Choosing and evaluating a training format
Training formats differ in the time available for practice, individual support, interaction and independent learning. Choosing a format involves matching these opportunities to learners' needs and evaluating what participants can do afterwards.
Intensive training and sustained support
Scientific-writing workshops run by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) between 2009 and 2011 reached nearly 85 early-career and senior researchers in collaborating African centres and other health institutions. The workshops addressed a perceived skills gap for researchers seeking a publication record rather than forming an institutional writing curriculum. Four formats combined different durations, content and support.
| Workshop | Presenter and sponsor | Structure and content | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract writing, Uganda, 2009 | Monique Oliff, PhD, Wellsense International Public Health Consultancy; IAVI | One day in August: abstract-writing principles, publishing opportunities and peer/staff review. | Fourteen research staff from two Ugandan collaborating clinical research centres. |
| Abstract and manuscript writing, Kenya, 2010 | Joseph Oloo Mugah, PhD, SCIDCOM International, and Daisy Ouya, MS, IAVI; IAVI | Six-day intensive in May: abstracts, paper drafting, illustrations, editing, publication processes and web tools. | Ten early-career researchers from six centres in Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa and Zambia. |
| Manuscript writing, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda, 2010–2011 | Randall Kaja, MS, Pfizer Global Health Fellow; IAVI | Four two-part workshops combining day-long classes, writing exercises and individual support: data mining, manuscript essentials, journal choice, research ethics, writer's block, grammar and usage. The workshop table dates these August–February; the residency account dates the six-month fellowship September–February. | Forty researchers and laboratory staff from four centres, including twenty individual mentees. |
| Grant writing, Rwanda, 2011 | Tendesayi Kufa-Chakezha, MPH, Aurum Institute; IAVI and the Imbuto Foundation | Two days in November: finding grants, proposal elements, following guidance, study design and concept notes. | Twenty junior- to mid-level professionals from four collaborating centres in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Zambia, the National University of Rwanda and other institutions. |
The residency combined initial classroom instruction with paper-focused exercises, a follow-up workshop weeks later and individual editorial assistance before, during and after the workshops. Individual meetings were sometimes weekly; a science editor helped develop materials, reviewed work and led discussions. Laboratory technicians and research nurses received a condensed version without writing exercises.
Written evaluations and interviews indicated benefits from all formats except the six-day intensive, which proved too intensive for most participants and offered too little practice time. The residency, with extensive individual support, seemed most conducive to preparing manuscripts. Participants requested longer sessions, more hands-on work and more detail about writing different research types.
The resident trainer assessed access to study data, literature-review ability, paper organisation, technical writing and publication incentives, provided data-analysis support and adapted training to participants' needs. Some researchers needed help turning data into a paper, while others were stalled at drafting. Few wanted much grammar or punctuation teaching despite the trainer identifying these as a critical gap and proposing proficiency as an entry requirement for future workshops.
Outputs included conference-poster abstracts accepted in 2010 and 2012 from two participants in the 2009 Uganda workshop, further accepted 2012 abstracts from two other affiliated researchers, and a manuscript accepted in PLoS One plus 2011 conference posters from a researcher who received several months of residency support. Organisers considered group training combined with individual editorial help and mentoring promising, but emphasised that any format needed institutional publication incentives. Barriers included limited statistical support, unclear research ownership and publication plans, and clinical settings where writing competed with other work without expected promotion or merit rewards.
In 2013, IAVI also contributed to OCTAVE, an online collaborative project using the Kenya AIDS Indicator Survey dataset, with participant manuscripts intended for peer-reviewed submission around World AIDS Day.
Online and classroom delivery
A 2009 randomised trial compared online and classroom scientific-writing instruction among 48 novice researchers from medical, nursing and physiotherapy programmes in the US and Brazil, with 24 in each group and mentors in both. The online group used presentations, audio conferences, email, shared documents and writing templates. Mean manuscript-quality scores were higher online: 75.5 ± 14.2 versus 47.3 ± 14.6 on the Six-Subgroup Quality Scale, assessed by three expert reviewers (P = 0.0017). Mean satisfaction scores were also higher: 4.3 ± 0.7 versus 3.1 ± 1.1 on a Likert scale (P = 0.001); the reported variation was standard deviation. The trial authors concluded that online instruction was more effective in this setting and called for larger studies.
One biomedical-writing programme in 2013 found fully online delivery best for geographical reach. Its asynchronous classes imposed no fixed attendance time and were considered most convenient for students, while synchronous sessions were more efficient for complex content needing substantial instructor–student discussion.
Online teaching can be synchronous, with teachers and learners meeting in real time, asynchronous, with prepared materials distributed digitally, or a combination chosen for the course's purpose and duration. Asynchronous learners can skip familiar material and revisit new information, but success depends on age, self-discipline, motivation and material preparation. Preparing materials and following individual assignments, examinations and progress can take considerable instructor time and approach one-to-one support.
An online activity within a classroom course
A wiki allows selected users to write, edit and comment on linked web pages. In a 2016 academic-writing teaching example, undergraduate and doctoral students collaboratively built a pre-submission manuscript checklist to strengthen critical assessment of their own and others' writing. The learning objective combined knowledge of article content and structure with logical presentation, reporting standards and publishing ethics.
Setting up permissions and structure took longer than expected and benefited from IT support. The wiki had a purpose page and four pages covering layout, language, content, and tables and figures. Because most students were unfamiliar with wikis, instructions needed to:
- Explain the exercise's purpose and connection to learning objectives.
- Give examples of suitable checklist items.
- Show how to open and add pages, items and comments.
- Set contribution deadlines and explain how the wiki would be used during the course.
On the first course, everyone contributed useful items, but online discussion was limited and the checklist appeared little used in the final peer-review session. Most students found it useful and two were inspired to make their own checklist, although it was also considered too general. The teacher thought unfamiliarity between students and their different scientific backgrounds discouraged editing one another's contributions.
On the second course, students were explicitly asked to use the checklist while preparing manuscripts, then discussed it in small groups during the final class. Discussion became livelier and addressed item meanings, uses and relevance to different manuscript types; the teacher perceived greater ownership, and written feedback described value for assessing current and future manuscripts.
The teacher considered the activity successful in prompting more systematic critical reflection, while emphasising the effort needed to define its purpose and encourage participation as well as operate the technology. A proposed next step was to have small groups develop the checklist in an online forum before discussing it in class.