TABLE 2.
Self-assessment evaluation questions were asked immediately before and after each session.
| Pre | Post | t | Effect size | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | SD | N | x | SD | N | |||
| Session 1 | ||||||||
| I can strategically employ the elements of a story in my scientific writing. | 2.09 | 0.71 | 91 | 2.87 | 0.88 | 90 | 6.57 | 0.98 Large |
| I know how to make my scientific story “sticky.” | 1.60 | 0.63 | 91 | 2.68 | 0.95 | 98 | 9.28 | 1.37 Large |
| I know what makes a paper publishable and more likely to be cited—and I know how to revise my own work to make it more effective in these areas. | 2.03 | 0.86 | 115 | 2.78 | 1.00 | 115 | 6.09 | 0.81 Large |
| I know how to emphasize different aspects of my scientific argument depending on the audience I am trying to reach. | 1.97 | 0.73 | 89 | 2.58 | 1.05 | 102 | 4.73 | 0.69 Large medium |
| Session 2 | ||||||||
| I can identify the stress position in a sentence or paragraph. | 1.83 | 0.84 | 72 | 3.28 | 0.70 | 72 | 11.24 | 1.88 Large |
| I can identify the topic position in a sentence or paragraph. | 2.19 | 0.77 | 70 | 3.28 | 0.62 | 88 | 9.70 | 1.57 Large |
| I can exploit the stress position, left-to-right reading, and other information processing techniques to enhance the clarity and directness of my writing. | 1.77 | 0.87 | 91 | 3.00 | 0.97 | 98 | 9.14 | 1.34 Large |
| If my goal is to make my reader’s job as easy as possible, I know where and what to change in my scientific writing while remaining true to the conventions of the genre. | 1.59 | 0.69 | 70 | 2.90 | 0.98 | 84 | 9.78 | 1.57 Large |
| Session 3 | ||||||||
| I can clearly articulate the different goals and strategies for each section of a scientific technical report, and I can adjust these goals and strategies based on my research findings and my target journal. | 2.07 | 0.64 | 75 | 3.0 | 0.80 | 75 | 8.23 | 1.29 Large |
| I can use basic narrative principles to draft, assess, and revise the sections of my technical reports. | 1.91 | 0.70 | 76 | 3.02 | 0.90 | 62 | 7.97 | 1.39 Large |
| I am confident in my ability to match the scope of my paper’s introduction to the scope of its resolution. | 2.01 | 0.78 | 72 | 3.08 | 0.83 | 78 | 8.05 | 1.33 Large |
| I can use an abstract schema of the shape of my paper’s content to assess the effectiveness of its opening and resolution. | 1.73 | 0.69 | 74 | 2.84 | 0.90 | 77 | 8.54 | 1.40 Large |
| I am familiar with the says–does chart as a way of assessing the logical flow of a piece of writing (or as a revision technique for my own writing). | 1.36 | 0.63 | 72 | 3.01 | 0.96 | 67 | 11.88 | 2.08 Large |
| Session 4 | ||||||||
| I am familiar with the Open Access movement and what it means for my publishing opportunities, and the pressures that led to its development. | 2.13 | 0.89 | 67 | 3.04 | 0.90 | 71 | 5.96 | 1.02 Large |
| I am familiar with the subscription pressures faced by my institutional library. | 1.60 | 0.81 | 65 | 3.07 | 1.00 | 70 | 9.46 | 1.62 Large |
| I have a wide range of drafting and revision techniques at my fingertips and I have recently compared notes on the topic with colleagues. | 1.95 | 0.65 | 65 | 2.90 | 0.79 | 69 | 7.55 | 1.32 Large |
| I have a big-picture understanding of where my publication and writing activities fit into the larger world of scholarly communication. | 2.27 | 0.82 | 89 | 2.89 | 0.90 | 88 | 4.75 | 0.72 Large Medium |
| Session 5 | ||||||||
| I can list the key elements of a strong research proposal. | 2.08 | 0.67 | 76 | 3.15 | 0.81 | 74 | 8.86 | 1.45 Large |
| I can effectively assess my writing to determine if my research proposal meets the guidelines for a strong research proposal. | 1.88 | 0.76 | 77 | 3.09 | 0.78 | 74 | 9.67 | 1.57 Large |
| I am familiar with the concept of proposal real estate and how to exploit it to increase the likelihood of funding. | 1.43 | 0.71 | 77 | 3.12 | 0.87 | 75 | 13.08 | 2.14 Large |
| I know how to use the principles of effective storytelling to increase the chances of getting my proposal funded. | 1.78 | 0.75 | 77 | 3.17 | 0.73 | 69 | 11.37 | 1.88 Large |
| Session 6 | ||||||||
| I am familiar with the history of scientific funding in the U.S. | 1.54 | 0.65 | 50 | 2.90 | 0.63 | 48 | 10.54 | 2.13 Large |
| I am confident that I know what NSF reviewers want when they ask me to describe the intellectual merit of a particular project. | 1.56 | 0.70 | 50 | 3.02 | 0.67 | 48 | 10.54 | 2.13 Large |
| I am confident that I know what NSF reviewers want when they ask me to describe the broader impacts of a particular project. | 1.78 | 0.73 | 51 | 3.08 | 0.71 | 48 | 8.98 | 1.81 Large |
Participants were asked to rate their answers on a scale of 1 to 4, meaning: 1 = not at all, 2 = hardly, 3 = somewhat, and 4 = a lot, very much, or very well, depending on the kind of question. Mean rating (x), standard deviation (SD), number of responses (N) for each question, and t-statistic (t) are indicated. The table includes assessment data from all six times the workshop was offered. NSF = National Science Foundation.