The ability to understand and critically analyze primary literature is a central skill in STEM fields. Unfortunately, the development of this skill is often informal or through ad hoc techniques concurrent with undergraduate research experiences. This system disadvantages students from historically underrepresented groups and women as they are less likely than Caucasian men to pursue undergraduate research. We aimed to develop a formal course to address this education gap for students at California State University, Los Angeles, a minority-serving institution.
The purpose of the course was to facilitate the development of critical reading and presentation skills in an inclusive learning environment. We modelled the course after typical journal clubs and developed additional instructional scaffolding to support student learning. The literature covered in the course spanned a broad range of fields including stem cells, disease ecology, immunology, microbiology, and structural biology.
To assess attitudinal impacts of the journal club, we administered pre- and post-course surveys. The surveys focused on students’ confidence in understanding and critiquing primary literature and their self-identification as a scientist.
Results/Conclusions
In the most recent iteration of the journal club, students identified as LatinX (69%), Asian or Pacific Islander (19%), or white (6%); which is representative of the broader CSULA student body. In terms of gender identity, the students disproportionately identified as female (81%) compared to the CSULA student body (58%).
According to survey results, 56% of students responded that the course experience correlated with an increase in their confidence in their ability to summarize and communicate the findings of primary scientific literature, and no students reported a decrease in this area. For their abilities to critique the experiments in research articles, 75% reported increases in their confidence, while 19% reported a decrease. As for confidence in one’s scientific identity, 44% of students reported increases, while 19% reported a decrease. Across the three questions, no student reported decreases in more than one area and 19% reported increases in all areas. Additionally, there appears to be no correlation between responses and student identities. We combined these surveys with assessments of learning outcomes and student feedback to holistically determine the efficacy of the course. Based on these results, we will continue to adapt the learning interventions used in the course towards an implementation that better supports student learning and development.