The problem with advice columns on reading science is that they make many assumptions about what the reader understands vis-a-vis the science paper.
Sanctity of scientists: Whatever scientists in white coats holding test tubes say is true and unquestionable. They exist in a different realm where their magical eyes can see all as it really is.
How science is mostly taught at school and presented in the news media.
Students learn science mostly from textbook where science is presented as collections of unquestioned facts discovered by lone geniuses.
The weakness in both sources is eclipsing the processes behind the findings with a glossy interpretation of findings themselves.
1. Understanding the relationship between the science done and what was published about it.
2. The ability to be critical about what was done.
I do this by using a series active teaching exercises, using first images and objects, and then communicative settings.
Next comes deconstructing a classical narrative, typically a fairy tale.
The goal here is for learners build awareness of:
2. Its complexity despite how intuitively easy it feels
3. The relationship between narrative structure and the universal interrogatives appearing in all human languages
4. The relationship between empathy and the comprehension of a narrative.
1. fewer instances of students staring at a paper like a deer in headlights
2. lively discussion at seminar
3. better written, organised & argued student papers
4. no plagiarism
1. incoherent papers riddled with incorrect citations and plagiarism.
2. Reviews that make no sense.
3. Inaccurate replications, etc.
And don't get me started on science journalism...