CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Academic Writing and PublishingDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

A WINning approach: teaching science communication skills through small-group workshops

Open access
Gumusoglu, Serena B, Noterman Soulinthavong, Maria, Barr, Jennifer·2022·Higher Learning Research Communications
DOI 10.18870/hlrc.v12i2.1342
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: Research almost always culminates in the communication of findings. Despite the necessity of grant and manuscript writing throughout academic careers, scientific trainees often receive little guided practice in written communication. To fill this gap, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a voluntary writing initiative for biomedical students at a research-intensive (R1) university in the midwestern United States called Writing Initiative in Neuroscience (WIN). Method: WIN consisted of didactic and workshop components. The didactic component included discussions with topic-specific experts on writing grants and manuscripts for the public and for non-academic scientific careers. The workshop component consisted of small group-based peer review of participant writing samples. Student self-enrollment consistently filled all available seats over three separate cohorts, including those formed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Student self-assessments were implemented to determine improvements quantitatively and qualitatively in writing and peer-review across 3 years of WIN programming. Results: Student self-assessment of writing skills before and after programming revealed improved scientific writing competency with medium or large effect sizes. Qualitative self-assessments indicated perceived improvements in writing competency and confidence. Collectively, students who participated in WIN improved their writing and communication skills and gained experience in providing and receiving feedback. Conclusions: Ultimately, peer-led writing initiatives, such as WIN, may enhance scholarly training and lay a foundation for future trainee writing success across scientific disciplines. Implications for Theory or Practice: These results support the utility of a student-centered writing workshop for biomedical students. Our study combined aspects of multiple existing resources, including peer feedback, interdisciplinary student backgrounds, and professional editing guidance. Together, these features formed a flexible and practical writing workshop, which can be used as a template for biomedical training programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18870/hlrc.v12i2.1342

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a pervasive inability among students to provide insightful peer feedback, consistently noted across diverse educational contexts including undergraduate and graduate students.

    “This underscores a pervasive inability among students to provide insightful peer feedback, a challenge that has been consistently noted across diverse educational contexts, encompassing undergraduate and graduate students at various stages of their academic journey (Álvarez et al., 2015; Gumusoglu et al., 2022).”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Gumusoglu et al., 2022

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gumusoglu, S. B., Noterman Soulinthavong, M., & Barr, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • The University of Vermont
Corresponding author
Gumusoglu, Serena B
ORCID
Venue
Higher Learning Research Communications
Publisher
Walden University
Published
2022-08-03
Volume
12
Issue
2
ISSN
2157-6254 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.18870/hlrc.v12i2.1342
OpenAlex
W4292646801
Cited by
3
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Higher Learning Research Communications (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ScholarWorks (Walden University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
scientific writing, science communication, peer review, small group workshops, biomedical students, grant writing, manuscript preparation, peer feedback, writing confidence, neuroscience education, COVID-19 pandemic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review