The following were the learning goals for the Mini-Review:
1) Introduce students to the primary literature. This was done with training from the science librarian (Dr. Kristen B. Greenland) via tools like Scifinder, Web of Science, Zotero (reference manager).
2) Help students identify effective writing from the peer review process. Many students typically turn in one draft, receive comments from their professor and never receive concrete examples of good writing. This is a massive burden on the instructor and can result in a non-productive learning experience. This peer-review is anonymous and allows students to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their own writing without the pressure of getting a grade. They are guided by a qualitative rubric that describes how well the draft met certain criteria. The students also provide track changes to help with grammar and sentence structure. This peer-review process also allows for more drafts to be submitted, pushing the student avoid procrastination. Late work receives a zero, because it is very important to get the work in on time to allow for quality feedback and time for revisions. For Fall 2013 there was a >90% success rate in getting work in on-time.
3) Introduce students to ways of providing constructive criticism. Most practicing scientists have submitted a proposal for review only to receive critiques that are not only professionally inappropriate, but also uninformative. In addition to this practice being detrimental to the professional development of an individual scientist, it also limits scientific development because of the lack of valuable feedback. My goal was to train students to break this cycle. Criticism should not be a negative. An excellent critique is one that strives to strengthen someone's work and push them to do the best. Each student received two coded drafts to read. They were not provided the author's name. Their critiques are also anonymous, so the author of the review did not know who provided their critiques. The students are graded on the quality, fairness, thoroughness of their critique. Every draft also received an "editorial summary" from me that highlighted the key strengths and weakness identified by the reviewers and myself. A critique of the scientific merit was also required by the students. Upon completing the final draft, the students have explored this paper from the inside out. At this point, they are able to provide some form of analysis of whether the authors' achieved their goals and if the data supported their hypotheses.
4) Help students learn how to organize their writing for clarity and a broad audience. Each reviewer was tasked with assessing whether the mini-review was organized in a way that made sense, if the figures were clear, and if the inorganic concept was explained in a manner what was scientifically accurate and accessible to their peers.
5) Introduce students an iterative proof format and have them observe their progress in the end product. The final submission of the mini-review is a "portfolio" that starts with their initial goals and expectations of the mini-review project, includes all drafts, peer-critiuqes of their work, and ends with a final reflection. The portfolio is meant to be a physical account of they progressed through the project. In their final reflection most students have a deep appreciation for how much work goes into scientific writing and their
1) Introduce students to the primary literature. This was done with training from the science librarian (Dr. Kristen B. Greenland) via tools like Scifinder, Web of Science, Zotero (reference manager).
2) Help students identify effective writing from the peer review process. Many students typically turn in one draft, receive comments from their professor and never receive concrete examples of good writing. This is a massive burden on the instructor and can result in a non-productive learning experience. This peer-review is anonymous and allows students to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their own writing without the pressure of getting a grade. They are guided by a qualitative rubric that describes how well the draft met certain criteria. The students also provide track changes to help with grammar and sentence structure. This peer-review process also allows for more drafts to be submitted, pushing the student avoid procrastination. Late work receives a zero, because it is very important to get the work in on time to allow for quality feedback and time for revisions. For Fall 2013 there was a >90% success rate in getting work in on-time.
3) Introduce students to ways of providing constructive criticism. Most practicing scientists have submitted a proposal for review only to receive critiques that are not only professionally inappropriate, but also uninformative. In addition to this practice being detrimental to the professional development of an individual scientist, it also limits scientific development because of the lack of valuable feedback. My goal was to train students to break this cycle. Criticism should not be a negative. An excellent critique is one that strives to strengthen someone's work and push them to do the best. Each student received two coded drafts to read. They were not provided the author's name. Their critiques are also anonymous, so the author of the review did not know who provided their critiques. The students are graded on the quality, fairness, thoroughness of their critique. Every draft also received an "editorial summary" from me that highlighted the key strengths and weakness identified by the reviewers and myself. A critique of the scientific merit was also required by the students. Upon completing the final draft, the students have explored this paper from the inside out. At this point, they are able to provide some form of analysis of whether the authors' achieved their goals and if the data supported their hypotheses.
4) Help students learn how to organize their writing for clarity and a broad audience. Each reviewer was tasked with assessing whether the mini-review was organized in a way that made sense, if the figures were clear, and if the inorganic concept was explained in a manner what was scientifically accurate and accessible to their peers.
5) Introduce students an iterative proof format and have them observe their progress in the end product. The final submission of the mini-review is a "portfolio" that starts with their initial goals and expectations of the mini-review project, includes all drafts, peer-critiuqes of their work, and ends with a final reflection. The portfolio is meant to be a physical account of they progressed through the project. In their final reflection most students have a deep appreciation for how much work goes into scientific writing and their
I will happy share teaching materials upon request. Contact me at [email protected].