Insights on biology student motivations and challenges when reading and analyzing primary literature.

Reading primary literature is a popular classroom practice that exposes students to the process of science. However, the analysis of primary literature can be taxing and time-consuming for students. For this reason, it is important to determine the source of student challenges and what motivates them to read primary literature. To better understand students' challenges, preferences, and motivations towards analyzing primary literature, we held focus groups with biology undergraduates where we asked them about their thoughts and perceptions on this practice. Students felt they struggle with understanding the big picture of an article, certain aspects of scientific literacy like data interpretation and experimental setup, and lack of knowledge of terms and techniques. Further analysis of the data using the achievement goal and expectancy-value theories of motivation revealed that students: 1) demonstrate mastery and performance approach goal orientations, which are typically associated with positive learning outcomes, 2) value the usefulness of reading primary literature, and 3) feel most engaged in the process of reading an article when the topic interests them. We provide pedagogical recommendations based on our findings.

Expert-Novice Comparison Reveals Pedagogical Implications for Students' Analysis of Primary Literature.

Student engagement in the analysis of primary scientific literature increases critical thinking, scientific literacy, data evaluation, and science process skills. However, little is known about the process by which expertise in reading scientific articles develops. For this reason, we decided to compare how faculty experts and student novices engage with a research article. We performed think-aloud interviews of biology faculty and undergraduates as they read through a scientific article. We analyzed these interviews using qualitative methods. We grounded data interpretation in cognitive load theory and the ICAP (interactive, constructive, active, and passive) framework. Our results revealed that faculty have more complex schemas than students and that they reduce cognitive load through two main mechanisms: summarizing and note-taking. Faculty also engage with articles at a higher cognitive level, described as constructive by the ICAP framework, when compared with students. More complex schemas, effectively lowering cognitive load, and deeper engagement with the text may help explain why faculty encounter fewer comprehension difficulties than students in our study. Finally, faculty analyze and evaluate data more often than students when reading the text. Findings include a discussion of successful pedagogical approaches for instructors wishing to enhance undergraduates' comprehension and analysis of research articles.