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: [email protected].
    • ©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 Science 2011 Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action American Association for the Advancement of Science Washington, DC http://www.visionandchange.org/finalreport.
2. Anderson LW, et al 2001 A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives Longman New York
3. Berzonsky WA, Richardson KD 2008 Referencing Science: teaching undergraduates to identify, validate, and utilize peer reviewed online literature J Nat Resour Life Sci Educ 37 8 13
4. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR 1956 Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals: handbook i: cognitive domain Longmans, Green New York, NY
5. Burns JC, Okey JR, Wise KC 1985 Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II J Res Sci Teach 22 169 177 10.1002/tea.3660220208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220208
6. Chisman JK 1998 Introducing college students to scientific literature and the library J Coll Sci Teach 28 39 42
7. Choe SW, Drennan PM 2001 Analyzing scientific literature using a jigsaw group activity: piecing together student discussions on environmental research J Coll Sci Teach 30 328 330
8. Coil D, Wenderoth MP, Cunningham M, Dirks C 2010 Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology CBE Life Sci Educ 9 524 535 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005 21123699 2995770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005
9. Gehring KM, Eastman DA 2008 Information fluency for undergraduate biology majors: applications of inquiry-based learning in a developmental biology course CBE Life Sci Educ 7 54 63 10.1187/cbe.07-10-0091 18316808 2262132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-10-0091
10. Gillen CM 2006 Criticism and interpretation: teaching the persuasive aspects of research articles CBE Life Sci Educ 5 34 38 10.1187/cbe.05-08-0101 17012188 1635133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0101
11. Gillen CM, Vaughan J, Lye BR 2004 An online tutorial for helping nonscience majors read primary research literature in biology Adv Physiol Educ 28 95 99 10.1152/advan.00044.2003 15319189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00044.2003
12. Halliday AC, Devonshire IM, Greenfield AD, Dommett EJ 2010 Teaching medical students basic neurotransmitter pharmacology using primary research resources Adv Physiol Educ 34 205 212 10.1152/advan.00005.2010 21098388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00005.2010
13. Herman C 1999 Reading the literature in the jargon-intensive field of molecular genetics: making molecular genetics accessible to undergraduates using a process-centered curriculum J Coll Sci Teach 28 252 254
14. Holloszy JO, Smith EK, Vining M, Adams S 1985 Effect of voluntary exercise on longevity of rats J Appl Physiol 59 826 831 4055572
15. Hoskins SG, Stevens LM, Nehm RH 2007 Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory Genetics 176 1381 1389 10.1534/genetics.107.071183 17483426 1931557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.071183
16. Impey C, Buxner S, Antonellis J, Johnson E, King C 2011 A twenty-year survey of science literacy among college undergraduates J Coll Sci Teach 40 31 37
17. Janick-Buckner D 1997 Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature J Coll Sci Teach 27 29 32
18. Koseracki CA, Carey MF, Colicelli J, Levis-Fitzgerald M 2006 An intensive primary-literature–based teaching program directly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral science programs CBE Life Sci Educ 5 340 347 10.1187/cbe.06-02-0144 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-02-0144
19. LeBlanc J, Jobin M, Côté J, Samson P, Labrie A 1985 Enhanced metabolic response to caffeine in exercise-trained human subjects J Appl Physiol 59 832 837 3902769
20. McElroy AR, McNaughton FC 1979 A project-based approach to the use of biological literature J Biol Educ 13 52 57 10.1080/00219266.1979.9654226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1979.9654226
21. Muench SB 2000 Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals J Coll Sci Teach 29 255 260
22. National Academy of Sciences 2009 A new biology for the 21st century: ensuring the united states leads the coming biology revolution The National Academies Press Washington, DC
23. Pechenik JA, Tashiro JS 1992 The graphing detective: an exercise in critical reading, experimental design and data analysis Am Biol Teach 54 432 435 10.2307/4449534 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4449534
24. Porter JA, et al 2010 Integration of information and scientific literacy: promoting literacy in undergraduates CBE Life Sci Educ 9 536 542 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0006 21123700 2995771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0006
25. Roecker L 2007 Introducing students to the scientific literature J Chem Educ 84 1380 10.1021/ed084p1380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed084p1380
26. Rybarczyk B 2006 Incorporating primary literature into science learning 159 166 Mintzes Joel, Leonard William H Handbook of college science teaching National Science Teachers Association Press USA
27. Snow CE 2010 Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science Science 328 450 452 10.1126/science.1182597 20413488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597
28. Speth EB, et al 2010 1, 2, 3, 4: Infusing quantitative literacy into introductory biology CBE Life Sci Educ 9 323 332 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0033 20810965 2931680 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0033
29. Tang BL, Gan YH 2005 Preparing the senior or graduating student for graduate research Biochem Molec Biol Educ 33 277 280 10.1002/bmb.2005.49403304277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403304277
30. Weintraub J 2006 Teaching students to evaluate the accuracy of science information on the internet 261 266 Mintzes Joel, Leonard William H Handbook of College Science Teaching National Science Teachers Association Press USA
31. Wenk L, Tronsky L 2011 First-year students benefit from reading primary research articles J Coll Sci Teach 40 60 67

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.538
2013-05-06
2019-06-27

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