Reading science: A mixed‐methods study of alternative grading with a molecular biology journal club

Abstract

Researchers and practitioners have identified the ability to read scientific literature effectively as a core competency in undergraduate STEM education, but comparatively little research has been conducted on how students engage, both cognitively and affectively, with advanced scientific research. This mixed‐methods study assesses the process through which students engaged with a series of scaffolded, alternatively graded assignments focused on reading Molecular Biology research articles (the “journal club”). The results of the study suggest that alternative grading can be implemented strategically to address affective barriers in how and why students read science, with potential implications for addressing gender inequities.

1. INTRODUCTION

According to multiple sources, the ability to read scientific literature is an important skill all students in the sciences should develop and refine during their undergraduate studies. ¹ , ² , ³ Indeed, the ability to “read, evaluate and analyze scientific literature” has been identified as a foundational component of scientific literacy (SL). ⁴ Not only has SL been identified as key to success undergraduate classrooms, ⁵ , ⁶ , ⁷ it is also known to be an essential component of the pipeline into future scientific careers. While much work has been done in identifying scientific literacy as a desirable student learning outcome; considerably less work has been done in understanding the process by which students develop this skill and, by extension, what factors may enable or inhibit their interest and ability to engage in the reading of scientific literature. Therefore, the present study seeks to gain deeper insights into how students engage with the complex task of reading scientific literature in the absence of conventional grading schema.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Scientific literacy

While the specific definition of scientific literacy is contested and varied, ⁸ theorists and practitioners alike agree that the ability to read and interpret scientific research is a core competency in undergraduate education. As a competency, however, SL has been challenging to assess. As Cartwright et al. (2020), ⁴ observe, “SL competency is often inadequately and indirectly acquired as a by‐product of scientific learning, which is difficult to thoroughly assess beyond knowledge of course content and scientific principle evaluations.” To date, the majority of studies of scientific literacy (and/or its components) have taken the form of standardized surveys, such as the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS). ⁹ , ¹⁰ These instruments focus primarily on cognitive practices, such as critical reasoning, content knowledge, or data interpretation, and place less emphasis on the affective factors that can influence how and why students develop their ability to engage in increasingly sophisticated forms of scientific literacy. And such insight is needed, as a large‐scale study supported through the National Science Foundation (NSF), concluded that, over a 20‐year period, “there [was] no detectable improvement in undergraduate scientific literacy” ¹¹ (p. 31).

2.2. Zone of proximal development (ZPD)

The ability to read scientific literature is a skill that intersects with social theories of learning, first articulated by educational psychologist Lev Vygotsky in the 1920s. ¹² Reading is often perceived of as solitary act, conducted in isolation from others. In this conventional sense, reading scientific work would fall into the category of activities that a given student can accomplish outside of the classroom, without direct support from either peers or an instructor. If reading scientific literature is reframed as a skill, rather than an activity, however, then it shifts into the zone of proximal development (ZPD), ¹³ where the student's ability to master a given skill can be positively influenced by their proximity to others. In the ZPD, the responsibility of the instructor is to provide students with the appropriate structures, or scaffolding, for them to strengthen those skills to the point where they can transition out of that zone and into independent practice. ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ In the present study that scaffolding is provided in the form of a journal club, in which students are guided in their reading, socialized by their peers, and assessed on the extent to which they engage with the content, using an alternative form of grading.

2.3. Alternative grading

Alternative forms of grading, including approaches such as mastery, specifications, contract, and labor‐based, have become increasingly popular in higher education, with advocates arguing that current grading practices reward extrinsic over intrinsic motivation to learn; are widely perceived as unfair, inconsistent, and/or unclear by students, and foster persistent inequities through their valuation. ¹⁶ , ¹⁷ Specifications grading, in which students are given clear criteria (the “specs”) in advance and are graded only on whether or not they meet that threshold, has taken root in a number of STEM contexts. ¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²⁰ The new (or newly rediscovered) approaches are intended to redress these issues; shifting toward grading schema that are clearer, simpler, labor‐based, formative, and equitable. Because of its emergent, and potentially disruptive stance, much of the early reports of so‐called “ungrading” have focused on faculty and student awareness and reception ²¹ , ²² rather than assessing outcomes.

While most reports indicate initial student resistance, following by widespread acceptance, evidence to support (or not, as the case may be) claims made by advocates is only just starting to emerge, ¹⁹ , ²³ , ²⁴ and the specific linkages between how students learn and changes in grading strategies remains an open question. In STEM fields, alternative grading has taken the strongest hold in introductory, large enrollment, non‐major courses, which often struggle with high DWF rates ²⁵ , ²⁶ ; which means that even less attention has been paid to the effects of (un) grading on domain‐specific learning outcomes, including skills such as advanced scientific literacy; a gap the present study seeks to address.

2.4. Reading science and gender identity

There is some evidence that the development of scientific literacy, defined broadly, coupled with alternative grading practices, has the potential to contribute to more equitable teaching practices in STEM disciplines. Multiple studies have demonstrated that students who identify as female can, and do, find conventional attributes of STEM education, including grades, to be gender discriminatory. ²⁷ , ²⁸ , ²⁹ While a large‐scale study utilizing the TOSLS identified no significant differences in achievement by gender identity, ¹⁰ others have positioned literacy as an advocacy tool, giving female students (among others) a voice in addressing these inequities and as a leveling tool, with the potential to attract and retain more female students. ³⁰ , ³¹ , ³² , ³³ Further, researchers have established linkages between scientific literacy and general reading literacy, ³⁴ the former of which has been characterized by a persistent gender gap, in which those who identify as female regularly outperform those who identify as male. The influence of gender identity on how and why students engage in scientific literacy skills, such as reading academic research, remains a largely under‐explored subject, a gap that the present study takes into consideration.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Context

Penn State the Behrend Campus is a primarily undergraduate Commonwealth Campus within the Penn State System located in Pennsylvania, U.S. Closely resembling the scope of a comprehensive university, the campus has a student population of approximately 3200 (Fall 2023), with a large portion of majors in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) related fields. Across the campus, approximately 65% of all undergraduate students identify as male and 77% identify as white (non‐Hispanic). Admittance is classified as moderately selective.

In the 2021–22 academic year, 51 students graduated with Biology degrees. In addition to the Biology major, several minors are also offered that students commonly complete, including a minor in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (BMB). As part of the minor, students are required to take several mid‐ and upper‐level courses in BMB and chemistry, including BMB 252, Molecular and Cell Biology II. The 200‐level course which served as the basis for this study focuses on the molecular mechanisms of intercellular communication, cell cycle regulation, development, cancer, and immunity, and is often taken by junior and senior level students.

3.2. The intervention: Journal club

When teaching mid‐ to upper‐level courses, faculty typically incorporate reading assignments with the aim of facilitating the development and refinement of student scientific literacy skills. BMB 252 is set up as four units across the 15‐week semester. In each unit, one original research article that tied closely with the textbook material was read and discussed in a “journal club” fashion. In its first iteration in the semester of Fall 2020, each journal club consisted of the students reading an assigned research article and writing a report summarizing the paper's introduction, methods, results, and conclusions. Each section was graded out of 10 points using a traditional style rubric (Supplemental File 1). Students were also graded on a 10‐point scale for the overall organization and style of the report. The rubric had 4 grading categories including poor (1–4 pts), fair (5–6 pts), good (7–8 pts), and excellent (9–10 pts). In addition to the written report due at the start of class, students were also required to participate in an in‐class discussion of the paper. This discussion was also graded using= a traditional style rubric based on their level of engagement, preparedness for discussion, and attitude. This rubric had 3 categories including poor, fair, and good, with variable points depending on which aspect of the discussion was being graded (Supplemental File 2).

BMB 252 was taught again in Fall 2021, however the journal club component of the class was set up utilizing a specifications grading approach instead. Students were still required to summarize the introduction, methods, results, and conclusions of the original research article, using proper style and organization, however instead of grading the students based off of absolute correctness in their summaries, students were assessed based on their ability to summarize the most important aspects of each section. With specifications grading, students were graded on a pass/fail basis (1 vs. 0 points) for each individual section as outlined in the grading sheet (Supplemental File 3).

In addition to writing a summary of the original research article, students were also asked to write a short reflection, describing their overall impression of the paper, the main takeaway(s) they perceived from the paper, and any points of confusion they may have had while reading. Similar to the summary, students were assessed on a pass/fail (1 vs. 0 points) basis as outlined in the grading sheet (Supplemental File 4). Students were still required to participate in a discussion of the paper and were evaluated on their discussion contributions, preparedness for the discussion, and attitude. The grading schema for this component of the assignment was slightly different than the summary and reflection (2 vs. 1 vs. 0 points) but still required students to fully complete the expectation outlined in the grading sheet to receive the point(s) (Supplemental File 5).

Lastly, one week after the discussion, students were required to submit a post‐discussion reflection that outlined any changes in their overall impression of the paper after discussing it in class and any remaining points of confusion they may have had. These criteria were also assessed on a pass/fail basis (1 vs. 0 points), as outlined in the grading sheet (Supplemental File 6). Each point awarded was then summed and multiplied by a weighting factor of 5, making each journal club assignment worth 75 total points, which was described to students in the assignment overview (Supplemental File 7).

3.3. Data collection and analysis

This is an IRB‐approved, mixed methods study that utilizes a combination of qualitative analysis of student artifacts and scaled survey responses.

Student Artifacts. The primary data used in this study are student artifacts, specifically two sets of reflective prompts provided to the students at the mid‐way point in the semester after the first two journal clubs, and at the end of the semester, after all four had been completed. Responses were included from consenting students only and all artifacts were de‐identified by the member of the research team who was not the instructor prior to analysis.

Method of Analysis (Artifacts). The students' reflective responses were coded using a collaborative coding process, in which a code book was developed based on responses to the survey, and each student artifact was coded by two independent coders, the instructor and an educational researcher. The sample size is sufficiently small that all coding activities were conducted in institutionally owned Microsoft Word. Initial coding discrepancies were resolved through dialogue and member checks were evoked regularly throughout the coding process for trustworthiness. ³⁵

For each student reflection, the researchers assigned indicating overall sentiment of the response, ranging from very positive, positive, neutral, and negative. The distinction between “very positive” and “positive” was defined by the degree to which the response moved beyond satisfaction, that is, the students state they liked the grading style, to meta‐cognition, that is, the student states what, how, and/or why the grading system influenced their learning.

The Survey. The qualitative data from the study artifacts was supplemented from data collected via an electronic survey. Because alternative grading is a relatively new practice, there is not a single standardized scale. The project team compiled a 34‐item survey instrument that included three previously validated scales: the 12‐item academic goal orientation scale, ³⁶ , ³⁷ the 6‐item purpose of grades inventory, and the 8‐item perception of grading scale (developed by the research team), with eight additional demographic questions (gender identity, race/ethnicity, first generation status, age range, GPA, major, semester standing, campus). The scales were selected to align with outcomes measured by previous studies of student perceptions of conventional grading. ³⁸ The academic goal orientation scale has been extensively validated across multiple contexts ³⁹ , ⁴⁰ ; the purpose of grades inventory has been validated in at least one other institutional context; the perception of grading scale (created by the research team) was subjected to face validity through feedback from two student focus groups (n = 11) and expert review.

Survey Administration. The survey was administered using a non‐linked pre‐ and post‐ design. Recruitment and consent for survey participation was conducted in the regularly scheduled classroom space by a member of the research team who was not the instructor. This member of the research team also provided a link and QR code for survey access. Participating students received low stakes extra credit for completing the survey each time. Non‐consenting students were given an alternative survey to receive the same low stakes extra credit. Responses from non‐consenting students were not included in the study. The initial response rate was 11/11 (100%), after cleanup, the final n for the study was 11.

Method of Analysis (Survey). Scaled survey items were analyzed using descriptive (mean, median, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics. Both standard t‐tests and Wilcoxon (non‐parametric) tests were run to measure significant differences between pre‐ and post‐ survey responses. An inferential test of difference by first generation status produced no significant results.

4. RESULTS

The data analysis revealed three overarching themes (satisfaction, motivation, and gender influence).

4.1. Student satisfaction with alternative grading

In their reflective writing assignments, the majority of the students expressed a positive response to the grading system, with a consistent mean of “mildly positive” for both the mid‐term and end‐of‐semester reflections, a finding which largely affirms prior studies on alternative grading. ¹⁹ , ²³ , ²⁴ It should be noted that the mid‐semester reflection did not function as a pre‐test, as it occurred after the graded activity, so we are not able to assess whether there was any initial reservation or resistance, a response frequently noted in other studies. There were fewer responses, however, that provided insight beyond overall sentiment, whether in the category of very positive (n = 3) or negative (n = 1). A sample mildly positive response reads “I really like how the grading system is used for these discussions”.

4.2. Motivation to learn

From the pre‐ to post‐ survey, students indicated statistically significant gains in 4 out of 26 (15%) survey items, with at least one significant gain from each of the 3 subscales. These four outcomes included the reduction of anxiety, effective feedback, increased transparency, and intrinsic motivation(s).

Reduction of Anxiety. Two of the survey items related to sources of student anxiety, including “Sometimes I'm afraid that I might not understand the content of this course as thoroughly as I'd like” and “I am often concerned that I may not learn all there is to learn in this class”, indicate statistically significant declines from the pre‐ to post‐ survey responses. Both statements are indicative of mastery goals—they want to learn the material, not just get a grade—but also avoidance, in which the motivation to avoid less desirable outcomes is stronger than reaching the more desirable ones.

The reflective writing assignments affirm the reduction in overall anxiety, with 14 coded segments (positively) highlighting this aspect of alternative grading. For example, one student responded “I really like how you do not grade based on correctness. It makes it less stressful, but I am not demotivated to learn about the article.” Another hints at the reduction of avoidance motivation, that is, “instead of being worried if I am getting the right answer, I am concerned with learning the material and finding an answer that makes sense. This type of grading relieves the stress because even if I am wrong, I will learn from my mistakes without ruining my grade during the process”. This finding is also in keeping with broader trends in research on alternative grading practices in STEM courses. ²³ , ⁴¹ , ⁴² , ⁴³

Improved Feedback. One of the survey items related to student perceptions of the importance of instructor feedback, “Communication between you and the instructor”, indicates statistically significant increase in ranking from the pre‐ to post‐ survey responses (see Table 1) indicating that students' valued grades as a means of communication more highly after the journal club interventions. In the reflective writing prompts, students also discussed the importance of instructor feedback, with 10 coded segments. For example, one student stated “I also really appreciate the feedback you provide, as it makes me feel sure of myself, and better helps me to understand where I gained and lost points.” Another student stated that “the feedback was encouraging so that I wanted to know more.”

TABLE 1.

Survey responses, pre‐ and post‐ survey whole group comparison, significant differences only.

	Item	t‐test p‐value	t‐statistic	Df	Wilcoxon p‐value	W
Academic Goal Orientation	Sometimes I'm afraid that I might not understand the content of this course as thoroughly as I'd like	0.01**	3.16	14.57	0.01**	97.0
	I am often concerned that I may not learn all there is to learn in this class	0.09*	1.77	16.68	0.13	83.0
Purpose of Grades	Communication between you and the instructor	0.07*	−1.93	18.88	0.06*
Perceptions of Grades	I know what I need to do to get an A in this course	0.01**	−2.94	13.55	0.01**	24.5

^*Indicates if p‐value is <0.1.

^**Indicates if p‐value is <0.05.

Enhanced Transparency. One of the survey items focused on students' perceptions of instructor transparency, including “I know what I need to do to get an A in this course”, indicating that students felt more confident in their understanding of the requirements necessary to excel in this course.

In the reflective writing prompts, 20 coded segments were identified of students discussing the importance of transparency. One student said “I think that the grading allows me to know exactly what I need to do to receive full points for the assignment and that I do not have questions why I am getting the grade that I am getting.” Another student stated “There were clear expectations for every journal club, and while the “either you have it or you don't” mentality was a little intimidating at first, I came to see that motivating myself to pick up themes and purpose is the whole point of the articles themselves.”

Increased Intrinsic motivation. As reflected in the overall changes in goal orientation, students did write about this in the reflection prompts with 15 coded segments, indicating that this grading approach increased the intrinsic motivation to learn, rather than focusing on extrinsic motivators, such as grades. One student said “I was able to focus more on the material and not on if I was going to get a good grade on the assignment.” Another student said “The grading/feedback structure gives me more of an incentive to read the article thoroughly to fully understand the article to the best of my ability before discussion day in class.” Yet another student said “I do not believe assigning relative grades to every aspect of the classroom sets students up for success or even remotely wants to make them learn…I think that assigning grades to assignments and homework tests compliance rather than knowledge.”

4.3. Gender identity

This was a small scale study, but there were some modest patterns noted by gender identity. In the survey responses, students who identified as male held fairly steady overall, while respondents who identified as female were more likely to indicate significant shifts in their goal orientation. Students who identified as male consistently rated higher on indicators of an external orientation, especially on the item “it is important for me to do better than others”. Students who identified as female, on the other hand, started off lower than their male colleagues in the pre‐test responses, but increased their own performance orientation (statistically) significantly from the pre‐ to post‐test. Students who identified as male showed a slight increase in their mastery orientation, from the pre‐ to post‐ test, but the mastery orientation of those who identified as female decreased (statistically) significantly from pre‐ to post‐. In the survey item “I desire to completely master the material in this course”, agreement by those who identify as male rose slightly; but for students who identify as female, the level of agreement dropped significantly from pre to post test (see Table 2). It should be emphasized that these results are based on a small sample size and the results should be interpreted only as suggestive.

TABLE 2.

Mean differences in grading survey responses, by gender identity (pre‐ and post‐ comparison).

	M pre	F pre	t‐test	Wilcoxan	M post	F post	t‐test	Wilcoxan
It is important for me to do better than others	4.5	3.5	0.03**	0.05*	4.7	4.4	0.01**	0.03**
I desire to completely master the material in this course	3.5	4.4	0.02**	0.03**	4	3.4	0.60	0.47

^*Indicates if p‐value is <0.1.

^**Indicates if p‐value is <0.05.

Some differences by gender identity were evident in the artifact analysis, with students who identified as male placing slightly more emphasis on grades as a form of feedback and source of intrinsic motivation than those who identified as female, who tended to emphasize the reduction of anxiety and transparency as positive outcomes from the grading scaffold. Caution should be exercised in interpreting these results, as the sample size is small and unevenly distributed by gender identity (see further discussion of limitations below).

4.4. Limitations of data analysis

This is a small‐scale study, conducted in a single classroom at a single institution, which limits the generalizability of the results. It should be noted that the majority of survey respondents (s) identified as female (n = 7), which means that comparisons based on gender identity were not conducted with equal groups. Finally, the reflection papers, which served as the primary source of evidence, were a graded classroom assignment, which may affect the authenticity of responses. To mitigate the limitations of single approaches, multiple sources of evidence were evaluated and triangulated for the study.

5. DISCUSSION

This is not an outcomes‐based research study. As such, its purpose was not to measure the extent to which participating students increased their scientific literacy. Rather, the goal was to shed light on the affective dimensions that come into play with the process of engaging in scientific literacy, with particular attention to identifying the emotional barriers students may experience when attempting to read advanced scientific research articles. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that changes to the assignment design (scaffolding) and grading schema worked to reduce anxiety, shift motivation from avoidance to mastery, and strengthen the transparency of communication between the student and the instructor.

While the journal club assignments themselves were not graded with letter grades, the overall grade average/distribution in the course did increase over previous semesters. Over the course of this study, all enrolled students successfully passed the course. This suggests that instructors may be able to reap the purported benefits of alternative grading at the assignment, rather than just a full course, level. It further suggests that alternative grading schema could be deployed in a targeted way, for example, for those learning outcomes with known affective bottlenecks, rather than across‐the‐board. Further research is needed to indicate the extent to which attention to the affective dimensions of scientific literacy can not only reduce pre‐existing barriers, but also inspire students, or perhaps even members of the general public (to whom scientific literacy also applies), to rise to greater challenges.

The findings suggest that the journal club approach may have implications for advancing equity; especially in terms of grades as intrinsic motivators. Indeed, it is tempting to hypothesize that scaffolded assignments and alternative grading strategies, such as the journal club activity described in this article, may have more impact on students who identify as female because it serves to provide a more equitable playing field. That said, this is perhaps less the case within individual STEM disciplines, such as biology, which have achieved gender identity balance both in terms of university degrees and workforce participation. ⁴⁴ In this specific case, the majority of students enrolled in the course and the Biology major identify as female, despite the predominance of male students in the campus' broader demographic profile.

The equity hypothesis is further called into question by the lack of significant difference by gender identity for survey item “I believe I will be graded fairly in this course” which participants from both gender identities ranked consistently high from pre‐ to post; with minimal differences in means or standard deviations. In this case, the course was taught by an instructor who identifies as female, a factor which is known to reduce gaps in student achievement by gender identity. ⁴⁵ Taken together, these findings suggest that future studies of both scientific literacy and alternative grading practices could include two additional, potentially generative, variables: gender balance within a given STEM discipline and instructor gender identity in relation to the gender composition of the students enrolled in the class.

6. CONCLUSION

This single‐classroom, mixed‐methods study highlights the complexity of what it means to teach, learn, and assess scientific literacy, with particular attention to how undergraduate Biology students engage with reading scientific research articles through a scaffolded, alternatively graded journal club assignment. Taken collectively, the results of this study suggest that reading science should not be perceived as a private, individual, or exclusive activity, as it is often practiced by scientific researchers themselves. Rather, learning to read science eagerly and effectively is a relational activity that can be cultivated through intentional interaction between student and subject and student and instructor.

FUNDING INFORMATION

The study did not receive any funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors attest that they have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this study.

Supporting information

Supplemental File 1. Traditional journal club written report rubric.

Supplemental File 2. Traditional journal club discussion rubric.

Supplemental File 3. Journal club summary specifications grading sheet.

Supplemental File 4. Journal club reflection specifications grading sheet.

Supplemental File 5. Journal club discussion specifications grading sheet.

Supplemental File 6. Journal club post‐discussion reflection specifications grading sheet.

Supplemental File 7. Specifications grading journal club assignment.

Russell A, Cruz L. Reading science: A mixed‐methods study of alternative grading with a molecular biology journal club. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2025;53(3):297–304. 10.1002/bmb.21890

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.