Science communication
Education research. 
@CornellBiolabs 
@CornellSciComm 
@CSInst. Award-winning educator. My courses use #CUSciStory & #CUinTheLab.
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Science writing, a skill that #undergraduates need to master in college. @CornellCals @Cornell has learning objective dedicated to it. @cornellbiolabs teach #scicomm & #sciencewriting via #peerreview .
@MNDaniels24 & I studied how effective it is
@CornellCDER #cuinthelab [1/9]pic.twitter.com/DecYWqfAFj
“A challenge in teaching scientific communication: academic experience does not improve undergraduates’ ability to assess their or their peers’ writing”
was just published in the journal "Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education" @tandfonline [2/9]https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/XUX3JNEKUZNPDG9YQPCA/full?target=10.1080/02602938.2020.1812512 …
. @MNDaniels24 and I discuss how large Undergraduate courses like @cornellbiolabs implement writing exercises to enhance #scientificcommunication #scicomm skills, #criticalthinking skills & to improve students’ understanding of the scientific method. [3/9]
The integrity, reproducibility & trust in scientific publications depend on the rigor and quality of #peerreview. It is the first line of defense against scientific #misinformation, therefore exposing undergraduates to the peer-review process is an investment in the future. [4/9]
We found that students took #PeerReview seriously despite that instructors gave them feedback later. Our hypothesis, however, that more academically experienced sophomore, juniors & seniors were more accurate assessors of technical writing than freshmen, wasn't supported [5/9]pic.twitter.com/LMzOCmTTyg
Students applied rubric criteria more leniently to their own writing than their peers did. However, both self and peer-assessments were overestimated compared to instructor's assessment of the same work using the same rubric. The grades were: instructors < peers < self. [6/9]pic.twitter.com/5HnnZLvAa8
The #DunningKruger effect that novice students may be overconfident in their writing ability due to less academic experience, wasn't detected when 1st-semester freshmen were compared to 2nd-semester #freshmen, or when freshmen compared to #upperclassmen. #AcademicChatter [7/9]pic.twitter.com/I86m3boiDE
#sciwrite through #PeerReview is often new to students. It is a powerful tool to teach students about #primary literature & reduce time burden on instructors providing feedback. It shouldn't replace instructor feedback & stay a low stake assignment due to its inaccuracy. [8/9]
Feel free to contact @MNDaniels24 or @sensitivsci if you have any questions about the study. [9/9]
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/XUX3JNEKUZNPDG9YQPCA/full?target=10.1080/02602938.2020.1812512 …
#peerreview #highered #sciwrite @CornellCDER #cuinthelab #scicomm
My question is how did you teach them to give good feedback? I know you provided them with the rubric but did you also walk through examples?
Yes, the students reviewed example papers in lab using the rubric & lab instructors showed them how they would review the same paper. Tried to be very explicit.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
