The value of a writing center at a medical university.

BACKGROUND: Students often enter graduate healthcare/biomedical schools with insufficient undergraduate instruction in effective writing, yet the ability to write well affects their career opportunities in health care and in scientific research. PURPOSE: The present study was conducted to determine the value and effectiveness of instruction by faculty with expertise in teaching writing at a writing center at an academic health science center. METHODS: Two separate sources of data were collected and analyzed. First, an anonymous campus-wide survey assessed students' satisfaction and utilization of the university's Writing Center. Second, a nonexperimental objective study was conducted comparing a subsample of students who used versus those who did not receive instruction at the Writing Center on quality of writing, as determined by an evaluator who was blind to students' utilization status. RESULTS: From the campus-wide survey, more than 90% of respondents who used the center (which was 26% of the student body) agreed that it was a valuable and effective resource. From the objective study of writing quality, students who used the Writing Center were twice as likely as students who did not to receive an A grade on the written assignment, and the blinded evaluator accurately estimated which students used the Writing Center based on the clarity of writing. CONCLUSIONS: The instruction at the Writing Center at our university is highly valued by students, and its value is further supported by objective evidence of efficacy. Such a center offers the opportunity to provide instruction that medical and other healthcare students increasingly need without requiring additions to existing curricula. By developing competency in writing, students prepare for scholarly pursuits, and through the process of writing, they engage critical thinking skills that can make them more attuned to narrative and more reflective and empathetic in the clinical setting.

Teaching professional writing in an academic health sciences center: the Writing Center model at the Medical University of South Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Writing is taught as professional competency in higher education generally, but the health science education literature emphasizes writing as a pedagogical means rather than a professional end. The Medical University of South Carolina established a Writing Center in 1994 to teach professional writing. SUMMARY: This report describes the rationale for profession-specific, graduate-level writing instruction; summarizes the Writing Center model; and reports usage data. Students have reported improvement in particular texts and said they would be better able to complete writing tasks in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions modeled after the Writing Center and staffed with professionally trained writing teachers may provide a means to pool resources to teach writing as professional competency. The Writing Center has provided the expertise to teach professional writing without demanding curricular revision.

Lecture recording system in anatomy: possible benefit to auditory learners.

The literature reports that using Learning Recording Systems (LRS) is usually well received by students but that the pedagogical value of LRS in academic settings remains somewhat unclear. The primary aim of the current study is to document students' perceptions, actual pattern of usage, and impact of use of LRS on students' grade in a dental gross and neuroanatomy course. Other aims are to determine if students' learning preference correlated with final grades and to see if other factors like gender, age, overall academic score on the Dental Aptitude Test (DAT), lecture levels of difficulty, type of lecture, category of lecture, or teaching faculty could explain the impact, if any, of the use of LRS on the course final grade. No significant correlation was detected between the final grades and the variables studied except for a significant but modest correlation between final grades and the number of times the students accessed the lecture recordings (r=0.33 with P=0.01). Also, after adjusting for gender, age, learning style, and academic DAT, a significant interaction between auditory and average usage time was found for final grade (P=0.03). Students who classified themselves as auditory and who used the LRS on average for fewer than 10 minutes per access, scored an average final grade of 16.43 % higher than the nonauditory students using the LRS for the same amount of time per access. Based on these findings, implications for teaching are discussed and recommendations for use of LRS are proposed.