This educational study aimed to explore the feasibility and acceptance of a literacy exercise adopted from the realworld of scientific publishing in a cell and tissue biology course. For that purpose, a tertiary-level multimodality science course, which integrated a blended learning faculty and student lectures, journal club, and wet laboratory sessions including a research project as well as examinations, was complemented by essaywriting of a review and peerreviewing of five manuscripts. All tasks contributed to the final course mark. Special emphasis was laid on the usability of different E-Learning applications for scientific writing and teacher- and peerassessment procedures. Further, potential influences of student characteristics on their peer- and self-assessments as well as their acceptance of the feedback from their peers were evaluated. Seventy-five undergraduate students from different Bachelor programs were included in the study. Plagiarism check and double-blind assessments of the essays were performed using “Turnitin.com.” Students self-assessed their paper and received feedback from five peers and the teacher. Peer assessment was more severe than the teacher- or self-assessment, and the peer mark correlated best with the final course mark. Students with better marks assessed more generously, and there had moderate tendencies for influences of gender and background on peer feedback behavior. The students perceived the writing and assessment exercises, especially being peer-assessed, as demanding, but rewarding and a great learning experience. The additional tasks were feasible using E-Learning technology, which should foster future biomedical courses to train writing skills and the ability to cope with different roles in the scientific community.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Albanese, M. A., Schuldt, S. S., Case, D. E., & Brown, D. (1991). The validity of the lecturer ratings by students and trained observers. Academic Medicine, 66, 26–28.
Alberts, B., Bray, D., Hopkin, K., Johnson, A. D., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2009). Essential cellbiology (Ed. 3 ed.). UK: Garland Science, Taylor and Francis.
Bennett, C., Barsden, R., Cooke, D., Browne, A., Bradley, C., Bester, A., O’Kelly, H., Metzger, P., Lewis, J., & Filgueira, L. (2011). Plasticity of the human body (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
Borgstrom, E., Morris, R., Wood, D., Cohn, S., & Barclay, S. (2016). Learning to care: medical students’ reported value and evaluation of palliative care teaching involving meeting patients and reflective writing. BMC Medical Education, 16, 306.
Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2008). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Education Researcher, 32(3), 19–44.
Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 51–564.
Chang, Y., & Ramnanan, C. J. (2015). A review of literature on medical students’ band scholarly research: experiences, attitudes, and outcomes. Academic Medicine, 90, 1162–1173.
Chen, Y. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 105–117.
Cooper, G., Berry, A., & Baglin, J. (2018). Demographic predictors of students’ science participation over the age of 16: an Australian case study. Journal of Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9692-0.
Cowen, V. S., Kaufman, D., & Schoenherr, L. A. (2016). A review of creative and expressive writing as a pedagogical tool in medical education. Medical Education, 50, 311–319.
Crotwell-Timmerman, B. E., Strickland, D. C., Johnson, R. L., & Payne, J. R. (2010). Development of a “universal” rubric for assessing undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills using scientific writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 1–39.
Deonandan, R., Sangwa, N., Kanters, S., & Nsanzimana, S. (2017). Writing skills enhancement for public health professionals in Rwanda. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8, 253–256.
Ellis, R. A., Taylor, C. E., & Dury, H. (2007). Learning science through writing: associations with prior conceptions of writing and perceptions of a writing program. Higher Education Research and Development, 26, 297–311.
Eppler, E., Serowy, S., Link, K., & Filgueira, L. (2018). Experience from an optional dissection course in a clinically-orientated concept to complement system-based anatomy in a reformed curriculum. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11, 32–43.
Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2009). Giving a lecture: from presenting to teaching (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Filgueira, L. (2010a). Cell, tissue and development: ANHB 3323. Perth: School of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, The University of Western Australia.
Filgueira, L. (2010b). Cell and tissue organisation ANHB3313 examination paper. Perth: School of Anatomy and Human Biology. The University of Western Australia.
Galipeau, J., Moher, D., Campbell, C., Hendry, P., Cameron, D. W., Palepu, A., & Hébert, P. C. (2015). A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 257–265.
Geerlings, P., Cole, H., Batt, S., & Martin-Lynch, P. (2016). Peer assisted study session (PASS): does gender matter? Journal of Peer Learning, 9, 10–25.
Gibbs, G. (1995). Learning in teams. A tutor guide (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137–155.
Gilbert, S. F. (2010). Developmental biology (9th ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Glasman-Deal, H. (2009). Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London: Imperial College Press.
Gomes, S., Lee, V., Kagan, G., Pal, S., Iswan, N., Stepan, A., Mortimer, C., & Filgueira, L. (2011). Biological emotions of the heart (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
Guildford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25, 167–175.
Hackling, M., Ramseger, J., & Chen, H. (2016). Quality teaching in primary science education. Springer Nature, Berlin: Switzerland.
Hall, G. M. (Ed.). (2011). How to write a paper (4th ed.). Hoboken: BMJ Books.
Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S., & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy and classroom of science teaching journals in Australia, de UK and the United States, 1998-2008. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 45–68.
Harmon, J. E., & Gross, A. (2010). The craft of scientific communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harris, S., Hardy, L., Yousef, D., Gee, S., Jevadi, N., Tang, S., & Filgueira, L. (2011). Biology of vascular diseases (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
Hewson, P. W. (2010). Literacy and scientific literacy: a response to Fensham. Canadian Journal of Science, 2(2), 207–213.
Hofmann, A. H. (2010). Scientific writing and communication: papers, proposals, and presentations (1st ed.). Cary: Oxford University Press.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education of enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.
Holstein, S. E., Mickley Steinmetz, K. R., & Miles, J. D. (2015). Teaching science writing in an introductory lab course. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 13, A101–A109.
https://endnote.com/ (n.d.) (last access: 07.08.2018)
https://turnitin.com (n.d.) (last access: 07.08.2018)
http://www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au/mb140/ (n.d.) (last access: 07.08.2018)
https://www.nih.gov/health-information (n.d.) (last access: 07.08.2018)
Inayah, A. T., Anwer, L. A., Shareef, M. A., Nurhussen, A., Alkabbani, H. M., Alzahrani, A. A., Obad, A. S., Zafar, M., & Afsar, N. A. (2017). Objectivity in subjectivity: do students’ self and peer assessments correlate with examiners' subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study. BMJ Open, 7, e012289.
Jones, M., Hutt, P., Eastwood, S., & Singh, S. (2017). Impact of intercalated BSc on medical student performance and careers: a BEME systematic review: BEME guide No. 28. Medical Teacher, 35, 10.
Kiernan, J. A. (2009). Histological and histochemical methods: theory and practice (4th ed.). Banbury: Scion Publishing Ltd..
Kierszenbaum, A., & Tres, L. (2011). Histology and cell biology: an introduction to pathology (3rd ed.). USA: Mosby.
King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally intense science activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1886–1914.
Kommalage, M., & Gunawardena. (2011). Evaluation of physiology lectures conducted by students: Comparison between evaluation by staff and students. Advances in Physiology Education 35, 48–52.
Kwon, J. Y., Bulk, L. Y., Giannone, Z., Liva, S., Chakraborty, B., & Brown, H. (2018). Collaborative peer review process as an informal interprofessional learning tool: findings from an exploratory study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32, 101–103.
Leach, L. (2012). Optional self-assessment: some tensions and dilemmas. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 137–147.
Li, M., Xue, H., Wang, W., & Wang, Y. (2017). Parental expectations and child screen and academic sedentary behaviors in China. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52, 680–689.
Lin, C.-W., Lin, M.-J., Wen, C.-C., & Chu, S.-Y. (2016). A word-count approach to analyse linguistic patterns in the reflective writings of medical students. Medical Education Online, 21, 29522.
Lindsay, D. (2011). Scientific writing = thinking in words. Clayton, South Victoris, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.
Lodish, H., Berk, A., & Kaiser, C. A. (2007). Molecular cell biology. London: W.H. Freeman & Co, Macmillan Publishers.
Lurie, S. J., Nofziger, A. C., Meldrum, S., Mooney, C., & Epstein, R. M. (2006). Effects of rater selection on peer assessment among medical students. Medical Education, 4, 1088–1097.
Matthews, J. R., & Matthews, R. W. (2007). Successful scientific writing: a step-by-step guide for the biological and medical sciences (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maxwell, A., Curtis, G. J., & Verdanega, L. (2008). Does culture influence understanding and perceived seriousness of plagiarism? The International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(2), 25–40.
May, L., Monoharan, S., Wingfield, S.-L., McMahen, A., Rule, G., Melvin, Z., Clark, M., Clark, A., Clancy-Love, K., & Filgueira, L. (2011). Biology of aging (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
McCoy, L., Lewis, J. H., & Dalton, D. (2016). Gamification and multimedia for medical education: a landscape review. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 116, 22–34.
McMillan, V. (2011). Writingpapers in thebiological sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Memarpour, M., Poostforoush, F. A., & Ghasemi, R. (2015). Evaluation of attitude to, knowledge of and barriers towards research among medical science students. Asia Pacific Family Medicine, 14(1), 1.
Mescher, A. (2009). Junqueira’s basic histology: text and atlas (12th ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill Medical.
Möller, R., & Shoshan, M. (2017). Medical students’ research productivity and career preferences; a 2-year prospective follow-up study. BMC Medical Education, 17, 51.
Moore, C., & Teather, S. (2013). Engaging students in peer review: feedback as learning. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2, Special issue), 196–211.
Nieder, G. L., Parmelee, D. X., Stolfi, A., & Hudes, P. D. (2005). Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clinical Anatomy, 18, 56–63.
Nulty, D. D. (2010). Peer and self-assessment in the first year of university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 493–507.
Olitsky, S., Becker, E. A., Jayo, I., Vinogradov, P., & Montcalmo, J. (2018). Constructing “authentic” science: results from a university/high school collaboration integrating digital storytelling and social networking. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9699-6.
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: a ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203–218.
Ottenberg, A. L., Pasalic, D., Bui, G. T., & Pawlina, W. (2016). An analysis of reflective writing in the medical curriculum: the relationship between reflective capacity and academic achievement. Medical Teacher, 38, 724–729.
Paplia, P., Osman, A., Prempeh, L., Plint, G., Butchard, L., Brooks, S., Malaga, G., Koh, S. L., Tan, J., & Filgueira, L. (2011). The mystery of the human breast (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
Perera, J., Mohamadou, G., & Kaur, S. (2010). The use of objective structured self-assessment and peer-feedback (OSSP) for learning communication skills: evaluation using a controlled trial. Advances in Health Science Education: Theory and Practice, 15, 185–193.
Pizzimenti, M. A., Pantazis, N., Sandra, A., Hoffmann, D. S., Lenoch, S., & Ferguson, K. J. (2016). Dissection and dissection-associated required experiences improve student performance in gross anatomy: differences among quartiles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1574.
Plymouth University. (2013). Educational development. Guidelines for group work and its assessment—March 2013 (1st ed.). Plymouth: Plymouth University 5 p. URL: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/2/2427/Guidelines_for_Assessing_Group_work_Dec_2012.pdf [accessed 17 February 2017].
Pollack, G. H. (2001). Cells, gels and the engines of life: a new, unifying approach to cell function. Seattle: Ebner and Sons Publishers.
Poon, W. Y., McNaught, C., Lam, P., & Kwan, H. S. (2009). Improving assessment methods in university science education with negotiated self- and peer-assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 331–346.
Price, I., Smith, A., Pantula, R., Wilson, T., & Filgueira, L. (2011). Diabetic vascular disease (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
Ritschka, B., Stackpoole, E., Tedja, A., Brown, T., Luitingh, T., Symons, Y., Foster, N., & Filgueira, L. (2011). Blood-brain barrier-matter of life and death (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
Ross, M. H., Romrell, L. J., & Pawlina, W. (2006). Histology: a text and atlas (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Schönrock-Adema, J., Heijne-Penninga, M., van Duijn, M. A., Geertsma, J., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2007). Assessment of professional behaviour in undergraduate medical education: peer assessment enhances performance. Medical Education, 41, 836–842.
Sidalak, D., Purdy, E., Luckett-Gatopoulos, S., Murray, H., Thoma, B., & Chan, T. M. (2017). Coached peer review: developing the next generation of authors. Academic Medicine, 92, 201–204.
Siles-González, J., & Solano-Ruiz, C. (2016). Self-assessment, reflection on practice and critical thinking in nurse students. Nurse Education Today, 45, 132–137.
Skiba, R. J., Knesting, K., & Bush, L. D. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: more than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 61–78.
Spandorfer, J., Puklus, T., Rose, V., Vahedi, M., Collins, L., Giordano, C., Schmidt, R., & Braster, C. (2014). Peer assessment among first year medical students in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7, 144–152.
Strong, B., Davis, M., & Hawks, V. (2004). Self-grading in large general education classes: a case study. College Teaching, 52, 52–57.
Sunderland, G. S. F. (2000). Developmental biology. Part 1: principles of development in biology. Cary: Sinauer Associates, Oxford University Press.
The University of Western Australia (2014) http://www.international.uwa.edu.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0004/2633719/Accepted-Full-Load-Equivalents-updated-Nov-2014.pdf. Perth, WA, Australia.
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 20–27.
Truss, L. (2003). Eats, shoots and leaves (the zero tolerance approach to punctuation). London: Profile Books.
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and role of the pper feedback: a study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161–1174.
Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006a). Peer assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven course designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 19–36.
Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006b). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 341–356.
Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 281–290.
Vu, T. T., & Dall’Alba, G. (2007). Students’ experience of peer assessment in professional course. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 541–556.
Wagner, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 348–353.
Wald, H. S., & Reis, S. P. (2010). Beyond the margins: reflective writing and development of reflective capacity in medical education. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27, 746–749.
WeaverKF, MoralesV, NelsonM, WeaverPF, ToledoA, GoddeK (2016) The benefits of peer review and a multisemester capstone writing series on inquiry and analysis skills in an undergraduate thesis. CBE Life Science Education 15
Wenzel, T. J. (2007). Evaluation tools to guide students’ peer-assessment and self-assessment in group activities for the lab and classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(1), 182–186.
www.blackboard.com (n.d.) (last access: 04.07.2018).
www.lectopia.com.au (n.d.) (last access: 04.07.2018).
Xu, J., Kim, K., Kurtz, M., & Nolan, M. T. (2016). Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students. Nurse Education Today, 37, 1–2.
Yap, C., Ma, J., Gow, S., Wilson, L., Toro, A., Amirudin, S., Pleydell-Bouvarie, M., Visser, C., & Filgueira, L. (2011). Bone biology (Kindle ed.). Seattle: Amazon.
Zurcher, R. (1998). Issues and trends in culture-fair assessment. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 103–106.
The study was supported by the School of Anatomy and Human Biology and an ISL Grant, UWA, Perth, Australia.
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethics rules and regulations at the University of Western Australia.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eppler, E., Meyer, J., Serowy, S. et al. Enhancing Scientific Communication Skills: a Real-World Simulation in a Tertiary-Level Life Science Class Using E-Learning Technology in Biomedical Literature Perception, Reflective Review Writing on a Clinical Issue, and Self and Peer Assessments. Res Sci Educ 51, 277–299 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9795-7
- Communication skills
- Scientific writing
- Peer assessment
- Blended learning
- Peer review