Modifying the CREATE method with inclusive approaches helps students engage with socioscientific applications of the primary scientific literature

ABSTRACT

Undergraduate students need the opportunity to engage with primary scientific literature so they can gain a greater understanding of the scientific process and insights into the larger impacts of scientific research in their field. Reading primary scientific literature (PSL) also provides the opportunity for students to consider the application of primary scientific research to help solve socioscientific issues. Helping students consider more inclusive approaches to science communication can facilitate their connections between primary scientific research and collaborative solving of socioscientific issues. The CREATE method by Hoskins et al. is one pre-existing method of reading scientific papers that gives students a structured opportunity to examine papers. The CREATE method gives students the opportunity to practice scientific process skills, reflect on the impact of research, and consider future studies. We have added an additional element to the CREATE method to help students consider other areas of expertise and ways of knowing needed to apply science in the article to solve socioscientific issues, helping them take a more inclusive approach to reading the PSL. We have deemed this activity ‘inclusive-CREATE’ or iCREATE. Here, we present a curricular plan for implementing iCREATE and show evidence of its efficacy. For instance, we show that the iCREATE method increases students’ science and science communication identity and self-efficacy. We also show that iCREATE increases students’ inclusive science communication self-efficacy, intents, and planned behaviors. Overall, adding a more inclusive element to the CREATE method will help students feel more confident, more like a scientist, and more likely to engage in inclusive science communication behaviors.

INTRODUCTION

Reading the primary scientific literature (PSL) is an integral part of science. There have been universal calls to integrate more opportunities for undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students to engage with PSL as a key disciplinary science skill (1–3). The benefits of reading PSL have been well-established across many disciplines in STEM (4). For example, engaging with PSL helps students grow in science confidence (5, 6), science literacy (7), procedural knowledge, data analysis, and critical thinking skills (8, 9), and interest in science (10). While there are many published strategies and curricula detailing ways for students to engage with PSL, few focus on connecting the primary scientific research addressed with socioscientific issues (SSIs) related to that scientific research.

Ke (11) emphasizes the importance of students engaging with both scientific and socio-scientific models as they develop scientific literacy. SSIs are valuable for students to help them develop socioscientific reasoning skills, contextualize science in society, and consider other ways of knowing and learning (12, 13). Furthermore, focusing on SSIs can help students develop more robust and functional scientific literacy (12, 14, 15). Scientific literacy is an important part of helping students consider important social topics, such as sustainability (16) or vaccine confidence (17), in the context of their discipline. Valladeres (18) argues that scientific literacy cannot only help students think about important topics, but it can also serve as a vehicle for social transformation and tool for combatting cognitive deficit viewpoints in STEM. It is important for students to have functional scientific literacy skills that will help them discuss and address SSIs within their field (19).

Being able to link scientific research in the PSL with its socioscientific implications is also a critical part of science communication, which allows students to engage with audiences outside of the scientific community more effectively (20–22). Like reading the PSL, science communication is a key disciplinary science skill (2, 23). Science communication is a tool to connect and collaborate among multiple participants with input regarding socioscientific issues. Inclusive approaches to science communication emphasize that communicators should intentionally learn from diverse perspectives and collaborate to solve SSIs (24–26). However, many science communication trainings for undergraduate STEM students focus on traditional, deficit-based science communication approaches that feature a uni-directional delivery of information and promote dominant narratives in science (27–30). This limits the ability of STEM students and scientists to leverage diverse expertise and approach SSIs in more inclusive and effective ways (31–34). Thus, training students in inclusive science communication (ISC) will help prepare them to utilize scientific research and diverse collaborations to more effectively solve SSIs. When students consider different types of people and perspectives that could be involved in applying research from PSL toward solving an SSI, they are practicing critical aspects of inclusive (35), strategic (36), and effective science communication.

Overall, helping students consider the diverse types of people and expertise involved in applying scientific research described in the PSL to help solve SSIs is a way by which students can practice applying inclusive approaches to science communication and scientific practice. We believe that combining PSL reading activities with consideration of SSIs could provide a unique opportunity to facilitate scientific literacy in a socially constructive manner. In undergraduate life science and biomedical engineering courses, we utilized the CREATE method (37)—Consider, Read, Elucidate the hypothesis, Analyze the data, and Think of the next Experiment—but modified it for students to also Think of other Expertise and Experiences. More specifically, this inclusive approach to CREATE, termed ‘iCREATE,’ asks students to consider what people of diverse disciplines and identities should be consulted for a scientific discovery to be utilized to solve an SSI.

Intended audience

The intended audience of this activity is undergraduate students in fields that publish primary scientific literature in the Introduction–Methods–Results–Discussion format. The populations we typically engage with are biology, biomedical sciences, microbiology, and engineering undergraduate students. This activity would be appropriate for students at any level, but we typically use it with students in courses that are 2nd-year or above.

Learning time

There is a 50 min minimum learning time required for this activity and 1 h and 30 min as the ideal learning time that can be split over multiple class periods. However, the exact learning time is based on instructor goals and student background (see the “Faculty instructions” section for more details).

Prerequisite student knowledge

Prerequisite knowledge is highly dependent on the article selected to use in conjunction with this activity. If selecting a primary scientific article focused on genetics, a background in general biology and genetics concepts would be necessary. If selecting a primary article focused on ecology, a general background in biology and ecology would be helpful, and so on.

Learning objectives

Upon completion of this activity, students will be able to

• 1demonstrate disciplinary science process skills related to reading scientific literature;
• 2leverage prior disciplinary knowledge to interpret a peer-reviewed article from the field
• 3consider the social aspects of scientific research by identifying how different members of society can help solve socioscientific issues.

PROCEDURE

Materials

• 4 One blank iCREATE packet per student (Supplemental Material 1), summarized below:

  • i: inclusive

  • C: Consider

    1. Read the abstract

    2. Create a concept map.

  • R: Read

    1. Read the Introduction, Results, and Methods (skip the Discussion for now).

  • E: Elucidate the hypothesis

    1. What is the overall goal of the paper?

    2. What is the goal of each experiment/figure?

    3. How do these goals fit together

  • A: Analyze and interpret the data

    1. Cartoon the methods and results of each figure.

  • T: Think of the next

  • E: Experiment

    1. What do you think the authors should discuss in the discussion?

       Read the Discussion now.

    2. How does that match what they actually discuss?

    3. What are some limitations and future directions?

  • And

  • T: Think of other

  • E: Expertise and experiences

    • 4What is the next step in the widespread utilization of this research? Who should the authors work with in the next steps? (What disciplines might be needed, whose voices or perspectives?)
• 5 One copy of the selected article per student—can be provided digitally

  • We recommend that instructors utilize these guidelines to select articles:

    1. The research is relevant to the disciplinary content of the course.

    2. The methods and results are digestible for the level of the student.

    3. The length of the paper is manageable for the 50 min class period (~three–four figures).

    4. The topic of the research has some ties to socioscientific issues relevant to the students’ majors (e.g., climate change, antibiotic resistance, etc.).

    5. The paper is interesting for faculty and students

    6. The paper was published within the last few years.

Student instructions

Typically, we do not have students complete any prep work for this activity. Students come into class and see the paper for the first time, and we provide them with a printout of the iCREATE packet. Usually, we have students bring internet-enabled devices (computer, tablet, etc.) and ask them to pull up the article digitally. We instruct students to read the packet and follow along as the instructor facilitates. Students are encouraged to work in groups of two–three as they work through the packet to encourage peer learning.

Faculty instructions

The following is a summary of the faculty instructions. Before class, read and annotate the selected article and fill out the iCREATE packet as a reference. Then, in class, guide students through the packet, step-by-step. In a 50 min class, this requires strict time-keeping to keep the students on-task. Longer classes will have more flexibility and more time for discussion. The emphasis should not be on understanding every detail of the article, but rather on using the iCREATE packet as an example of how the students might be able to approach articles in the future.

Faculty may choose to modify the time and focus of iCREATE depending on the available class time, objectives for the course overall, and student background. For example, if instructors are intending to teach students how to analyze data in their field, as well as the focus on communicating with diverse people about SSIs relevant to the PSL, instructors may choose to utilize 1.5–2 h of class time and spend more time on digging into the figures of the manuscript. Similarly, if students have less familiarity with reading any PSL, students may take more time to progress through sections. The suggested 90 min timeline is listed below:

90 min timeline:

• Starting class: 5 min

• Consider: 10 min

• Read, elucidate, analyze: 60 min

• Think of other expertise: 15 min

If the students have already learned and practiced interpreting primary data in the field, and the instructor prefers to focus more on the socioscientific applications of the data in the paper, the activity may be achieved in 50 min. The article can be assigned as a pre-read, and the packet can be completed in-class if the instructor feels it would be beneficial for students to interact with the article before coming to class, although pre-reading is not necessary in our experience. Detailed instructions for a 50 min session and tips and tricks are available (Supplemental Material 2). The suggested 50 min timeline is listed below:

50 min timeline:

• Before class: Students pre-read the article if the instructor prefers.

• Starting class: 5 min

• Consider: 10 min

• Read, elucidate, analyze: 25 min

• Think of other expertise: 10 min

Suggestions for determining student learning

In order to assess LO1 and 2 related to student science disciplinary skills, we measured science identity and science self-efficacy (38), as well as science communication identity and science communication self-efficacy (39), before and after the intervention. Previously, we have shown that training students in ISC via a workshop focused on science communication case studies helps them develop a heightened sense of belonging, science identity, and science self-efficacy (39). We utilized these metrics to assess student learning in the context of iCREATE.

In order to assess students’ plans for engaging in considering the social aspects of science issues (LO3) via inclusive science communication, we utilized the Planned Behaviors in Inclusive Science Communication (PB-ISC) scale to measure students' beliefs, norms, intents, and planned behaviors surrounding ISC (35). This helped us determine what impact ‘Thinking of other Expertise’ has on students’ science communication behaviors.

We also evaluated the impact of iCREATE on student learning by asking students who participated in the classes free response questions that asked them to reflect on how iCREATE impacted their thinking and inclusive science communication about the article-related SSIs.

Sample data

We have included samples of what the results from students may look like (Supplemental Material 3). These were generated by undergraduate and graduate student-researchers in the Kelp Lab.

DISCUSSION

Field testing

Over seven semesters from Spring 2022 to Spring 2025, we have tested this activity in a variety of courses in life sciences (five courses), biomedical engineering (three courses), and microbiology fields (two courses). Courses were at the 2nd-year level through the 4th-year level in their respective departments. The class sizes ranged from four to 100 students, with the most common class size being approximately 20 students. Each student consented to participation in the research, and research related to this project was conducted under the supervision of the Colorado State University IRB. The research team sent the course instructors Qualtrics links to pre- and post-activity surveys, which were sent to students via the learning management system. These surveys contained both quantitative survey metrics (e.g., science identity and self-efficacy [38], science communication identity and self-efficacy [39], and planned behaviors in inclusive science communication [35]), as well as open-ended reflection questions. Students completed the pre-activity survey within the week prior to the activity and a post-activity survey within ~1 week after the activity. Students were offered a $10 gift card for completion of both pre- and post-surveys. Response rates ranged from 20 to 90% for each class.

From our lab, faculty NK, graduate student DW, and senior undergraduate students have all led the activity. In the Fall 2024 semester, a faculty member external to our lab led the activity in their 50 min class and provided additional feedback on the activity and an opportunity for classroom observation. The faculty member expressed that it was challenging at times to get students to volunteer their answers to share with the class as they move through the packet. They also found it as difficult to decide how long to spend on the results versus pushing the students to continue moving through the packet and opted to spend an additional 10–15 min of another class period on iCREATE. In the Spring 2025 semester, a graduate teaching assistant external to our lab successfully led the activity in their 50 min class.

Overall, we believe that this activity is highly adaptable. It can be used in a variety of courses with instructors/facilitators at different levels.

Evidence of student learning

In order to test how iCREATE impacted student perceptions of disciplinary science skills and science communication skills per the learning objectives, we utilized validated survey scales. We measured science identity and science self-efficacy (38), science communication identity and science communication self-efficacy (39), and PB-ISC, including ISC beliefs, self-efficacy, behaviors, and behavioral intents (35).

As evidence of student learning, we pooled data from two implementations of this activity across two semesters of a 3rd-year biomedical engineering course for a total of n = 63 paired pre- and post-intervention responses. This course was selected for analysis because of the large class size allowing sufficient n-values for our analyses; other courses in which we field-tested the iCREATE activity had smaller class sizes. The D'Agostino & Pearson Test for Normal Distribution (40) indicated that data were normally distributed for all constructs, with the exception of ISC beliefs. Thus, to compare changes in these constructs before and after the iCREATE intervention, we utilized parametric paired t-tests to compare pre- and post-intervention data for all constructs with the exception of ISC beliefs, for which we utilized a non-parametric paired t-test (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test). We saw increases in all of the science and science communication self-efficacy and identity factors (Fig. 1A). We also saw increases in some of the PB-ISC factors (Fig. 1B). All statistical analyses were completed in Prism. While other courses in which we field-tested the iCREATE activity have smaller class sizes precluding sufficient power for analyses, we did see similar trends.

Fig 1.

Biomedical engineering students’ science, science communication, and ISC factors increased upon completion of iCREATE. (A) Students (n = 63) from two semesters of a 300-level biomedical engineering course demonstrated significant increases in science and science communication identity and self-efficacy increase after completing iCREATE, representative of the impacts of LO1 and LO2. (B) The same set of students also showed an increase in some ISC factors: self-efficacy, intents, and planned behaviors. The students did not show an increase in beliefs. The increases seen are representative of the impacts of LO3.

After participation in iCREATE for a paper about the microbiome of salamanders, second-year life science students’ answers to our free-response assessment questions highlighted the importance of applying this research to SSIs, including antibiotic resistance, human gut health, and human-impacted environmental destruction. Students listed the importance of including social scientists, environmentalists, educators, engineers, policymakers, and people who live near impacted habitats in conversations about these SSIs. The variety of SSIs and stakeholders listed by students in their iCREATE packets in response to one manuscript highlights the unique perspectives that students bring to the PSL and SSIs.

Possible modifications

Modification related to activity implementation: Our faculty partner suggested modifying this activity with a pre-read or additional class time to spend on the paper, so that there could be a debriefing session and more time to discuss the content of the paper in the iCREATE format.

Modification related to assessing student learning: We chose to assess mindsets related to students’ disciplinary science skills as outlined in the learning objectives. Other methods of assessment could be used, but we felt it was important to use previously developed instruments with sufficient validity evidence in this population rather than a gradebook unique to this activity in order to facilitate future comparisons of this science communication training activity to others in terms of its impact on the same constructs (30). Additionally, given our focus on helping students consider inclusivity and identity via iCREATE, we felt that assessing student learning and affect based on completion rather than grading was more in line with the literature on ungrading and promoting assets of students and communities (41). However, if instructors are wanting to expand student work on iCREATE by grading the student packets, we have previously developed and utilized a rubric for CREATE (42) that could be modified for iCREATE. Additionally, instructors could have students write about the science in the article and its socioscientific implications for diverse audiences and assess this science writing with the Universal Science Writing Rubric (43, 44).

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

The following material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00078-25.

Supplemental Material 1. jmbe.00078-25-s0001.docx.

Blank iCREATE packet.

Supplemental Material 2. jmbe.00078-25-s0002.docx.

iCREATE facilitator guide.

Supplemental Material 3. jmbe.00078-25-s0003.pdf.

Examples of student-completed iCREATE packets.

ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.