna Krontiris-Litowitz1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biological Sciences, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 06 May 2013
    • Corresponding author. Mailing address: Dept. of Biological Sciences, Youngstown State University, One University Plaza, Youngstown, OH 44555. Phone: 330-941-3572. Fax: 330-941-1483. E-mail: jkrontirislitowitz@ysu.edu.
    • ©2013 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2013 vol. 14 no. 1 66-77. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    68.09 Kb
  • PDF
    395.84 Kb
  • XML

    Abstract:

    Undergraduate students struggle to read the scientific literature and educators have suggested that this may reflect deficiencies in their science literacy skills. In this two-year study we develop and test a strategy for using the scientific literature to teach science literacy skills to novice life science majors. The first year of the project served as a preliminary investigation in which we evaluated student science literacy skills, created a set of science literacy learning objectives aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy, and developed a set of homework assignments that used peer-reviewed articles to teach science literacy. In the second year of the project the effectiveness of the assignments and the learning objectives were evaluated. Summative student learning was evaluated in the second year on a final exam. The mean score was 83.5% (±20.3%) and there were significant learning gains ( < 0.05) in seven of nine of science literacy skills. Project data indicated that even though students achieved course-targeted lower-order science literacy objectives, many were deficient in higher-order literacy skills. Results of this project suggest that building scientific literacy is a continuing process which begins in first-year science courses with a set of fundamental skills that can serve the progressive development of literacy skills throughout the undergraduate curriculum.

References & Citations

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science2011Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to actionAmerican Association for the Advancement of ScienceWashington, DChttp://www.visionandchange.org/finalreport.
2. Anderson LW, et al2001A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectivesLongmanNew York
3. Berzonsky WA, Richardson KD2008Referencing Science: teaching undergraduates to identify, validate, and utilize peer reviewed online literatureJ Nat Resour Life Sci Educ37813
4. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR1956Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals: handbook i: cognitive domainLongmans, GreenNew York, NY
5. Burns JC, Okey JR, Wise KC1985Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS IIJ Res Sci Teach2216917710.1002/tea.3660220208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220208
6. Chisman JK1998Introducing college students to scientific literature and the libraryJ Coll Sci Teach283942
7. Choe SW, Drennan PM2001Analyzing scientific literature using a jigsaw group activity: piecing together student discussions on environmental researchJ Coll Sci Teach30328330
8. Coil D, Wenderoth MP, Cunningham M, Dirks C2010Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodologyCBE Life Sci Educ952453510.1187/cbe.10-01-0005211236992995770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005
9. Gehring KM, Eastman DA2008Information fluency for undergraduate biology majors: applications of inquiry-based learning in a developmental biology courseCBE Life Sci Educ7546310.1187/cbe.07-10-0091183168082262132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-10-0091
10. Gillen CM2006Criticism and interpretation: teaching the persuasive aspects of research articlesCBE Life Sci Educ5343810.1187/cbe.05-08-0101170121881635133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0101
11. Gillen CM, Vaughan J, Lye BR2004An online tutorial for helping nonscience majors read primary research literature in biologyAdv Physiol Educ28959910.1152/advan.00044.200315319189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00044.2003
12. Halliday AC, Devonshire IM, Greenfield AD, Dommett EJ2010Teaching medical students basic neurotransmitter pharmacology using primary research resourcesAdv Physiol Educ3420521210.1152/advan.00005.201021098388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00005.2010
13. Herman C1999Reading the literature in the jargon-intensive field of molecular genetics: making molecular genetics accessible to undergraduates using a process-centered curriculumJ Coll Sci Teach28252254
14. Holloszy JO, Smith EK, Vining M, Adams S1985Effect of voluntary exercise on longevity of ratsJ Appl Physiol598268314055572
15. Hoskins SG, Stevens LM, Nehm RH2007Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratoryGenetics1761381138910.1534/genetics.107.071183174834261931557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.071183
16. Impey C, Buxner S, Antonellis J, Johnson E, King C2011A twenty-year survey of science literacy among college undergraduatesJ Coll Sci Teach403137
17. Janick-Buckner D1997Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literatureJ Coll Sci Teach272932
18. Koseracki CA, Carey MF, Colicelli J, Levis-Fitzgerald M2006An intensive primary-literature–based teaching program directly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral science programsCBE Life Sci Educ534034710.1187/cbe.06-02-0144 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-02-0144
19. LeBlanc J, Jobin M, Côté J, Samson P, Labrie A1985Enhanced metabolic response to caffeine in exercise-trained human subjectsJ Appl Physiol598328373902769
20. McElroy AR, McNaughton FC1979A project-based approach to the use of biological literatureJ Biol Educ13525710.1080/00219266.1979.9654226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1979.9654226
21. Muench SB2000Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goalsJ Coll Sci Teach29255260
22. National Academy of Sciences2009A new biology for the 21st century: ensuring the united states leads the coming biology revolutionThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
23. Pechenik JA, Tashiro JS1992The graphing detective: an exercise in critical reading, experimental design and data analysisAm Biol Teach5443243510.2307/4449534 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4449534
24. Porter JA, et al2010Integration of information and scientific literacy: promoting literacy in undergraduatesCBE Life Sci Educ953654210.1187/cbe.10-01-0006211237002995771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0006
25. Roecker L2007Introducing students to the scientific literatureJ Chem Educ84138010.1021/ed084p1380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed084p1380
26. Rybarczyk B2006Incorporating primary literature into science learning159166 Mintzes Joel, Leonard William HHandbook of college science teachingNational Science Teachers Association PressUSA
27. Snow CE2010Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about scienceScience32845045210.1126/science.118259720413488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597
28. Speth EB, et al20101, 2, 3, 4: Infusing quantitative literacy into introductory biologyCBE Life Sci Educ932333210.1187/cbe.10-03-0033208109652931680 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0033
29. Tang BL, Gan YH2005Preparing the senior or graduating student for graduate researchBiochem Molec Biol Educ3327728010.1002/bmb.2005.49403304277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403304277
30. Weintraub J2006Teaching students to evaluate the accuracy of science information on the internet261266 Mintzes Joel, Leonard William HHandbook of College Science TeachingNational Science Teachers Association PressUSA
31. Wenk L, Tronsky L2011First-year students benefit from reading primary research articlesJ Coll Sci Teach406067
jmbe.v14i1.538.citations
jmbe/14/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538
2013-05-06
2017-07-28

Abstract:

Undergraduate students struggle to read the scientific literature and educators have suggested that this may reflect deficiencies in their science literacy skills. In this two-year study we develop and test a strategy for using the scientific literature to teach science literacy skills to novice life science majors. The first year of the project served as a preliminary investigation in which we evaluated student science literacy skills, created a set of science literacy learning objectives aligned with Bloom’s taxonomy, and developed a set of homework assignments that used peer-reviewed articles to teach science literacy. In the second year of the project the effectiveness of the assignments and the learning objectives were evaluated. Summative student learning was evaluated in the second year on a final exam. The mean score was 83.5% (±20.3%) and there were significant learning gains ( < 0.05) in seven of nine of science literacy skills. Project data indicated that even though students achieved course-targeted lower-order science literacy objectives, many were deficient in higher-order literacy skills. Results of this project suggest that building scientific literacy is a continuing process which begins in first-year science courses with a set of fundamental skills that can serve the progressive development of literacy skills throughout the undergraduate curriculum.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/14/1/jmbe-14-66.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Comparison of class performance on HWK1 and Final Exam in Y2. Homologous questions on HWK1 and Final Exam were compared. The difference in the percentage of students who answered correctly was calculated for each literacy learning objective (LO) and plotted. * < 0.05, HWK 1 vs. Final Exam.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2013 vol. 14 no. 1 66-77. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error