Enhancing skills for scientific writing: A mixed-methods study at the faculty of health sciences, damascus university

Mohammed Alshafie , Laila Yakoub Agha , Lujain Nahass , Mhd Basheer Alameer , Jad Samaan , Jameel Soqia , Samer Mohsen
{"title":"Enhancing skills for scientific writing: A mixed-methods study at the faculty of health sciences, damascus university","authors":"Mohammed Alshafie ,&nbsp;Laila Yakoub Agha ,&nbsp;Lujain Nahass ,&nbsp;Mhd Basheer Alameer ,&nbsp;Jad Samaan ,&nbsp;Jameel Soqia ,&nbsp;Samer Mohsen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The increasing importance of scientific publications to promote community health and academic advancement highlights the need to evaluate the effectiveness of courses addressing academic writing skills, especially among Syrian students. To address this issue, we conducted a mixed-method study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Before a workshop on scientific writing, we distributed a pre-workshop questionnaire to assess participants' sociodemographic information and their knowledge of scientific writing principles. After the workshop, we administered a second questionnaire with the same sections to measure improvements in participants' knowledge. Additionally, we introduced a scale to evaluate the workshop's effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA test was used to assess differences in attitude among participants based on their departments, and the Wilcoxon Signed test was conducted to ascertain the difference between the test results before and after the workshop.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There was a significant statistical relationship between the participants’ test scores before and after the workshop for ten questions of the questionnaire (8 of which showed an increased response rate, while 2 decreased). However, there was no significant statistical relationship for the remaining five questions. There was a medium positive attitude towards the workshop which didn't have any significant statistical relationship with the participant's department at the faculty. Also, there was no significant statistical relationship between the amount of increased knowledge of the participant and their department affiliation, academic score, or the number of communication tools they possess.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The workshop was effective in enhancing the participants’ baseline knowledge in manuscript writing skills.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73445,"journal":{"name":"International journal of educational research open","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100451"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of educational research open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374025000172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The increasing importance of scientific publications to promote community health and academic advancement highlights the need to evaluate the effectiveness of courses addressing academic writing skills, especially among Syrian students. To address this issue, we conducted a mixed-method study.

Methods

Before a workshop on scientific writing, we distributed a pre-workshop questionnaire to assess participants' sociodemographic information and their knowledge of scientific writing principles. After the workshop, we administered a second questionnaire with the same sections to measure improvements in participants' knowledge. Additionally, we introduced a scale to evaluate the workshop's effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA test was used to assess differences in attitude among participants based on their departments, and the Wilcoxon Signed test was conducted to ascertain the difference between the test results before and after the workshop.

Results

There was a significant statistical relationship between the participants’ test scores before and after the workshop for ten questions of the questionnaire (8 of which showed an increased response rate, while 2 decreased). However, there was no significant statistical relationship for the remaining five questions. There was a medium positive attitude towards the workshop which didn't have any significant statistical relationship with the participant's department at the faculty. Also, there was no significant statistical relationship between the amount of increased knowledge of the participant and their department affiliation, academic score, or the number of communication tools they possess.

Conclusion

The workshop was effective in enhancing the participants’ baseline knowledge in manuscript writing skills.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高科学写作技巧:大马士革大学健康科学系的混合方法研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
69 days
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ perceptions about online teaching: Analysis of their experiences and opportunities for knowledge sharing Exploring students’ lived experience in online learning during Covid-19 pandemic through a phenomenological hermeneutic perspective Enhancing skills for scientific writing: A mixed-methods study at the faculty of health sciences, damascus university Evaluation of policies for disability and social inclusion in Colombian higher education Shaping generative AI governance in higher education: Insights from student perception
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1