4.2 Article

Figure Facts: Encouraging Undergraduates to Take a Data-Centered Approach to Reading Primary Literature

期刊

CBE-LIFE SCIENCES EDUCATION
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 39-46

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.11-07-0057

关键词

-

资金

  1. Undergraduate Science Education Grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a Research at Undergraduate Institutions Award from the National Science Foundation, and Davidson College [1049768]
  2. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1049768] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to interpret experimental data is essential to understanding and participating in the process of scientific discovery. Reading primary research articles can be a frustrating experience for undergraduate biology students because they have very little experience interpreting data. To enhance their data interpretation skills, students used a template called Figure Facts to assist them with primary literature-based reading assignments in an advanced cellular neuroscience course. The Figure Facts template encourages students to adopt a data-centric approach, rather than a text-based approach, to understand research articles. Specifically, Figure Facts requires students to focus on the experimental data presented in each figure and identify specific conclusions that may be drawn from those results. Students who used Figure Facts for one semester increased the amount of time they spent examining figures in a primary research article, and regular exposure to primary literature was associated with improved student performance on a data interpretation skills test. Students reported decreased frustration associated with interpreting data figures, and their opinions of the Figure Facts template were overwhelmingly positive. In this paper, we present Figure Facts for others to adopt and adapt, with reflection on its implementation and effectiveness in improving undergraduate science education.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据