Disciplinary literacies in STEM: what do undergraduates read, how do they read it, and can we teach scientific reading more effectively?

References

• Alexander, P.A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: the interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M.L. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, P.A. (2003). The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, P.A. (2005). The path to competence: a lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research: JLR, 37(4), 413–436. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3704_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged edition). New York, NY: Longman
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, N.S., & Taubman, B.F. (2013). Reading journal articles for comprehension using key sentences: an exercise for the novice research student. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(6), 741–744. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200738h
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boud, D. (2012). Interdisciplinary assessment. In L. Clouder, C. Broughan, S. Jewell, & G. Steventon (Eds.), Improving student engagement and development through assessment: theory and practice in higher education (pp. 150). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Brill, G., Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2004). The learning processes of two high-school biology students when reading primary literature. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 497–512. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119465
   Google Scholar
• Bruehl, M., Pan, D., & Ferrer-Vinent, I.J. (2015). Demystifying the chemistry literature: building information literacy in first-year chemistry students through student-centered learning and experiment design. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 52–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500412z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buddies, S. (2012, June 18). How to read a scientific paper. Retrieved June 24, 2019, from Science Buddies website: https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/competitions/how-to-read-a-scientific-paper
   Google Scholar
• Buehl, D. (2017). Developing readers in the academic disciplines. Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA: Stenhouse Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Capraro, M.M., & Jones, M. (2013). Interdisciplinary STEM project-based learning. Robert M. Capraro, Mary Margaret Capraro, and Jim Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning (pp. 51–58). Brill Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, N.E., & Pappenfus, T.M. (2009). Teaching research: a curriculum model that works. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(8), 940. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugherty, M.K., & Carter, V. (2018). The nature of interdisciplinary STEM education. In M.J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 159–171). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Davé, A., Hopkins, M., Hutton, J., Krčál, A., Kolarz, P., Martin, B., . Stirling, A. (2016). Landscape review of interdisciplinary research in the UK. report to HEFCE and RCUK by technopolis and the science policy research unit (SPRU), university of sussex. Retrieved from Technopolis and SPRU website: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2016/Two,reports,on,interdisciplinary,research/Landscape%20review%20of%20UK%20interdisciplinary%20research.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Engineering Council. (2014). THE ACCREDITATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES UK standard for professional engineering competence third edition. Retrieved from Engineering Council website: https://www.engc.org.uk/EngCDocuments/Internet/Website/Accreditation%20of%20Higher%20Education%20Programmes%20third%20edition%20(1).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy : what you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy: A Journal from the International Reading Association, 56(8), 627–632. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forest, K., & Rayne, S. (2009). Incorporating primary literature summary projects into a first-year chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(5), 592. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding, C., & Baik, C. (2012). Interdisciplinary assessment. In L. Clouder, C. Broughan, S. Jewell, & G. Steventon (Eds.), Improving student engagement and development through assessment: theory and practice in higher education (pp. 138–151). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S.R., Britt, M.A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., & Project, R.E.A.D.I. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: a conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
   Web of Science ®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(1), 59–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-11-0201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, L.A. (2012). Rewriting identities: creating spaces for students and teachers to challenge the norms of what it means to be a reader in school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy: A Journal from the International Reading Association, 55(5), 368–373. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, C., & Perry, J. (2004). Understanding understanding: How we learn from texts. In C. Harrison (Ed.), Understanding reading development (pp. 50–81). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hatteberg, S.J., & Steffy, K. (2013). Increasing reading compliance of undergraduates: an evaluation of compliance methods. Teaching Sociology, 41(4), 346–352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13490752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeft, M.E. (2012). Why university students don’t read: what professors can do to increase compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 12. doi:https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060212
   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 epistemological beliefs. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 368–378. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027
   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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.071183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, S., Capps, M., Blacklock, J., & Garza, M. (2014). Reading habits of college students in the United States. Reading Psychology, 35(5), 437–467. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.739593
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, K.E., & Dunbar, S.D. (2017). Perceptions of scientific research literature and strategies for reading papers depend on academic career stage. PloS One, 12(12), e0189753. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IELTS test format. (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2019, from IELTS website: https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/test-format
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.  Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kozeracki, C.A., Carey, M.F., Colicelli, J., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Grossel, M., & Grossel, 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-02-0144
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee, C. (2006). Perspective: Peer review of interdisciplinary scientific papers. Retrieved June 29, 2019, from Nature website: https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05034.html
   Google Scholar
• Lie, R., Abdullah, C., He, W., & Tour, E. (2016). Perceived challenges in primary literature in a master’s class: effects of experience and instruction. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-09-0198
   Google Scholar
• Locknar, A., Mitchell, R., Rankin, J., & Sadoway, D.R. (2012). Integration of information literacy components into a large first-year lecture-based chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 487–491. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200252q
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnab, R.M., & Koshland, D.E. (1972). The gradient-sensing mechanism in bacterial chemotaxis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 69(9), 2509–2512. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.69.9.2509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden, M.E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., & Plague, G. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: an interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316
   Google Scholar
• Manathunga, C., & Brew, A. (2012). Beyond tribes and territories - new metaphors for new times. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century: rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp. 44–56). London, UNITED KINGDOM: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marchant, D., & Gleed, A. (2016). Interdisciplinarity: survey report for the global research council 2016. Retrieved from DJS research website: https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grc/data/5th/Survey_Report_on_Interdisciplinarity_for_GRC_DJS_Research.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, E. (2002). The hidden curriculum in higher education.  Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/357865
   Google Scholar
• Meier, S., McCarthy, P.R., & Schmeck, R.R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(2), 107–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, M.P., & Wood, M. (2004). Becoming a reader. in a developmental approach to reading instruction 3rd, Boston, (pp.  237–264). MA, USA: Pearson Educational.
   Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228–242. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pajares, F., & Johnson, M.J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performance of entering high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33(2), 163–175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199604)33:2<163::AID-PITS10>3.0.CO;2-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, L.M., & Norris, S.P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313–319. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9111-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(Pt2), 283–305. doi:https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480563
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2012). Writing essays: Does self-efficacy matter? The relationship between self-efficacy in reading and in writing and undergraduate students’ performance in essay writing. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 9–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.621411
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2012). Subject benchmark statement: forensic science. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/subject-benchmark-statement-forensic-science.pdf?sfvrsn=659ef781_10
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2014a). Subject benchmark statement: chemistry. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-chemistry-14.pdf?sfvrsn=99e1f781_14
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2014b). Subject benchmark statement: earth sciences, environmental sciences and environmental studies. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-earth-sciences-14.pdf?sfvrsn=b0e3f781_12
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2015a). Subject benchmark statement: biomedical sciences. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-biomedical-sciences-15.pdf
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2015b). Subject benchmark statement: biosciences. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-biosciences-15.pdf?sfvrsn=4eef781_26
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2015c). Subject benchmark statement: engineering. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-engineering-15-masters.pdf?sfvrsn=fb91f681_16
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2015d). Subject benchmark statement: mathematics, statistics and operational research. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-mathematics-15-masters.pdf
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2016a). Subject benchmark statement: computing. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-computing-16.pdf?sfvrsn=26e1f781_12
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2016b). Subject benchmark statement: psychology. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-psychology-16.pdf?sfvrsn=af95f781_8
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2017a). Subject benchmark statement: materials. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-materials-17.pdf?sfvrsn=8499f781_10
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2017b). Subject benchmark statement: physics, astronomy and astrophysics. Retrieved from Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-physics-astronomy-and-astrophysics-17.pdf?sfvrsn=2f94f781_12
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, N. (2015, August 5). Infographic: how to read a scientific paper. Retrieved June 24, 2019, from Elsevier Connect website: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/infographic-how-to-read-a-scientific-paper
   Google Scholar
• Round, J.E., & Campbell, A.M. (2013). Figure facts: encouraging undergraduates to take a data-centered approach to reading primary literature. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 39–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: history, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research: JLR, 43(4), 393–429. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11424071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content- area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shell, D.F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R.H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 386–398. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shell, D.F., Murphy, C.C., & Bruning, R.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd, M.D., Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2012). University students’ reading of their first-year mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(3), 226–256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2012.682959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St Clair-Thompson, H., Graham, A., & Marsham, S. (2017). Exploring the reading practices of undergraduate students. In Education Inquiry (pp. 1–15). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1380487
   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(2), 224–242. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, K. (n.d.). How to read a journal article. Retrieved from Royal Society of Chemistry website: http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resource/res00001653/how-to-read-a-journal-article?cmpid=CMP00004937
   Google Scholar
• Trowler, P. (2012). Disciplines and interdisciplinarity conceptual groundwork. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century: rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp. 5–29). London, UNITED KINGDOM: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vacca, R.T., & Vacca, J.A.L. (2002). Content area reading: literacy and learning across the curriculum (7th edition) (7 edition). Boston, USA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H., & Goedhart, M. (2012, January). First experiences with reading primary literature by undergraduate life science students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795–1821. 2015 doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.582654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakeham, W. (2016). Wakeham review of stem degree provision and graduate employability. London: Department for Business, Innovation & Skills and Higher Education Funding Council for England.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M. (2016). How to read a scientific paper. Retrieved from American Society of Plant Biologists website: http://aspb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HowtoReadScientificPaper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Willmott, C.J.R., Clark, R.P., & Harrison, T.M. (2003). Introducing undergraduate students to scientific reports. Bioscience Education, 1(1), 1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2003.01010010
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J.T., & Chalmers Neubauer, I. (1988). Reading strategies for improving student work in the chem lab. Journal of Chemical Education, 65(11), 996. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ed065p996
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar