Description
The Assignment (2–4 pages):Describe the
three stages of non-REM sleep and compare non-REM sleep with REM sleep.
As part of your response, include the behaviors and patterns of brain
activity that characterize each stage of sleep.Explain the role of different brain regions and neurotransmitters on promoting sleep and wakefulness.Summarize
your chosen article about the biological basis of sleep in enough
detail that your reader will understand what was done in the study and
what the results of the study were (similar to the articles you found in
BioPsychology.com in the first week).Then, apply the findings
of your research to one of the sleep disorders described in Chapter 15
by either proposing a new hypothesis about the cause of one of the
disorders or by explaining a new treatment for one of these disorders.Support
your Assignment with specific references to all resources used in its
preparation. You should include in-text citations in the body of your
Assignment as well as complete references in APA format at the end of
your Assignment.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Special Series: Scientific Literacy
Primary Scientific Literature Is Not Just for Students and Academics:
a Study of Primary Source Modalities and Predictors of Learning
across Adulthood
Melissa McCartney,a,b Xiaoqing Wan,c Christina D. Griep,d and Nichole R. Lighthallc
a
Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
b
STEM Transformation Institute, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
c
Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
d
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
The 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic and distrust for popular media have highlighted the need for effective
methods of direct communication of biomedical science to the public. It is presently unclear how well nonexperts can learn from primary scientific sources and what factors predict such learning in the general public.
The present study examined three modalities for learning about biomedical science directly from study investigators: primary scientific articles, annotated primary scientific articles presented online with interactive learning features, and TEDTalks about scientific studies presented by a study investigator. Each modality presented
the same study, “Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain” (L. Xie, H. Kang, Q. Chen, Y. Liao,
et al., Science 342:373–377, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241224). Knowledge about the study’s scientific content was assessed before and after the randomly assigned learning modality using multiple-choice questions. Participants included a sample of college psychology students and a sample of community-dwelling older
adults. Cognitive tests were used to assess individual differences in working memory, processing speed, science
literacy, and semantic knowledge. Surveys were used to assess trust in science and scientists, attitudes toward
science, and attitudes toward cognitive tasks. Results indicated that both younger and older adults can learn
basic biomedical science from a primary source. Knowledge gains were observed in all three learning modalities with no evidence of age group differences. Notably, the largest learning gains for undergraduates and older
adults were observed in the primary scientific article condition, followed by the TEDTalk, and the annotated
paper. Baseline knowledge about the science study topic and adoption of “scientific attitudes” (e.g., openmindedness) predicted learning across age groups and learning modalities. These findings suggest that science
educators, communicators, and outreach professionals should consider methods of promoting science literacy
in the general public through direct access to primary scientific sources.
KEYWORDS attitudes towards science, online learning, primary scientific literature, science literacy
INTRODUCTION
Science literacy broadly refers to “familiarity with the
enterprise and practice of science” (1). Health literacy, referring to the “capacities of people to meet the complex demands
of health in a modern society” is closely related to science literacy (2). It is assumed that greater science and health literacy
Editor Nicole C. Kelp, Colorado State University
Address correspondence to Department of Biological Sciences,
Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA. E-mail:
mmccartn@fiu.edu.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Received: 29 July 2022, Accepted: 9 January 2023,
Published: 6 February 2023
could help improve informed decision-making at the individual
and collective levels; however, there is little understanding on
exactly how science literacy would help people be informed
about science and their health or what kinds of skills science
literacy would have to include to do so (3).
During the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, it has become especially critical to understand how the
general public can increase their science and health literacy
through learning about biomedical research in a remote, online
environment. Challenges to providing biomedical information
are not trivial and include (i) distrust in media sources (4) and
health experts (5) and (ii) misinformation spread on social media
and other outlets (6). One sector of the general public, older
adults, would benefit from effective, online learning modalities,
especially those used to communicate biomedical science, as
this sector is at greater risk for most chronic and progressive
diseases (7–10). Another sector of the general public engaging in
Copyright © 2023 McCartney et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International license.
April 2023
Volume 24
Issue 1
10.1128/jmbe.00122-22
1
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS NOT JUST FOR ACADEMICS
online learning are college students, given the steady rise in the
proportion of college courses taught online (11) and the number of higher-learning institutions that have been forced to move
to online during the COVID-19 pandemic (12–14). It is critical
for the scientific community to determine best practices for
sharing biomedical information online with both of these groups
as a way to strengthen science and health literacy among the
general public.
There is no shortage of science-focused videos, popular
news articles, and websites among online social networks in our
digital age. In the United States, 70% of the general public uses
the Internet to find information about specific scientific issues
(15). Tools that allow for more direct research dissemination will
enhance the public’s ability to critically assess the validity of media
reports on, and claims about, scientific research. One such tool
is annotated primary scientific literature, which is designed to
help readers interpret complex science by overlaying additional
information onto primary scientific literature (16). Preserving the
original text of the research, as well as the context, is what
makes annotated primary scientific literature unique from other
genres that modify or rewrite the original text. Science in the
Classroom (SitC; www.scienceintheclassroom.org) is the premier
example of annotated primary scientific literature that, while primarily designed for classroom pedagogical use with undergraduate students, may also have potential for use with the general
public. SitC annotations have been designed to be at the reading
comprehension level of a first-year undergraduate student, and
ongoing evaluation efforts have provided evidence that this goal is
being met (17).
Online videos are also a tool for science communication,
and TEDTalks represent a specialized genre of science communication via online videos. TEDTalks are designed to reach two
distinct audiences: (i) experts and professionals on the topic
and (ii) nonexperts who are simply interested in the topic (18).
While hundreds of science-based TEDTalks are available, a
recent study found that TED presenters were predominantly
male and nonacademics (19). Critics have also noted the entertainment-heavy nature of TEDTalks, questioning whether their
premise is science or a sales pitch (20). Little is known as to
whether or not TEDTalks are able to teach new scientific information to the general public.
This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of existing
online interventions targeted at advancing the general public’s
knowledge about biomedical science research. We selected
sleep as our biomedical science topic for two reasons. First, we
consider sleep to be somewhat of a “neutral” scientific topic,
safe from the polarized and political lenses applied to scientific
topics such as climate change and evolution (21). Second, sleep
is critical for health across the life span and is a lifestyle habit that
could be easily adapted should the participants choose to do so.
We selected the article “Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance
from the Adult Brain” as the scientific study at the center of our
interventions (22). This scientific paper was the 2014 recipient
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Newcomb Cleveland Prize, awarded to the authors of an outstanding paper published in Science. This scientific paper truly
April 2023
Volume 24 Issue 1
JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOLOGY EDUCATION
represents a novel scientific study that is of interest across scientific disciplines and the general public.
Using content from Xie et al. (22), we investigated whether
nonexpert audiences, specifically, college psychology students
and older adults, can learn about basic biomedical science from
primary sources and what type of primary source yields the
greatest benefit. We also determined whether the efficacy of different online learning modalities depends on learner characteristics. We collected data on participants’ semantic knowledge, fluid
cognitive abilities, and attitudes toward science and learning and
examined the predictive values of these measures. Data collection for each of these interventions will help to expand our
knowledge base on whether specific forms of online learning
interventions can enhance the general public’s literacy on important biomedical topics and/or encourage their motivation to
improve health behaviors.
We hypothesized that if optimal learning from primary sources requires a narrative format, primary scientific literature
(PDF) and the TEDTalk conditions will yield the most benefit (hypothesis 1 [H1]). With the annotated article, participants were
likely to move around the article in a nonlinear fashion using the
annotation tools and, if they use the provided external links, they
would leave the article, causing a break in the narrative format of
the article. If optimal learning requires intrinsic interest and/or
self-directed learning, the annotated article would yield the most
benefit (H2). Annotations, and the option to engage with them
or not, allowed for participants to follow their intrinsic interests.
As we worked with the two different groups at two different age
levels, we predicted that younger and older adults may differ in
their ability to learn from primary sources (H3). Finally, as we
were interested in individual difference measures, such as general
cognitive abilities and attitudes toward science and learning that
have been previously associated with learning abilities and outcomes, these factors could predict comprehension gains in the
present study (H4).
METHODS
Participants
Participants were recruited from the University of Central
Florida (UCF) to join a study investigating learning about scientific topics. UCF undergraduates from age 18 to 35 years old
were recruited through the UCF Psychology Department participant pool (via SONA) and received course credit for completing the study. Our final sample included 85 undergraduates
(Table 1). Participants of ages 60 to 90 years old were recruited
through the UCF Learning and Longevity Research Network
participant registry and received $30 for completing the study.
Our final sample included 89 older adults (Table 1). Note that
compensation (credit or money) was provided for completing
the study, but compensation rates were not performance based
(i.e., flat-rate compensation; participants could not earn more
credit or money for better performance). Thus, while the two
compensation types may have been differentially motivating, it
10.1128/jmbe.00122-22
2
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS NOT JUST FOR ACADEMICS
JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOLOGY EDUCATION
TABLE 1
Group characteristics of study participants
n
Mean age
Gender (% female)
Original article
30
73.78
76.67%
Annotated article
30
70.70
73.33%
Video
29
72.96
71.43%
Original article
30
18.83
53.33%
Annotated article
27
18.67
62.97%
Video
28
19.29
60.71%
Age group and condition
Older adults
Younger adults
was unlikely that this would yield differences in levels of effort
or performance for younger versus older adults. The study
took place in private lab rooms and took approximately 2 h.
cognitive and survey measures (step 6) were then completed
and participants received their compensation.
Cognitive measures
Ethics statement
The UCF Institutional Review Board approved the study
and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior
to beginning study procedures.
Procedure
Figure 1 provides an overview of the study timeline and
procedures. Prior to arrival, participants were assigned into one
of the learning tool conditions: original article (PDF), annotated
article, or video summary group. Group assignments counterbalanced and were not revealed to participants until they began the
learning intervention phase of the study. Participants then completed a portion of the individual difference measures assessing
cognition and attitudes (step 1). The remaining measures were
completed at the end of the experiment to reduce possible cognitive fatigue effects on learning and knowledge retention in the
main task. Individual difference measures selected for completion
after the main task were those measuring characteristics that
were least likely to be affected by the cognitive demand or science content of the main task (semantic knowledge, need for
cognition). Participants then reviewed a research news brief that
described a biomedical science study on some of the brain health
benefits of sleep (step 2). The news brief was followed by a
knowledge assessment, which measured knowledge for scientific
content from the study using multiple-choice questions (step 3;
see Appendix S1 in the supplemental material). Participants were
not told that the knowledge assessment would be repeated.
During the intervention phase (step 4), participants learned more
about the study through their assigned learning modality and
then completed a second assessment to measure change in
study-related knowledge (step 5; see Appendix S1). Each of the
learning modalities provided the information necessary to correctly answer each of the knowledge questions. Additional
April 2023
Volume 24 Issue 1
(i) Working memory. Working memory was assessed
using a computerized 2-back task. In each trial, participants were
shown one single-digit number on each sequentially presented
trial screen and were asked to identify when the digit on the
screen matched the digit they saw two trials back by pressing
the space bar on the keyboard. The task included two blocks of
20 trials presented with an interstimulus interval of 2,000 ms.
(ii) Processing speed. Processing speed was measured with a computerized stimulus response task. On each
trial, participants were asked to fixate on a cross at the center of the screen and press the space bar on the keyboard
as quickly as possible when they saw a circle appear at the
center location. The task included two blocks of 20 trials
presented with a jittered interstimulus interval of 5,000 to
9,000 ms (mean, 7,000 ms).
(iii) Science literacy. We used the Test of Scientific
Literacy Skills (TOSLS) (23) to specifically measure participant’s
baseline skill level of evaluating the validity of sources (TOSLS
questions 10, 12, 17, 22, and 26). This group of questions was
designed to measure whether users were able to distinguish
between types of sources and identify bias, authority, and reliability. We were unable to administer the entire TOSLS, due
to both lack of time and measures from the TOSLS that were
not relevant to this study. The TOSLS was validated previously,
and acceptable levels of reliability were found (the internal reliability of the TOSLS was 0.731and 0.748 on the pretest and
posttest, respectively, falling within the acceptable range of reliability; internal consistency estimates above 0.70 are considered acceptable, and values above 0.8 are considered to reflect
good test reliability [24]).
(iv) Semantic knowledge. We utilized the Shipley vocabulary test (25), a 40-question multiple-choice synonyms test.
Vocabulary words were presented with four synonym choice
options, with test words becoming increasingly more difficult
(less commonly used words).
10.1128/jmbe.00122-22
3
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS NOT JUST FOR ACADEMICS
JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOLOGY EDUCATION
FIG 1. An overview of the study protocol.
Attitude measures
(i) Trust in science and scientists. The Trust in
Science and Scientist Inventory (TSSI) (26) was administered
to determine the preintervention baseline score of trust in science and scientists on a general level. This inventory has been
validated for use as a means of assessing the impact of interventions intended to increase confidence and understanding of
science and scientists and the subsequent influence on their
trust in science. We included the full 21-question inventory.
The TSSI was validated previously, and acceptable levels of reliability were found (internal reliability of 0.84).
(ii) Attitudes toward science. The Test of Science
Related Attitudes (TORSA) (27, 28) was used to measure attitudes toward science in different contexts. TORSA includes
seven different attitude subscales, of which we adapted three:
adoption of scientific attitudes (questions 4, 18, 25, 39, 53, and
67), leisure interest in science (questions 13, 20, 27, 55, 62, and
69), and social implications of science (questions 1, 15, 22, 29,
43, and 57). Each separate attitude scale was scored independently. The TORSA was validated previously, and acceptable levels
April 2023
Volume 24 Issue 1
of reliability were found (0.78 [mean of scales]; attitude toward
scientific inquiry, 0.75).
(iii) Attitudes toward cognitive tasks. The Need
for Cognition (29) measure was used to assess participant’s
attitudes toward “effortful cognitive endeavors.” This 18item questionnaire indexes engagement and enjoyment of
thinking, complex problem solving, and intellectual tasks.
Research news brief
A Facebook search was used to find the news brief written
on the results of this research study. Facebook was considered a
likely medium for the study population to come across science
news. We selected a media source (http://www.care2.com) that
was not well-known to reduce potential influences of prejudice
against more well-known news sources (e.g., partisan reputations).
Primary source science learning modalities
(i) Primary scientific article. The article “Sleep Drives
Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain” (22) was intervention
10.1128/jmbe.00122-22
4
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS NOT JUST FOR ACADEMICS
1. The first two pages of the PDF of the scientific article, as it
appeared in Science, was shown digitally to participants using
a desktop computer. Participants were given 20 min to read
and explore the PDF on their own and had free control over
scrolling and zooming in on the text.
(ii) Annotated article. The annotated version of Xie
et al. (22) was presented to participants using the Science in
the Classroom website. A special version of this annotated
article was prepared for this study and included the same
text and figure as the PDF version. Participants were given
20 min to read and explore the annotated article on their
own and had free control over using the annotation tools.
(iii) Video summary. The TEDTalk presented by one
of the article’s authors, Jeff Iliff, was used as a video intervention. Participants were asked to watch the video in full
(11 min 41 s; English closed captions were on) and were not
able to rewatch sections of the video. We chose this implementation method as a way to create a naturalistic way that
people would engage with a TEDTalk. Because people watch
TEDTalks for enjoyment and for personal interests, they do
not tend to review them many times as if they were studying for an exam or trying to understand difficult material.
We ensured that the content that was presented in all
three modalities included all of the content that was in the comprehension assessment. In other words, for each of the three
modalities, the answers to the content questions were available.
The original Science article is only 3 pages long, yet we shortened this to 2 pages, which allowed readers to focus on the narrative content. The heavily technical Methods section, figure
captions, and statistical analysis text that were removed were
also not included in the TEDTalk. This also ensured that participants had the same amount of content they were asked to read
in a comparable time requirement.
Assessments of scientific study-related knowledge
(pre- to postintervention test performance change)
Learning of scientific content was assessed using a 17question multiple-choice test (Appendix S1). Each question
reflected content present in each of the three learning
tools. Participants responded to these questions on the
computer in a self-paced survey. Pre- and postintervention
assessments had identical questions; however, participants
were not informed that their knowledge would be tested after the learning intervention. Group means are presented
with their standard errors (SEMs) and partial ηp2 values are
included as measures of effect size.
RESULTS
Optimal learning from primary sources
For the undergraduate students, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
results for preintervention knowledge assessed in the multiplechoice test confirmed there were no baseline differences in
April 2023
Volume 24 Issue 1
JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOLOGY EDUCATION
FIG 2. Effects of the three different learning modalities on
participants’ content knowledge performance.
knowledge among the learning modality groups [F(2,82) < 1.00,
P = 0.44, np2 = 0.02]. Our primary analysis examined learning
modality effects on change in scientific study-related knowledge
(pre- to postintervention test performance change [multiplechoice test]). Results revealed a significant effect for the intercept
[F(1,82) = 337.93, P < 0.001, np2 = 0.81]. This finding indicated significant learning among undergraduates across learning modality
groups. We also observed a main effect of learning modality
group, indicating different levels of knowledge gains by learning
tool [F(2,82) = 3.62, P = 0.03, np2 = 0.08]. Examination of means
indicated the largest performance gains were in the primary article condition (mean = 4.27, SEM = 0.35; 25.1% increase), followed by the video summary condition (mean = 3.79, SEM =
0.35; 22.3% increase), then the annotated article condition
(mean = 2.96, SEM = 0.35; 17.4% increase) (Fig. 2). Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc pairwise comparisons
indicated greater performance gains in the primary article condition relative to the annotated article condition (P = 0.02), but
there were no other significant pairwise differences. These findings indicated that, while each of the learning tools was effective
in enhancing scientific knowledge among undergraduates, the
annotated article yielded slightly lower knowledge gains than the
video summary (TEDTalk) and significantly lower gains than reading the original, primary research article.
For the older adults, ANOVA results for baseline knowledge about the scientific content assessed in the multiple-choice
test revealed a small difference by condition [F(2,86) < 3.27,
P = 0.04, np2 = 0.07]. Inspection of means indicated that preintervention performance was highest in the annotated article group
(mean = 11.80, SEM = 0.43; 69.4% correct), followed by the primary article group (mean = 0.93, SEM = 0.43; 64.3% correct),
and then the video summary group (mean = 10.24, SEM = 0.44;
60.2% correct). Tukey’s HSD post hoc pairwise comparisons
indicated that older adults in the annotated article group had
slightly higher baseline performance on the knowledge test than
older adults in the video group (P = 0.03).
Because we saw preintervention differences among
older adults by learning modality group, baseline knowledge
10.1128/jmbe.00122-22
5
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS NOT JUST FOR ACADEMICS
test performance was included as a covariate in the analysis
of change in knowledge test performance. ANCOVA results
revealed a main effect of preintervention knowledge performance [F(1,85) = 55.33, P < 0.001, np2 = 0.39], indicating
that older adults with greater baseline knowledge had larger
gains in their test performance with exposure to the
learning tools. Results of the ANCOVA for knowledge
change also revealed a significant effect for the intercept
[F(1,85) = 130.23, P < 0.001, np2 = 0.61]. This result confirmed improvements in knowledge test performance
among older adults across groups. A marginal effect of
learning modality group was observed [F(2,85) = 2.72,
P = 0.07, np2 = 0.06], suggesting subtle differences in knowledge gains on the multiple-choice test from pre- to postintervention by intervention modality. Consistent with results
from the undergraduates, mean level performance gains in
older adults were highest in the original article condition
(mean = 3.47, SEM = 0.26; 20.4% increase), followed by
the video summary condition (mean = 3.14, SEM = 0.27;
18.4% increase), and then the annotated article condition
(mean = 2.59, SEM = 0.27; 15.2% increase) (Fig. 2). Thus,
similar to findings with younger adults, older adults exhibited postintervention gains in scientific knowledge across
learning modalities and somewhat-graded gains by learning
modality. Notably, these consistent findings, including meanlevel differences in knowledge gain by intervention condition, were observed while controlling for individual differences in preintervention performance.
Does learning from primary sources differ for
younger and older adults?
We investigated whether younger and older adults differed in (i) learning gains overall (multiple-choice test performance change from pre- to postintervention) or (ii) if
intervention modality interacted with age to impact learning
gains. ANOVA results for baseline knowledge about the scientific content assessed in the multiple-choice test revealed
no difference between the learning modality groups
[F(2,82) < 1.00, P = 0.44, np2 = 0.02].
ANOVA results for baseline content assessment performance revealed a main effect of age [F(1,168) = 9.25,
P = 0.003, np2 = 0.05], such that older adults had higher preintervention performance on the content assessment test
(mean = 10.99, SEM = 0.23; 64.6% correct) than did younger
adults (mean = 10.01, SEM = 0.23; 58.9% correct). We
observed no interactions of age group and condition on preintervention performance [F(2,168) = 1.34, P = 0.27, np2 = 0.02].
Analysis of covariance results for assessment performance change from pre- to postintervention revealed a main
effect of preintervention performance [F(1,167) = 91.40,
P < 0.001, np2 = 0.35]. A post hoc Pearson correlation indicated
that higher baseline performance was negatively correlated
with performance change [r(174) = 0.63, P < 0.001]. Even
with the inclusion of preintervention performance as a covariate, however, we found a significant effect for the intercept
April 2023
Volume 24 Issue 1
JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOLOGY EDUCATION
[F(1,167) = 231.66, P < 0.001, np2 = 0.58], indicating reliable
improvements from baseline across conditions. Consistent with
the prior experiments’ results, the cross-study analysis yielded a
main effect of condition, indicating different levels of knowledge
gains by learning tool [F(1,167) = 5.52, P = 0.005, np2 = 0.06].
Examination of means indicated greater performance gains in
the original article (mean = 3.78, SEM = 0.19; 22.2% increase)
and video summary conditions (mean = 3.45, SEM = 0.20;
20.3% increase), relative to the annotated article condition
(mean = 2.87, SEM = 0.20; 16.8% increase). Notably, we found
no main effects of age group or an interaction of age group and
condition (for both, P > 0.68), indicating similar intervention efficacy for young adults and older adults across and within learning tool intervention groups.
Thus, the assessment of age differences showed that
older adults had greater knowledge at baseline (higher preintervention multiple-choice test performance) but exhibited the same pattern of gains as younger adults across and
within intervention groups.
Role of cognitive abilities and attitudes toward science
and learning influence learning biomedical science
from a primary source
To examine individual differences in performance by
cognitive ability and attitudes toward science and learning,
we used a best-subsets regression. This approach employs
the branch and bound algorithm (30) to exhaustively identify
the best combination of predictors out of all possible subsets. This analysis was performed in R version 4.0.2 (31) (see
Appendix S2 for details). In brief, the best-subsets method
was applied to determine which combination of cognitive
and attitude measures was the best predictor of (i) baseline
scientific knowledge (i.e., baseline multiple-choice test performance), and (ii) improvements in scientific knowledge
from pre- to postintervention. As described above, cognitive
predictor measures included working memory, processing
speed, science literacy, and semantic knowledge. Attitude
predictor measures included trust in science and scientists,
attitudes toward science, and attitudes toward cognitive
tasks. Additionally, the analysis for predictors of improvements in scientific knowledge included baseline knowledge
(preintervention multiple-choice test performance) as a cognitive predictor variable.
In predicting baseline scientific knowledge assessed on the
multiple-choice test, results indicated that a combination of
two measures provided the best prediction of performance:
semantic knowledge (b = 0.16) and science literacy (b = 0.43;
mean square error [MSE] = 3.75, Bayesian Information
Criterion [BIC] = 28.74, Mallows’ Cp-statistic [Cp] = 1.75,
adjusted R2 = 0.22). In predicting improvements in scientific
knowledge from pre- to postintervention, the results revealed
that the best subset of predictors was baseline scientific knowledge (b = 0.55) and adoption of scientific attitudes (a subscale of the attitudes towards science measure) (b = 0.11);
(MSE = 62.28, BIC = 66.90, Cp = 0.76, adjusted R2 = 0.38).
10.1128/jmbe.00122-22
6
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS NOT JUST FOR ACADEMICS
JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOLOGY EDUCATION
FIG 3. Assessment performance change predicted by adoption of science attitude. The x axis shows the
sum score of participants’ attitudes of science. The y axis shows the change in score (improvement) for
participants on the comprehension change assessment (MC test). The positive slope indicates a positive,
and predictive, relationship between these two individual difference measures.
These results indicated that, for the baseline knowledge assessment, participants’ ability to correctly answer
questions about the scientific topic of the learning intervention was related to their general semantic knowledge
and science literacy. In contrast, participants’ ability to
learn new scientific knowledge about that same topic was
predicted by their baseline knowledge about the topic
itself, and critically, their adoption of “scientific attitudes,”
e.g., curiosity (“I am curious about the world in which we
live”), open-mindedness (“I enjoy reading about things
that disagree with my previous ideas”), and willingness to
revise opinions (“I am unwilling to change my ideas when
evidence shows that the ideas are poor”). As shown in
Fig. 3, adoption of scientific attitudes predicted greater
gains in performance on the multiple-choice test in each
of the learning modality groups.
April 2023
Volume 24 Issue 1
DISCUSSION
In this study, we compared the efficacy of different learning modalities by which primary scientific content can be
accessed by the general public. We showed that both
younger and older adults can learn basic biomedical science
from a primary source by using all three treatment modalities: primary source research article, annotated research article, and video summary (TEDTalk). Supporting hypothesis 1,
we showed that among three online modalities, the largest
learning gains for both age groups were found with narrative
formats. Specifically, learning gains were greatest for the original primary source Science article (PDF), followed by the
TEDTalk, and then the annotated primary source article. We
observed no age-related differences in learning gains between
younger and older adults. We also found that prior specific
10.1128/jmbe.00122-22
7
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS NOT JUST FOR ACADEMICS
knowledge about the topic and attitudes toward science predicted this learning.
The general public can read primary scientific literature
Our most exciting finding was that primary research articles
are not only for students and academics! This was surprising, as
the annotated article and TEDTalk formats were generally considered more accessible and possibly even an “on ramp” to the
scientific articl
