Abstract
Primary scientific literature is one of the most important means of communication in science, written for peers in the scientific community. Primary literature provides an authentic context for showing students how scientists support their claims. Several teaching strategies have been proposed using (adapted) scientific publications, some for secondary education, but none of these strategies focused specifically on scientific argumentation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a strategy for teaching pre-university students to read unadapted primary scientific literature, translated into students’ native language, based on a new argumentation analysis framework. This framework encompasses seven types of argumentative elements: motive, objective, main conclusion, implication, support, counterargument and refutation. During the intervention, students studied two research articles. We monitored students’ reading comprehension and their opinion on the articles and activities. After the intervention, we measured students’ ability to identify the argumentative elements in a third unadapted and translated research article. The presented framework enabled students to analyse the article by identifying the motive, objective, main conclusion and implication and part of the supports. Students stated that they found these activities useful. Most students understood the text on paragraph level and were able to read the article with some help for its vocabulary. We suggest that primary scientific literature has the potential to show students important aspects of the scientific process and to learn scientific vocabulary in an authentic context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almeida, C. A., & Liotta, L. J. (2005). Organic chemistry of the cell: an interdisciplinary approach to learning with a focus on reading, analyzing, and critiquing primary literature. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 1794–1799.
Baggott la Velle, L., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argument and developments in the science curriculum. School Science Review, 88(324), 31–39.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental research article in science. Madison: Wisconsin University Press.
Boersma, K. Th., van Graft, M., Harteveld, A., de Hullu, E., de Knecht-van Eekelen, A., Mazereeuw, M., et al. (2007). Leerlijn biologie van 4 tot 18 jaar. Uitwerking van de concept-contextbenadering tot doelstellingen voor het biologieonderwijs. Utrecht: Nibi.
Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2003). Learning biology through research papers: a stimulus for question-asking by high-school students. Cell Biology Education, 2, 266–274.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st century perspectives. Arlington: NSTA Press.
Campbell, M. W., Devyn Carter, J., Proctor, D., Eisenberg, M. L., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). Computer animation stimulate contagious yawning in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, B, 276, 4255–4259.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–46.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Epstein, H. T. (1972). An experiment in education. Nature, 235, 203–205.
Falk, H., & Yarden, A. (2009). Here the scientists explain what I said. Coordination practices elicited during the enactment of the Results and Discussion sections of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 349–383.
Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91, 133–157.
Gillen, C. M. (2006). Criticism and interpretation: teaching the persuasive aspects of research articles. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5(1), 34–38.
Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Hoskins, S. G., Lopatto, D., & Stevens, L. M. (2011). The C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates’ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefs. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 368–378.
Janick-Buckner, D. (1997). Getting undergraduates to critically read and discuss primary literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(1), 29–32.
Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 137–157). Berlin: Springer.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.
Kuldell, N. (2003). Read like a scientist to write like a scientist: using authentic literature in the classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(2), 32–35.
Muench, S. B. (2000). Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific educational goals: some guidelines for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of prospective research articles. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(4), 255–260.
Mulnix, A. B. (2003). Investigations of protein structure and function using the scientific literature: an assignment for an undergraduate cell physiology course. Cell Biology Education, 2(4), 248–255.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
Norris, S. P. (1992). Practical reasoning in the production of scientific knowledge. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 195–225). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
Norris, S.P., Stelnicki, N., Vries, G. de (2011). Teaching mathematical biology in high school using adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9215-8.
Osborne, J. (2009). The potential of adapted primary literature (APL) for learning: a response. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 397–403.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Peck, W. H. (2004). Teaching metastability in petrology using a guided reading from the primary literature. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52, 284–288.
Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313–319.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.
Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381–405.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tamir, P. (1985). Content analysis focusing on inquiry. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 87–94.
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2001). The use and value of scientific journals: past, present and future. Serials, 14(2), 113–120.
Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental facts in science: a study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10, 106–130.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. London: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–46.
Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (2010). The impact of an argumentation intervention on grade 10 students’ conceptual understanding of genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.
Vinther, J., Briggs, D. E. G., Prum, R. O., & Saranathan, V. (2008). The colour of fossil feathers. Biology Letters, 4, 522–525.
Warren, J. R. (1983). Unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic gastritis. Lancet, i, 1273–1275.
Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39, 307–311.
Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 190–195.
Acknowledgement
The research for this article was funded by Platform Bèta Techniek through project RUG1 of the Dudoc programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research for this article was funded by Platform Bèta Techniek through project RUG1 of the Dudoc programme.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koeneman, M., Goedhart, M. & Ossevoort, M. Introducing Pre-university Students to Primary Scientific Literature Through Argumentation Analysis. Res Sci Educ 43, 2009–2034 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9341-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9341-y