ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Writing plays a central role in the communication of scientific ideas
and is therefore a key aspect in researcher education, ultimately determining the
success and long-term sustainability of their careers. Despite the growing popularity
of e-learning, we are not aware of any existing study comparing on-line vs. traditional
classroom-based methods for teaching scientific writing. METHODS: Forty eight participants
from a medical, nursing and physiotherapy background from US and Brazil were randomly
assigned to two groups (n = 24 per group): An on-line writing workshop group (on-line
group), in which participants used virtual communication, google docs and standard
writing templates, and a standard writing guidance training (standard group) where
participants received standard instruction without the aid of virtual communication
and writing templates. Two outcomes, manuscript quality was assessed using the scores
obtained in Six subgroup analysis scale as the primary outcome measure, and satisfaction
scores with Likert scale were evaluated. To control for observer variability, inter-observer
reliability was assessed using Fleiss's kappa. A post-hoc analysis comparing rates
of communication between mentors and participants was performed. Nonparametric tests
were used to assess intervention efficacy. RESULTS: Excellent inter-observer reliability
among three reviewers was found, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)
agreement = 0.931882 and ICC consistency = 0.932485. On-line group had better overall
manuscript quality (p = 0.0017, SSQSavg score 75.3 +/- 14.21, ranging from 37 to 94)
compared to the standard group (47.27 +/- 14.64, ranging from 20 to 72). Participant
satisfaction was higher in the on-line group (4.3 +/- 0.73) compared to the standard
group (3.09 +/- 1.11) (p = 0.001). The standard group also had fewer communication
events compared to the on-line group (0.91 +/- 0.81 vs. 2.05 +/- 1.23; p = 0.0219).
CONCLUSION: Our protocol for on-line scientific writing instruction is better than
standard face-to-face instruction in terms of writing quality and student satisfaction.
Future studies should evaluate the protocol efficacy in larger longitudinal cohorts
involving participants from different languages.
Type
Journal articleSubject
AdultBrazil
Female
Health Personnel
Humans
Internet
Male
Science
Surveys and Questionnaires
Teaching
United States
Writing
Young Adult
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/4364Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1186/1472-6920-9-27Publication Info
Phadtare, A; Bahmani, A; Shah, A; & Pietrobon, R (2009). Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.
BMC Med Educ, 9. pp. 27. 10.1186/1472-6920-9-27. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/4364.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item record
Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info