We are updating our website on Thursday, December 2 from 9 AM – 5 PM EST. During this time, users may experience some disruptions while using the site. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Scientific Writing in Kinesiology: The Michigan Model

in Kinesiology Review
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $42.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $56.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $80.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $107.00

The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the development of an engaging, interactive, and successful class in scientific writing in the Movement Science program in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan. This class is grounded in learning the art and science of scientific argumentation. In this paper, the authors provide an overview of the evolution of the class over the past decade and present elements of the class that have proven successful in the education of Movement Science students. The paper concludes with the recommendation that the American Kinesiology Association include a writing course such as the one described here in its recommendations for the undergraduate core curriculum in relation to those learning objectives tied to research proficiency.

The authors are with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Clark (kic@umich.edu) is corresponding author.
  • American Kinesiology Association Undergraduate Core Curriculum. (2020, May 15). Retrieved from https://americankinesiology.org

  • Berland, L.K., & Reiser, B.J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 2655. doi:10.1002/sce.20286

  • Braun, B., Williams, N.I., Garber, C.E., & Hickey, M. (2018). “Core stability”: Should there be a bigger focus on foundational skills in the kinesiology curriculum? Kinesiology Review, 7(4), 295299. doi:10.1123/kr.2018-0033

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, K.I. (2019). Scientific writing (19th ed.). Dubuque, IAKendall Hunt. Retrieved from https://he.kendallhunt.com/product/scientific-writing

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guilford, W.H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. American Journal of Physiology—Advances in Physiology Education, 25(3), 167175. doi:10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 6474. doi:10.1119/1.18809

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnson, R.J. (2011). Teaching argumentation and scientific discourse using the ribosomal peptidyl transferase reaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(3), 185190. PubMed ID: 21618381 doi:10.1002/bmb.20495

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnson, R.J. (2017). Arsenic-based Life: An active learning assignment for teaching scientific discourse. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(1), 4045. doi:10.1002/bmb.20986

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463466. PubMed ID: 20413492 doi:10.1126/science.1183944

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Phadtare, A., Bahmani, A., Shah, A., & Pietrobon, R. (2009). Scientific writing: A randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction. BMC Medical Education, 9(1), 19. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-27

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1436 1290 74
Full Text Views 34 28 1
PDF Downloads 31 25 1