WriteSim TCExam - An open source text simulation environment for training novice researchers in scientific writing

BACKGROUND: The ability to write clearly and effectively is of central importance to the scientific enterprise. Encouraged by the success of simulation environments in other biomedical sciences, we developed WriteSim TCExam, an open-source, Web-based, textual simulation environment for teaching effective writing techniques to novice researchers. We shortlisted and modified an existing open source application - TCExam to serve as a textual simulation environment. After testing usability internally in our team, we conducted formal field usability studies with novice researchers. These were followed by formal surveys with researchers fitting the role of administrators and users (novice researchers) RESULTS: The development process was guided by feedback from usability tests within our research team. Online surveys and formal studies, involving members of the Research on Research group and selected novice researchers, show that the application is user-friendly. Additionally it has been used to train 25 novice researchers in scientific writing to date and has generated encouraging results. CONCLUSION: WriteSim TCExam is the first Web-based, open-source textual simulation environment designed to complement traditional scientific writing instruction. While initial reviews by students and educators have been positive, a formal study is needed to measure its benefits in comparison to standard instructional methods

Writing-skills development in the health professions

Background: Studies have found that students in the medical professions often lack the writing skills required during their education and career. One contributing factor to this deficiency is that writing tends to be discipline specific, rather than requiring general skills acquired in undergraduate schools. Purpose: To determine the extent to which a rigorous writing exercise impacted the quality of students' medical writing based on a specified rubric. Method: In the context of a basic science course, we developed 6 weekly writing exercises called Question of the Week, along with a rubric for scoring students' work. The rubric evaluated 6 specific aspects of students' writing including Comprehensiveness/Thoroughness, Accuracy, Conciseness, Logical Organization, Justification of Assertions, and Use of Appropriate Terminology. Results: Except for Justification of Assertions and Accuracy, which did not change, scores for all categories improved between Weeks 1 and 2. Use of Appropriate Terminology was the only category for which scores increased after Week 2. Conclusion: The clearest indication of writing development came from students' augmented ability to use medical terminology in appropriate ways. This is an important observation, given that each Question of the Week covered a separate body system, characterized by distinctly different terms and jargon. We concluded that students need much more practice to attain the level of proficiency outlined by our rubric

Facilitating Scholarly Writing in Academic Medicine: Lessons Learned from a Collaborative Peer Mentoring Program

Scholarly writing is a critical skill for faculty in academic medicine; however, few faculty receive instruction in the process. We describe the experience of 18 assistant professors who participated in a writing and faculty development program which consisted of 7 monthly 75-minute sessions embedded in a Collaborative Mentoring Program (CMP). Participants identified barriers to writing, developed personal writing strategies, had time to write, and completed monthly writing contracts. Participants provided written responses to open-ended questions about the learning experience, and at the end of the program, participants identified manuscripts submitted for publication, and completed an audiotaped interview. Analysis of qualitative data using data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification showed that this writing program facilitated the knowledge, skills, and support needed to foster writing productivity. All participants completed at least 1 scholarly manuscript by the end of the CMP. The impact on participants’ future academic productivity requires long-term follow-up