Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The typical approach to learning how to read academic papers in engineering follows an apprentice/experiential model. In this model, the learning of how to read a paper is achieved over time using ad-hoc methods to develop one's skill in understanding the typical layout of papers, the expected structure of arguments, and evidence to inform others about discoveries including the needed background work, and the methodologies used to analyze and present new ideas in all of our varying fields. In graduate school, this skill is learned, as needed, via advisors and their suggestions, performing a background or literature survey in the field one expects to contribute to, and in some cases, by participating in active reading groups devoted to a particular topic area. This approach to learning how to read papers is not necessarily problematic, but the outcome and skill to read papers are dependent on the student and the random interactions. Instead, we have tested a modified case-based approach to teach graduate students and senior undergraduate students how to read papers. In our case, we implemented this case-based approach in a 400/500 level course focused on teaching the general ideas of Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Over 3 years we have implemented the case approach for approximately 12 papers. To test if students are learning to critically view an academic paper, over each of the years we progressively made a higher quality "Fake Paper" as part of the curated list of papers that the students would have to read and experience through our case methodology. Our results show that students can identify the fake paper in their group discussions until our most recent version of the "Fake Paper". These results give us some confidence that the case-based approach to teaching and learning about reading academic papers has merit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter Jamieson (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: