I'm back.
The background I gave earlier described some of the issues.
The conclusion is that we need 2 things:
1. Pedagogy explicitly about reading scientific literature.
2. The pedagogy must be evidence-based.
The background I gave earlier described some of the issues.
The conclusion is that we need 2 things:
1. Pedagogy explicitly about reading scientific literature.
2. The pedagogy must be evidence-based.
Let's start with 1.
Other people, lots actually, have noticed that we need to teach how to read science lit. There two general ways:
A. Adopting methods from general expository writing.
B. Developing methods specifically for science lit.
Other people, lots actually, have noticed that we need to teach how to read science lit. There two general ways:
A. Adopting methods from general expository writing.
B. Developing methods specifically for science lit.
A: the methods have been around for a very long time, have not been rigorously tested, & are based on guiding questions.
B: focus on the structure of the research paper, & also not tested. In fact, glossy journals regularly publish pieces on how to read an article.
B: focus on the structure of the research paper, & also not tested. In fact, glossy journals regularly publish pieces on how to read an article.
The commonality of both types of method, which is also point 2, is a lack of evidence. There is no reason to believe that elements of these methods aren't useful and can genuinely help people learn. The problem is that we don't have reliable evidence that they work.
The big questions:
Why does this matter so much?
Why is it so important that we only use methods to teach science reading that we know work?
Why does this matter so much?
Why is it so important that we only use methods to teach science reading that we know work?
Reading science well is at the heart of everything we do in science.
We read to:
1. learn,
2. review
3. replicate
If this makes it seem like all of science rests on how well we read, that's because it really does.
We read to:
1. learn,
2. review
3. replicate
If this makes it seem like all of science rests on how well we read, that's because it really does.
1.Reading to learn refers to consuming journal articles to understand what's going on in our fields. It involves reading interconnected sets of papers to see how ideas were shaped, solidified or dismissed, and keeping up with the latest findings.
2. Reading to review means understanding a journal article accurately enough to be able to evaluate the soundness of a paper. Specifically, whether what was done, and what was argued, appropriately addressed the scientific question.
3. Reading to replicate refers to being able to follow the reasoning given in a paper such that, you, as the reader, can reasonable reproduce the study that was documented.
At the heart of all three skills is understanding the relationship between the journal article and the science it documents, and no, they are not the same thing.
In short, we need to make sure that we teach science reading well, and to make sure that we do it using methods that work well because the integrity of scientific knowledge depends on them.
My solution has been to use what we know about how people understand complex ideas to develop methods that are experimentally tested and shown to work.
Specifically, my research involves using cognitive narrative to teach science reading skills, but more on that, tomorrow.
Specifically, my research involves using cognitive narrative to teach science reading skills, but more on that, tomorrow.
