pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Using Rubrics as a Scientific Writing Instructional Method in Early Stage Undergraduate Neuroscience Study - PubMed

  • ️Fri Jan 01 2016

. 2016 Apr 15;15(1):A85-A93.

eCollection 2016 Fall.

Affiliations

Using Rubrics as a Scientific Writing Instructional Method in Early Stage Undergraduate Neuroscience Study

Erin B D Clabough et al. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2016.

Abstract

Scientific writing is an important communication and learning tool in neuroscience, yet it is a skill not adequately cultivated in introductory undergraduate science courses. Proficient, confident scientific writers are produced by providing specific knowledge about the writing process, combined with a clear student understanding about how to think about writing (also known as metacognition). We developed a rubric for evaluating scientific papers and assessed different methods of using the rubric in inquiry-based introductory biology classrooms. Students were either 1) given the rubric alone, 2) given the rubric, but also required to visit a biology subject tutor for paper assistance, or 3) asked to self-grade paper components using the rubric. Students who were required to use a peer tutor had more negative attitudes towards scientific writing, while students who used the rubric alone reported more confidence in their science writing skills by the conclusion of the semester. Overall, students rated the use of an example paper or grading rubric as the most effective ways of teaching scientific writing, while rating peer review as ineffective. Our paper describes a concrete, simple method of infusing scientific writing into inquiry-based science classes, and provides clear avenues to enhance communication and scientific writing skills in entry-level classes through the use of a rubric or example paper, with the goal of producing students capable of performing at a higher level in upper level neuroscience classes and independent research.

Keywords: Undergraduate; inquiry-based learning; introductory neuroscience instruction; peer-tutoring; rubric; scientific writing; writing-to-learn.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Significantly more students in the Rubric Only group disagreed with the statement “I am good at writing in general but not good at science writing” at the end of the semester compared to the beginning (by t-test; p = 0.0431; pre-mean = 3.14 ± 0.275 and post-mean= 2.375 ± 0.24). No other group displayed a significant difference pre-course vs. post-course. Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.

Figure 2
Figure 2

More students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “Scientific writing is boring.” Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree (by ANOVA; p = 0.016; mean of Rubric Only group 2.25 ± SEM 0.28; mean of Rubric + Tutor group 3.36 ± 0.27; mean of Self-Grade rubric group 2.43 ± 0.27).

Figure 3
Figure 3

More students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “I feel like scientific writing is confusing.” Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree (by ANOVA; p=0.021; mean of Rubric Only group 2.69 ± SEM 0.30; mean of Rubric + Tutoring group 3.71 ± 0.29; mean of Self-Grade rubric 2.71 ± 0.24).

Figure 4
Figure 4

More students in the Rubric + Tutor group agreed with the post-statement “I would enjoy science more if I didn’t have to write up the results.” Data depicts student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree (by ANOVA; p=0.037; mean of the Rubric Only group 2.63 ± 0.29; mean of Rubric + Tutor group 3.6 ±.029; mean of Self-Grade Rubric group 2.69 ± 0.33).

Figure 5
Figure 5

Post-semester assessment showed that students thought the most effective ways to teach scientific writing were 1) using an example paper or 2) using a detailed rubric. Students though that 1) watching someone else construct a paper from scratch or 2) participating in small group writing workshops were the least effective ways to teach scientific writing (by ANOVA; p <0.0001; using an example paper 4.17 ± 0.12; using a detailed rubric 3.98 ± 0.16; listening to a lecture about constructing science papers 3.8 ± 0.99; one-on-one assistance 3.78 ± 0.4; participating in small group workshops 3.63 ± 0.2; or watching someone else construct a paper from scratch 3.24 ± 0.17; n = 44). Data depicts the means ± SEM of student responses on the Likert questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the semester, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a view for the 21st Century. 2009. [accessed 19 February 2014]. http://visionandchange.org/finalreport/
    1. Bennett P., Jr Using rubrics to teach science writing. Essays On Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy. 2008;20(8)
    1. Blair B, Cline G, Bowen W. NSF-style peer review for teaching undergraduate grant-writing. Am Biol Teach. 2007;69:34–37.
    1. Bowman-Perrott L, Davis H, Vannest K, Williams L, Greenwood C, Parker R. Academic benefits of peer tutoring: a meta-analytic review of single case research. School Psych Rev. 2013;42:39–55.
    1. Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. J Undergrad Neurosci Edu. 2013a;12:E6–E10. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources