1887

The CREATE Method Does Not Result in Greater Gains in Critical Thinking than a More Traditional Method of Analyzing the Primary Literature

    Authors: Miriam Segura-Totten1,*, Nancy E. Dalman1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Biology Department, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA 30597
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 02 December 2013
    • Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of North Georgia, Biology Department, 82 College Circle, Dahlonega, GA 30597. Phone: 706-867-2951. Fax: 706-867-2703. E-mail: miriam.segura-totten@ung.edu.
    • ©2013 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2013 vol. 14 no. 2 166-175. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    513.62 Kb
  • HTML
    73.88 Kb
  • XML

    Abstract:

    Analysis of the primary literature in the undergraduate curriculum is associated with gains in student learning. In particular, the CREATE (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret the data, and Think of the next Experiment) method is associated with an increase in student critical thinking skills. We adapted the CREATE method within a required cell biology class and compared the learning gains of students using CREATE to those of students involved in less structured literature discussions. We found that while both sets of students had gains in critical thinking, students who used the CREATE method did not show significant improvement over students engaged in a more traditional method for dissecting the literature. Students also reported similar learning gains for both literature discussion methods. Our study suggests that, at least in our educational context, the CREATE method does not lead to higher learning gains than a less structured way of reading primary literature.

Key Concept Ranking

Fig
0.8928572
Lead
0.8683674
Spring
0.67857146
Elements
0.608124
Stems
0.41851777
Adaptation
0.41463
Canning
0.34375778
0.8928572

References & Citations

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science1990“The liberal art of science”AAASWashington, DC
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science2009Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to actionA summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of ScienceWashington DC[Online.] http://visionandchange.org/files/2011/03/VC-Brochure-V6-3.pdf.
3. Association of American Colleges and Universities2007College learning for the new global century: a report from the national leadership council for liberal education & america’s promise.
4. Bissell AN, Lemons PP2006A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroomBioScience56667210.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2
5. Brame CJ, Pruitt WM, Robinson LC2008A molecular genetics laboratory course applying bioinformatics and cell biology in the context of original researchCBE Life Sci Educ741042110.1187/cbe.08-07-0036190474272592051 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-07-0036
6. Bransford J, Brown AL, Cocking RRNational Research CouncilCommittee on Developments in the Science of Learning1999How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and schoolThe National Academies PressWashington, D.C
7. 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
8. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP2008Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biologyCBE Life Sci Educ736838110.1187/cbe.08-05-0024190474242592046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
9. DebBurman SK2002Learning how scientists work: experiential research projects to promote cell biology learning and scientific process skillsCBE Life Sci Educ115417210.1187/cbe.02-07-0024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-07-0024
10. Dewey J1998How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative processHoughton MifflinBoston
11. Flesch R1948A new readability yardstickJ Appl Psychol3222123310.1037/h005753218867058 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057532
12. Freeman S, Haak D, Wenderoth MP2011Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biologyCBE Life Sci Educ1017518610.1187/cbe.10-08-0105216330663105924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105
13. Garside C1996Look who’s talking: a comparison of lecture and group discussions teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skillsCommunic Educ45212227
14. Gokhale AA1995Collaborative learning enhances critical thinkingJ Technol Educ72230
15. Handelsman J, et al2004Education: scientific teachingScience30452152210.1126/science.109602215105480 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1096022
16. Hoskins SG2008Using a paradigm shift to teach neurobiology and the nature of science—a C.R.E.A.T.E.-based approachJ Undergrad Neurosci Educ6A40A52234934283592661
17. Hoskins SG, Lopatto D, Stevens LM2011The C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates‚ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefsCBE Life Sci Educ1036837810.1187/cbe.11-03-0027221353713228655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027
18. 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
19. Jacques-Fricke B, Hubert A, Miller S2009A versatile module to improve understanding of scientific literature through peer instructionJ Coll Sci Teach392432
20. Kozeracki 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 programsCBE Life Sci Educ534034710.1187/cbe.06-02-0144171460411681356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-02-0144
21. McNeal A, D’Avanzo C1997Student active science: models of innovation in college science teachingSaunders College PublishingPhiladelphia
22. Microsoft 2012. Test your document’s readability. [Online.]
23. National Research Council2003BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologistsThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
24. Norris SP, Macnab JS, Wonham M, de Vries G2009West Nile Virus: using adapted primary literature in mathematical biology to teach scientific and mathematical reasoning in high schoolRes Sci Educ3932132910.1007/s11165-008-9112-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9112-y
25. Norris SP, Phillips LM2003How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacySci Educ8722424010.1002/sce.10066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
26. Norris SP, Phillips LM1994Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of scienceJ Res Sci Teach3194796710.1002/tea.3660310909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310909
27. Novak JD2003The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learningCell Biol Educ212213210.1187/cbe.02-11-005912888848162189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059
28. Phillips LM1999Interpreting popular reports of science: what happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper?International J Sci Educ2131732710.1080/095006999290723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006999290723
29. Phillips LM, Norris SP2009Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literatureRes Sci Educ3931331910.1007/s11165-008-9111-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9111-z
30. Quitadamo I2008Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biologyCBE Life Sci Educ732733710.1187/cbe.07-11-0097187657552527977 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-11-0097
31. Ramos Goyette S, DeLuca J2007A semester-long student-directed research project involving enzyme immunoassay: appropriate for immunology, endocrinology, or neuroscience coursesCBE Life Sci Educ633234210.1187/cbe.07-01-0001180563042104505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0001
32. Rangachari PK2006Lost in translation? Deconstructing science in the news through an inquiry-based courseBiochem Mol Biol Educ3451110.1002/bmb.2006.4940340100521638624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2006.49403401005
33. Reynolds JA, Thompson RJJr2011Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer reviewCBE Life Sci Educ1020921510.1187/cbe.10-10-0127216330693105927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-10-0127
34. Switzer PV, Shriner WM2000Mimicking the scientific process in the upper-division laboratoryBioScience5015716210.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0157:MTSPIT]2.3.CO;2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0157:MTSPIT]2.3.CO;2
35. Tenopir C, King DW2004Communication patterns of engineersWiley-IEEE Computer Society PressHoboken, NJ
36. Wood WB2009Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need themAnnu Rev Cell Dev Biol259311210.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175306
37. Yarden A, et al2009Supporting teaching and learning using authentic scientific texts: a rejoinder to DanielleJ Ford Res Sci Educ3939139510.1007/s11165-008-9116-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9116-7
38. Zoller U1993Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: unlikely for HOCSJ Chem Educ7019519710.1021/ed070p195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed070p195
jmbe.v14i2.506.citations
jmbe/14/2
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
2013-12-02
2017-12-14

Abstract:

Analysis of the primary literature in the undergraduate curriculum is associated with gains in student learning. In particular, the CREATE (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret the data, and Think of the next Experiment) method is associated with an increase in student critical thinking skills. We adapted the CREATE method within a required cell biology class and compared the learning gains of students using CREATE to those of students involved in less structured literature discussions. We found that while both sets of students had gains in critical thinking, students who used the CREATE method did not show significant improvement over students engaged in a more traditional method for dissecting the literature. Students also reported similar learning gains for both literature discussion methods. Our study suggests that, at least in our educational context, the CREATE method does not lead to higher learning gains than a less structured way of reading primary literature.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/14/2/jmbe-14-166.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1.

Click to view

FIGURE 1.

Comparison of mean performance in the article critique assignment for students in the CREATE and traditional groups. Light grey bars represent student pretest score and dark grey bars represent student posttest score. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). CREATE, n = 41; Traditional, n = 43.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2013 vol. 14 no. 2 166-175. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2.

Click to view

FIGURE 2.

Student performance at the analysis, synthesis and evaluation levels within the article critique exercise. Light grey bars represent student pretest score and dark grey bars represent student posttest score. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). CREATE, n = 41; Traditional, n = 43.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2013 vol. 14 no. 2 166-175. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3.

Click to view

FIGURE 3.

Comparison of mean performance in exam questions for students in the CREATE and traditional groups. Light grey bars represent student pretest score and dark grey bars represent student posttest score. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). CREATE, n = 44; Traditional, n = 41.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2013 vol. 14 no. 2 166-175. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 4.

Click to view

FIGURE 4.

Student feelings towards the course. Students were asked to comment on their current level of interest in cell biology (Current interest) and their change in interest in the subject matter since the beginning of the semester (Change in interest). For “Current interest,” dark grey bars denote students whose answer depicted a positive interest in the subject, light grey bars denote students who had neutral feelings towards the subject, and black bars signify students who felt negatively towards cell biology. For “Change in interest,” dark grey bars denote students whose interest increased, light grey bars signify no change in interest, and black bars denote a decrease in interest. CREATE, n = 21; Traditional, n = 24.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2013 vol. 14 no. 2 166-175. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 5.

Click to view

FIGURE 5.

Students’ perceived gains. We asked students to comment on their present level of interest in the subject, how the class heightened or dampened their interest, how they felt the material in the course integrates with their studies, career, and/or life, and what they could do at the end of the course that they could not do at the beginning (“Present level of interest,” “Change in interest,” “Integration of material,” and “Skills gained,” respectively). We coded student answers for the particular themes they contained: scientific literacy (blue), confidence (orange), nature of science (purple), transfer of critical thinking skills (i.e., application of CT in contexts outside the class; green), and critical thinking (red), and we graphed the number of students who mentioned a particular theme. CREATE, n = 21; Traditional, n = 24.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2013 vol. 14 no. 2 166-175. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v14i2.506
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