Primary Literature in Undergraduate Science Courses: What are the Outcomes?

References

• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. AAAS.
   Google Scholar
• Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2006). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. American Library Association.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, B. E., & Wiles, J. R. (2017). A qualitative study examining the exclusive use of primary literature in a special topics biology course: Improving conceptions about the nature of science and boosting confidence in approaching original scientific research. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(3), 523–538.
   Google Scholar
• Crowther, D. T., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005, September 27). Understanding the true meaning of nature of science. Science and Children, 43(2), 50–52.
   Google Scholar
• DebBurman, S. K. (2002). Learning how scientists work: Experiential research projects to promote cell biology learning and scientific process skills. Cell Biology Education, 1(4), 154–172.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Facione, P. A. (1990). The California critical thinking skills test-college level. Technical report #1: Experimental validation and content validity. California Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-Vinent, I. J., Bruehl, M., Pan, D., & Jones, G. L. (2015). Introducing scientific literature to honors general chemistry students: Teaching information literacy and the nature of research to first-year chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 617–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillen, C. M. (2006). Criticism and interpretation: Teaching the persuasive aspects of research articles. Cell Biology Education, 5, 34–38.
   Google Scholar
• Glazer, F. S. (2000). Journal clubs—A auccessful vehicle to science literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(5), 320–324.
   Google Scholar
• Gottesman, A. J., & Hoskins, S. G. (2013). CREATE cornerstone: Introduction to scientific thinking, a new course for STEM-interested freshmen, demystifies scientific thinking through analysis of scientific literature. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12, 59–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoskins, S. G., Lopatto, D., & Stevens, L. M. (2011). The 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 epistomo-logical beliefs. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 368–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoskins, S. G., Stevens, L. M., & Nehm, R. H. (2007). Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory. Genetics, 176(3), 1381–1389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(1), 29–32.
   Google Scholar
• Klymkowsky, M. W., Garvin-Doxas, R. K., & Zeilik, M. (2003). Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy: What biologists can learn from physicists. Cell Biology Education, 2(3), 155–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kozeracki, C. A., Carey, M. F., Colicelli, J., & Levis-Fitzgerald, M. (2006). An intensive primary-literature-based teaching program directly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral programs. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(4), 340–347.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.
   Google Scholar
• Muench, S. B. (2000). Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(4), 255–260.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, T. A. (2014). Teaching students to read the primary literature using POGIL activities. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(2), 165–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America ’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Science Education (n.d.). Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide (FLAG). http://archive.wceruw.org/cll/flag/default.asp
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, J. A., Wolbach, K. C., Purzycki, C. B., Bowman, L. A., Agbada, E., & Mostrom, A. M. (2010). Integration of information and scientific literacy: Promoting literacy in undergraduates. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9, 536–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Round, J. E., & Campbell, A. M. (2013). Figure facts: Encourage undergraduates to take a data-centered approach to reading primary literature. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 39–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato, B. K., Kadandale, P., He, W., Murata, P. M. N., Latif, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2014). Practice makes pretty good: Assessment of primary literature reading abilities across multiple large-enrollment biology laboratory courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 677–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segura-Totten, M., & Dalman, N. E. (2013). The CREATE method does not result in greater gains in critical thinking than a more traditional method of analyzing the primary literature. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 14(2), 166–175.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith, G. R. (2001). Guided literature explorations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(7), 465–469.
   Google Scholar
• Stein, B., Haynes, A., & Redding, M. (2012). Critical thinking assessment test, version 5. Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, Tennessee Tech University.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, L. M., & Hoskins, S. G. (2014). The CREATE strategy for intensive analysis of primary literature can be used effectively by newly trained faculty to produce multiple gains in diverse students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 224–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stover, S. (2016). Two wrongs make a right: Using pseudoscience and reasoning fallacies to complement primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(3), 23–27.
   Google Scholar
• Yalcin, A., Clem, B., Simmons, A., Lane, A., Nelson, K., Clem, A., Brock, E., Siow, D., Wattenberg, B., Telang, S., & Chesney, J. (2009). Nuclear targeting of 6-phosphofruc-to-2-kinase (PFKFB3) increases proliferation via cyclin-dependent kinases. Journal of Biological Chemistry 284(36), 24223–24232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeong, F. M. (2015). Using primary literature in an undergraduate assignment: Demonstrating connections among cellular processes. Journal of Biological Education, 49(1), 73–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar