Multilingual and Native English‐speaking Student Writers in Medical Laboratory Sciences (MLS): A Comparative Pilot Study

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Aug 31, 2015
Keywords:
medical laboratory sciences, undergraduate, writing abilities, multilingual students, writing errors

Main Article Content

Janice Conway-Klaassen
University of Minnesota
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6439-5086
Julie M Thompson
Metropolitan State University Minneapolis, MN
Patricia Eliason
University of Minnesota
Molly Rojas Collins
University of Minnesota
Robin Murie
University of Minnesota
Donna Spannaus-Martin
University of Minnesota

Abstract

Medical laboratory scientists are health care practitioners who perform testing on blood and other body fluids providing vital information to physicians for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients in health and disease. Miscommunications between laboratory personnel and other health care practitioners can result in unwarranted delays in patient care or errors in treatment selection, which ultimately could cause patient harm, including the possible loss of life. In spite of prerequisite writing course requirements, students in our laboratory science baccalaureate degree program struggled to reach the program’s writing competencies. The situation in our program was complicated by the high percentage of multilingual students with varying abilities in English. This pilot study was initiated to describe the nature of writing in our field of practice and to analyze the current status of student writing abilities. A survey of writing activities among current laboratory science practitioners confirmed the essential nature of writing in our field and the types of writing activities performed on a regular basis. Analysis of current student writing samples showed that both native-English speaking and multilingual student writers made essentially the same types of errors although the multilingual students made significantly more errors in some categories.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Conway-Klaassen, J., Thompson, J. M., Eliason, P., Rojas Collins, M., Murie, R., & Spannaus-Martin, D. (2015). Multilingual and Native English‐speaking Student Writers in Medical Laboratory Sciences (MLS): A Comparative Pilot Study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(4), 139–160. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/13515
Issue
Volume 15, Number 4
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

References

Bosher, S. (2001). Discipline-specific literacy in a second language: How ESL students learn to write successfully in a B.S. degree nursing program. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication. ERIC Document 454 707

Bosher, S. (2010). English for nursing: Developing discipline-specific materials. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English Teaching Materials: Theory & Practice (pp. 346-372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown CL. (2007). Supporting English Language Learners in Content-Reading. Reading Improvement. 44 (1). 32-39.

Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2014). US Department of Labor. Retrieved November 17, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes292011.htm

Conway-Klaassen, JM. (2013) MLS Program Graduate Survey. Unpublished data

Defazio J, Jones J, Tennant F, and Hook SA. (2010). Academic literacy: The importance and impact of writing across the curriculum – a case study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2). 34 - 47.

Dlugokienski A and Sampson V. (2008). Learning to write and writing to learn in science: refutational texts and analytical rubrics. Science Scope. 32(3). 14-19.

Ferris, D.R., Liu, S., Sinha, A., and Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing. 22.307-309. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009

Forsman, R. (2000). The Electronic Medical Record Implications for the Laboratory. Clinical Leadership Management Review. 14(6): 292-295.

Goldschmidt M. (2014). Teaching Writing in the Disciplines: Student Perspectives on Learning Genre. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal. 2(2). 25-40.

Gunersel AB, Simpson NJ, Aufderheide KJ, and Wang L. (2008). Effectiveness of Calibrated Peer ReviewTM for improving writing and critical thinking skills in biology undergraduate students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 8(2). 25-37.

Hartberg Y, Gunersel AB, Simspon NJ, and Balester V. (2008). Development of Student Writing in Biochemistry Using Calibrated Peer Review. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2(1). 29 - 44.

Kennison, MM. (2006). The Evaluation of Students’ Reflective Writing for Evidence of Critical Thinking. Nursing Education Perspectives. 27(5). 269-273.

Kennison, MM. (2012). Developing Reflective Writing as Effective Pedagogy. Nursing Education Perspectives. 33(5). 306-311.

Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Russell, D. (2001). Where Do the Naturalistic Studies of WAC/WID Point? A Research Review. P 259–98. In WAC for the new millennium: Strategies for continuing writing-across-thecurriculum programs. Ed. SH McLeod, E Miraglia, M Soven, C Thaiss. National Council of Teachers of English Publisher. Urbana, IL. Retrieved November 17, 2014 from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/millennium/chapter11.pdf

Schmidt LA. (2004). Evaluating the Writing-to-Learn Strategy with Undergraduate Nursing Students. Journal of Nursing Education. 43(10). 466-473.

Spannaus-Martin, D. (2013). Medical Laboratory Sciences Writing-Enriched Curriculum Writing Plan. Retrieved November 17, 2014 from http://undergrad.umn.edu/cwb/pdf/med_lab_sciences.pdf.

The Joint Commission. (2014). National Patient Safety Goals Effective January 1, 2014. NPSG.02.03.01. Hospital Accreditation Program. http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/2014_LAB_NPSG_ER.pdf

Weaver, R. & Jackson, D. (2011). Evaluating an academic writing program for nursing students who have English as a second language. Contemporary Nurse 38 (1-2), 130-138.

WEC. (2014). Writing-Enriched Curriculum Program. Retrieved November 17, 2014 from http://wec.umn.edu/index.html.

WEC Surveys. (2007). Writing-Enriched Curriculum Program Research and Assessment. Retrieved November 17, 2014 from http://wec.umn.edu/ResearchAndAssessment.html.