Expert-Novice Comparison Reveals Pedagogical Implications for Students' Analysis of Primary Literature.

Student engagement in the analysis of primary scientific literature increases critical thinking, scientific literacy, data evaluation, and science process skills. However, little is known about the process by which expertise in reading scientific articles develops. For this reason, we decided to compare how faculty experts and student novices engage with a research article. We performed think-aloud interviews of biology faculty and undergraduates as they read through a scientific article. We analyzed these interviews using qualitative methods. We grounded data interpretation in cognitive toad theory and the ICAP (interactive, constructive, active, and passive) framework. Our results revealed that faculty have more complex schemas than students and that they reduce cognitive load through two main mechanisms: summarizing and note-taking. Faculty also engage with articles at a higher cognitive level, described as constructive by the ICAP framework, when compared with students. More complex schemas, effectively lowering cognitive load, and deeper engagement with the text may help explain why faculty encounter fewer comprehension difficulties than students in our study. Finally, faculty analyze and evaluate data more often than students when reading the text. Findings include a discussion of successful pedagogical approaches for instructors wishing to enhance undergraduates' comprehension and analysis of research articles.