The learning processes of two high‐school biology students when reading primary literature

Biology education, like education in any other discipline, strives to make students familiar with the knowledge, activities, and ways of thinking of the community of biologists. We produced a curriculum in developmental biology based on learning through primary literature, in an attempt to develop biological literacy among highschool students. Here we characterize the way in which two high‐school biology students read a research article in developmental biology. Mere reading resulted in superficial comprehension. In contrast, when the students answered questions about the text, deeper comprehension evolved. The students could overcome readingcomprehension problems by applying well‐established reading strategies, but encountered difficulties resulting from the classical structure of research articles. We hope that our characterization of the learning process of research articles by high‐school students will enable the use of these complex texts in high‐school biology classrooms.

[1]  D. Janick-Buckner.  Getting Undergraduates To Critically Read and Discuss Primary Literature. , 1997 .

[2]  W. M. Reed,et al.  Cognitive capacity engagement during and following interspersed mathemagenic questions , 1986 .

[3]  Wynne Harlen,et al.  The Assessment of Scientific Literacy in the OECD/PISA Project , 2001 .

[4]  S. Muench,et al.  Choosing Primary Literature in Biology To Achieve Specific Educational Goals. , 2000 .

[5]  D. Hunt.  Cognition and Learning , 1989 .

[6]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[7]  A. Yarden,et al.  Teachers' journal club: bridging between the dynamics of biological discoveries and biology teachers , 2003 .

[8]  S. Samuels.  A Cognitive Approach to Factors Influencing Reading Comprehension , 1983 .

[9]  Leslie W. Trowbridge,et al.  Teaching Secondary School Science: Strategies for Developing Scientific Literacy , 1995 .

[10]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[11]  Anat Yarden,et al.  Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum , 2001 .

[12]  Thomas J. Shuell,et al.  Phases of Meaningful Learning , 1990 .

[13]  E. Guba,et al.  Competing paradigms in qualitative research. , 1994 .

[14]  P. Chandler,et al.  Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn , 1994 .

[15]  Larry D. Yore,et al.  The reading–science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises , 1994 .

[16]  Forward Transfer of Different Reading Strategies Evoked by Adjunct Questions in Science Text. , 1987 .

[17]  Elizabeth Birr Moje,et al.  The Role of Text in Classroom Learning , 2000 .

[18]  渋江 靖弘,et al.  Science for All Americans , 1990 .

[19]  Herman T. Epstein,et al.  A strategy for education , 1970 .

[20]  C. Tabin,et al.  Sonic hedgehog mediates the polarizing activity of the ZPA , 1993, Cell.

[21]  R. C. Laugksch.  Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview , 2000 .

[22]  P. Cobb.  Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development , 1994 .

[23]  R. Jarman,et al.  A survey of the use of newspapers in science instruction by secondary teachers in Northern Ireland , 2002 .

[24]  Donald A. Norman.  Notes Toward a Theory of Complex Learning , 1978 .

[25]  Miriam Gamoran Sherin,et al.  Perspective on M. Lampert’s “When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching” , 2004 .

[26]  J. Wellington.  Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies? , 1991 .

[27]  D. Ausubel.  The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. , 1963 .

[28]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[29]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Learning From Text: A Multidimensional and Developmental Perspective , 2000 .