A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates' perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 70-79

  Brownell, Sara E ^a   Price, Jordan V ^a   Steinman, Lawrence ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication; Curriculum; Likert scale surveys; Neuroimmunology; Primary literature; Undergraduates; Writing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PUBLICATION; READING; STANDARD; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

BIOLOGY; COMMUNICATION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTION; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; READING; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84877659863     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00138.2012     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: a Call to Action (online). http://visionandchange.org/files/2011/03/Revised-Vision-and-Change-Final-Report.pdf [10 January 2013].
2. Association of American Medical Colleges-Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians (online). http://www.hhmi.org/grants/pdf/08-209_AAMC-HHMI_report.pdf [10 January 2013].
3. Bangert-Drowns RL, Hurley MM, Wilkinson B. The effects of schoolbased writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: a metaanalysis. Rev Educ Res 74: 29-58, 2004.
4. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, Geller G, Gupta A, Hampel J, Hyde-Lay R, Jandciu EW, Jones SA, Kolopack P, Lane S, Lougheed T, Nerlich B, Ogbogu U, O'Riordan K, Ouellette C, Spear M, Strauss S, Thavaratnam T, Willemse L, Caulfield T. Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol 27: 514- 518, 2009.
5. Coil D, Wenderoth MP, Cunningham M, Dirks C. Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE Life Sci Educ 9: 524-535, 2010.
6. Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 12: 229-238, 2003.
7. Elbow P. High stakes and low stakes in assigning and responding to writing. New Direct Teach Learn 5: 1997.
8. Elbow P. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973.
9. Gillen CM. Criticism and interpretation: teaching the persuasive aspects of research articles. CBE Life Sci Educ 5: 34-38, 2006.
10. Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1967.
11. Glynn SM, Muth KD. Reading and writing to learn science; achieving scientific literacy. J Res Sci Teach 31: 91057-91073, 1994.
12. Graff G. Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 2004.
13. Hand B, Prain V, Lawrence C, Yore LD. A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. Int J Sci Educ 21: 101021- 101035, 1999.
14. Hudd SS, Smart RA, Delohery AW. "My understanding has grown, my perspective has switched": linking informal writing to learning goals. Teach Sociol 39: 179-189, 2011.
15. Illes J, Moser MA, McCormick JB, Racine E, Blakeslee S, Caplan A, Hayden EC, Ingram J, Lohwater T, McKnight P, Nicholson C, Phillips A, Sauve KD, Snell E, Weiss S. Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nat Rev Neurosci 11: 61-69, 2010.
16. Kardash CM. Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. J Educ Psychol 92: 191-201, 2000.
17. Kennedy D. Approaching science. Science 318: 715, 2007.
18. Kozeracki CA, Carey MF, Colicelli J, Levis-Fitzgerald M, Grossel M. An intensive primary-literature-based teaching program directly benefits undergraduate science majors and facilitates their transition to doctoral programs. CBE Life Sci Educ 5: 340-347, 2006.
19. Leshner AI. Public engagement with science. Science 299: 977, 2003.
20. Levine E. Reading your way to scientific literacy. J Coll Sci Teach 31: 122-125, 2001.
21. Libarkin J, Ording G. The utility of writing assignments in undergraduate bioscience. CBE Life Sci Educ 11: 39-46, 2012.
22. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140: 1-55, 1932.
23. Moni RW, Hryciw DH, Poronnik P, Moni KB. Using explicit teaching to improve how bioscience students write to the lay public. Adv Physiol Educ 31: 167-175, 2007.
24. Muench SB. Choosing primary literature in biology to achieve specific education goals. J Coll Sci Teach 29: 255-260, 2000.
25. Mulnix AB. Investigations of protein structure and function using the scientific literature: an assignment for an undergraduate cell physiology course. Cell Biol Educ 2: 248-255, 2003.
26. National Research Council. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press, 2003.
27. Poronnik P, Moni RW. The opinion editorial: teaching physiology outside the box. Adv Physiol Educ 30: 73-82, 2006.
28. Porter JR. Information literacy in biology education: an example from an advanced cell biology course. Cell Biol Educ 4: 335-343, 2005.
29. Renaud J, Squier C, Larsen SC. Integration of a communicating science module into an advanced chemistry laboratory course. J Chem Educ 83: 1029-1031, 2006.
30. Reynolds JA, Thaiss C, Katkin W, Thompson RJ Jr. Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Sci Educ 11: 17-25, 2012.
31. Rivard LP. A review of writing to learn in science-implications for practice and research. J Res Sci Teach 31: 969-983, 1994.
32. Smith GR. Guided literature explorations. J Coll Sci Teach 30: 465-469, 2001.