Reforms in undergraduate science education place an increasing emphasis on teaching the skills of practicing scientists, such as reading and interpreting the primary research literature. Many approaches have been proposed to introduce students to the primary research literature. One approach, the C.R.E.A.T.E. (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret data, Think of the next Experiment) method, leads students through a deconstruction of a research paper. However, the C.R.E.A.T.E. approach, as with many other approaches including more traditional journal club discussions, has primarily been implemented in small courses or discussion sections. Yet, at many larger colleges and universities, lecture courses do not have separate discussion sections. As a result, I modified the C.R.E.A.T.E. approach into a small group modified jigsaw activity. Students work in groups of four with each student assigned a role that corresponds with parts of C.R.E.A.T.E. Students complete a draft of their role's work prior to class. During class, students share their role with other members of their group and receive feedback. Then, group members work together to develop a final concept map that links together the different components of C.R.E.A.T.E. Students who used this approach self-reported significant gains in their ability to read and interpret the primary literature. However, their beliefs about science and scientists did not change in the same way as has been reported for the original C.R.E.A.T.E. method. Students report different components of the modified C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to be useful in their understanding of research articles and course material.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christopher W. Beck (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: