Discussion of Annotated Research Articles Results in Increases in Scientific Literacy within a Cell Biology Course

Abstract

As the amount and complexity of scientific knowledge continues to grow, it is essential to educate scientifically literate citizens who can comprehend the process of science and the implications of technological advances. This is especially important when educating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) college students, since they may play a central role in the future of scientific research and its communication. A central part of decoding and interpreting scientific information is the ability to analyze scientific research articles. For this reason, many different approaches for reading scientific research articles have been developed and published. Despite the availability of numerous ways of analyzing scientific research articles, biology students can face challenges that may prevent them from fully comprehending the text. We sought to address student challenges with science vocabulary and content knowledge by adding structural supports to in-classroom article discussions through the use of annotated articles from the Science in the Classroom initiative. We describe the pedagogical approach used for discussing scientific research articles within a required biology course. In this context, we found that students' scientific literacy skills increased at the end of the semester. We also found that, for each article discussed, the majority of students could interpret graphical representations of article results and that they could identify and comprehend components of the experimental design of the study.

Keywords: STEM education; data interpretation; experimental design; primary literature; process of science; research articles; scientific literacy.

FIG 1

Student perceived gains. Students were surveyed at the completion of the course (N = 77). Bars represent the percentages of students that selected a particular choice. Survey prompts are shown to the left of the bars. Blue, strongly agree; green, agree; yellow, disagree; orange, strongly disagree.

FIG 2

(A) Comparison of pre- and posttest student TOSLS scores. Students scored significantly higher on the TOSLS questionnaire at the end of the semester (P = 0.001, F = 11.537). Light gray, pretest scores; dark gray, posttest scores (N = 75). Error bars represent standard error of the means (SEM). (B) Comparison of TOSLS learning gains by quartiles. Students in the lowest quartile (stippled white bar; N = 21) had significantly higher learning gains on the TOSLS compared to students in other quartiles (second quartile [dark gray bar], N = 17; third quartile [light gray bar], N = 23; fourth quartile [white bar], N = 14.) ‡, P = 0.047; ≠, P = 0.005; *, P = 0.001. Error bars represent SEM.

FIG 3

Comparison of student performance in experimental design and data interpretation questions in quizzes 2 to 4. Mean student scores in data interpretation quiz questions (dark gray; N = 194) were significantly higher than mean scores in experimental design questions (light gray; P = 0.015, F = 6.30; N = 194). Error bars represent SEM.