Skip to main content

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

Research in Science Education volume 51, pages 277–299 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig.3

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2009). Giving a lecture: from presenting to teaching (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filgueira, L. (2010a). Cell, tissue and development: ANHB 3323. Perth: School of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, The University of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filgueira, L. (2010b). Cell and tissue organisation ANHB3313 examination paper. Perth: School of Anatomy and Human Biology. The University of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1995). Learning in teams. A tutor guide (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. F. (2010). Developmental biology (9th ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasman-Deal, H. (2009). Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London: Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, J. E., & Gross, A. (2010). The craft of scientific communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, A. H. (2010). Scientific writing and communication: papers, proposals, and presentations (1st ed.). Cary: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education of enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, J. A. (2009). Histological and histochemical methods: theory and practice (4th ed.). Banbury: Scion Publishing Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Kierszenbaum, A., & Tres, L. (2011). Histology and cell biology: an introduction to pathology (3rd ed.). USA: Mosby.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally intense science activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1886–1914.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, L. (2012). Optional self-assessment: some tensions and dilemmas. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. (2011). Scientific writing = thinking in words. Clayton, South Victoris, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodish, H., Berk, A., & Kaiser, C. A. (2007). Molecular cell biology. London: W.H. Freeman & Co, Macmillan Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, V. (2011). Writingpapers in thebiological sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mescher, A. (2009). Junqueira’s basic histology: text and atlas (12th ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill Medical.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, R., & Shoshan, M. (2017). Medical students’ research productivity and career preferences; a 2-year prospective follow-up study. BMC Medical Education, 17, 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C., & Teather, S. (2013). Engaging students in peer review: feedback as learning. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2, Special issue), 196–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nulty, D. D. (2010). Peer and self-assessment in the first year of university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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].

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, G. H. (2001). Cells, gels and the engines of life: a new, unifying approach to cell function. Seattle: Ebner and Sons Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siles-González, J., & Solano-Ruiz, C. (2016). Self-assessment, reflection on practice and critical thinking in nurse students. Nurse Education Today, 45, 132–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, B., Davis, M., & Hawks, V. (2004). Self-grading in large general education classes: a case study. College Teaching, 52, 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunderland, G. S. F. (2000). Developmental biology. Part 1: principles of development in biology. Cary: Sinauer Associates, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truss, L. (2003). Eats, shoots and leaves (the zero tolerance approach to punctuation). London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the School of Anatomy and Human Biology and an ISL Grant, UWA, Perth, Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedicine, University of Basel, Pestalozzistrasse 20, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland

    Elisabeth Eppler

  2. School of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

    Elisabeth Eppler, Jan Meyer & Luis Filgueira

  3. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany

    Elisabeth Eppler & Steffen Serowy

  4. Anatomy, Department of Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Karl Link & Luis Filgueira

  5. European Languages and Studies, School of Humanities, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

    Barbara Pauk

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Eppler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steffen Serowy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara Pauk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luis Filgueira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Eppler.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 13 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 12 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9795-7

Keywords

  • Communication skills
  • Scientific writing
  • Peer assessment
  • Self-assessment
  • E-learning
  • Blended learning
  • Plagiarism
  • Peer review