Search

Communicating science effectively is an essential part of the development of science literacy. Research has shown that introducing primary scientific literature through journal clubs can improve student learning outcomes, including increased scientific knowledge. However, without scaffolding, students can miss more complex aspects of science literacy, including how to analyze and present scientific data. In this study, we apply a modified CREATE(S) process (Concept map the introduction, Read methods and results, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze data, Think of the next Experiment, and Synthesis map) to improve students' science literacy skills, specifically their understanding of the process of science and their ability to use narrative synthesis to communicate science. We tested this hypothesis using a retrospective quasi-experimental study design in upper-division undergraduate courses. We compared learning outcomes for CREATES intervention students to those for students who took the same courses before CREATES was introduced. Rubric-guided, direct evidence assessments were used to measure student gains in learning outcomes. Analyses revealed that CREATES intervention students versus the comparison group demonstrated improved ability to interpret and communicate primary literature, especially in the methods, hypotheses, and narrative synthesis learning outcome categories. Through a mixed-methods analysis of a reflection assignment completed by the CREATES intervention group, students reported the synthesis map as the most frequently used step in the process and highly valuable to their learning. Taken together, the study demonstrates how this modified CREATES process can foster scientific literacy development and how it could be applied in science, technology, engineering, and math journal clubs.

The course-based research experience (CRE) with its documented educational benefits is increasingly being implemented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. This article reports on a study that was done over a period of 3 years to explicate the instructional processes involved in teaching an undergraduate CRE. One hundred and two instructors from the established and large multi-institutional SEA-PHAGES program were surveyed for their understanding of the aims and practices of CRE teaching. This was followed by large-scale feedback sessions with the cohort of instructors at the annual SEA Faculty Meeting and subsequently with a small focus group of expert CRE instructors. Using a qualitative content analysis approach, the survey data were analyzed for the aims of inquiry instruction and pedagogical practices used to achieve these goals. The results characterize CRE inquiry teaching as involving three instructional models: (1) being a scientist and generating data; (2) teaching procedural knowledge; and (3) fostering project ownership. Each of these models is explicated and visualized in terms of the specific pedagogical practices and their relationships. The models present a complex picture of the ways in which CRE instruction is conducted on a daily basis and can inform instructors and institutions new to CRE teaching.