The Opinion Editorial: Teaching physiology outside the box

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 73-82

  Poronnik, Philip ^a   Moni, Roger W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Journalism; Media; Nonprofessional audience; Scientific literacy; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646804912     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00075.2005     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Boud D, Cohen R, and Sampson J. Peer learning and assessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ 24: 413-426, 1999.
2. Cribb J and Hartomo TS. Sharing Knowledge: A Guide to Effective Science Communication. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO, 2002.
3. Curran-Everett D and Benos DJ. Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society. Adv Physiol Educ 28: 85-87, 2004.
4. Driver R, Leach J, Millar R, and Scott P. Young People's Images of Science. Buckingham: Open Univ. Press, 1996.
5. Gay LR and Airasian P. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2003.
6. Hyland K. Teaching and Researching Writing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2002.
7. Jamieson S. Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med Educ 38: 1217-1218, 2004.
8. Klare GR. The Measurement of Readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1963.
9. Koehler KE and Hawley RS. Tales from the front lines: the creative essay as a tool for teaching genetics. Genetics 152: 1229-1240, 1999.
10. Kolb DA. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.
11. Krause KL. The university essay writing experience: a pathway for academic integration during transition. Higher Educ Dev 20: 147-168, 2001.
12. Laugksch RC. Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Sci Educ 84: 71-94, 2000.
13. Likert R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1932.
14. Mattick J. RNA regulation: a new genetics. Nat Genet 5: 316-323, 2004.
15. Millar JD. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding Sci 7: 203-223, 1998.
16. Peat J, Elliott E, Baur L, and Keena V. Scientific Writing: Easy When You Know How (Second Impression). London: BMJ Books, 2002.
17. Pechenik JA. A Short Guide to Writing About Biology (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman, 2004.
18. Pelaez NJ. Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 26: 174-184, 2002.
19. Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, and Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in annals of internal medicine. JAMA 272: 119-121.
20. Roeder JL. Scientific Literacy: Are We All Using the Same Definition (On-line). http://freeinfo.org/tch/fall96/articles/editor.htm [14 December 2004].
21. Rust C, Price M, and O'Donovan B. Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and process. Assess Eval Higher Educ 28: 147-164, 2003.
22. Schmidt SJ, Parmer MS, and Javenkoski JS. Sharing our experiences with writing-for-learning techniques in a large introductory course: the popular press critique. J Food Sci Educ 1: 34-39, 2002.
23. Shen BSP. Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science. In: Communication of Scientific Information, edited by Day SB. Basel, Germany: Karger, 1975, p. 44-52.
24. Silyn-Roberts H. Writing for Science and Engineering: Papers, Presentations and Reports. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 2000.
25. Turney J. How Greenfield Got It Wrong. The Guardian: April 17, 2003.
26. Yore LD, Hand BM, and Prain V. Scientists as writers. Sci Educ 86: 672-692, 2002.