The Real-World Writing Project for Public Health Students: A Description and Evaluation

Abstract

Writing is a key skill for Public Health students, but instructors are not necessarily trained in how to teach writing. The Real-World Writing Project requires students to produce a writing project proposed by a community partner, for example, a report. The project includes multiple assignments that incorporate recommended characteristics for effective assigned writing. This article describes implementation of this project in two Public Health undergraduate courses at a large Midwestern University, including the type of products students produced, the number and type of community partners who participated, and student and community partner evaluations. Anonymous online evaluation surveys were distributed to community partners and students. We received responses from 19 community partners and 53 students. Partners were satisfied with the quality of 94% of the student products and were satisfied with their overall experience with the Real-World Writing Project (mean rating 5.14 on 6-point Likert-type scale, where 6 = extremely satisfied). Partners rated 85% of students as having satisfactory communication with them and were satisfied with the professionalism of 94% of students. Ninety-four percent of students reported being satisfied with the final product they produced and 84% of students indicated that working with their community partner was “very easy.” Students reported that the Real-World Writing Project was beneficial to them versus a more traditional assignment (mean response of 8.0 [SD 2.3], where 1 represented the least and 10 represented the most satisfaction). Future work will include an evaluation of the project within graduate-level courses.

Keywords

communication pedagogy public health education writing

Writing is a key skill that Public Health students need to be successful in their work, but Public Health instructors are not necessarily trained in how to teach writing (August et al., 2019; August & Trostle, 2018; Beard, 2018; Galea, 2019; Lang, 2019). Recently, a collection of six recommended characteristics for writing assignments was published to help instructors of higher education Public Health courses teach writing more effectively (August et al., 2019). These recommendations include (a) clearly describing the purpose of the writing and learning goals of the assignment, (b) requiring students to produce a document type (e.g., reports, policy briefs) used by public health workers, (c) asking students to write to a specific audience (e.g., low-literacy diabetes patients), (d) incorporating tasks that support writing development (e.g., peer review and revision), (e) requiring critical thinking about a real public health problem, and (f) providing clear assignment expectations (August et al., 2019). A seventh recommendation suggests that instructors require students to include a visual element such as a figure, table, or infographic in every assignment (Anderson et al., 2020). Other scholarship similarly emphasizes the importance of asking students to write in formats specific to public health noting differences in tone, audience, and purpose in public health writing compared with writing in other disciplines (Mackenzie, 2018).

Public health curricula typically engage students with community partners through internships or service-learning, resulting in skills such as public speaking, interprofessional development, interpreting literature, and ethical responsibility (Laubinger et al., 2018; Mackenzie et al., 2019). Supporting the development of professional skills, such as writing, can also be accomplished through engaging students with a practice site or industry partner. Through this type of engagement, students gain an understanding of specific skills required to develop written products pertinent to their field. Simultaneously, instructors gain an understanding of skills that they need to teach students to be competent in their field (Meredith et al., 2020). Thus, a community-engaged educational approach to writing instruction is consistent with our values and overall approach in public health education.

Though resources such as university writing centers, Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing in the Disciplines programs are poised to support instructors in developing effective writing assignments (WAC Clearinghouse, 2019a), it can still be challenging for instructors outside the field of Composition to teach writing effectively (WAC Clearinghouse, 2019b). Example writing assignments that have been piloted and evaluated can be a helpful resource to instructors who may adapt the examples for their own needs.

This article presents a description and evaluation of a series of writing assignments that comprise the Real-World Writing Project. The project incorporates all seven recommendations for assigned writing. To complete the project, students selected and produced a writing project proposed by a community partner, for example, a report, newsletter article, or blog post. The project was implemented in two large undergraduate Public Health courses. One was a required capstone course for Public Health majors in their final semester with an enrollment of 91 students. The other was an elective nutrition course for undergraduate Public Health majors and other students with an enrollment of 83 students.

We describe the Real-World Writing Project including the type of products students produced, the number and type of community partners who participated, as well as student and community partner evaluations. We present our assessment of the students’ satisfaction with the initial rollout of the project including their satisfaction with the assignments, the skills they used to complete their project, and the ease of working with their community partner. We also assessed how satisfied students felt with their final product. Additionally, we present our assessment of the community partners’ satisfaction with the process of registering their proposed projects, the clarity of communication from us (i.e., the instructors), and their communication with their student partner. Finally, we assessed community partners’ satisfaction with the final written product provided by the student.

Method

The Real-World Writing Project

The Real-World Writing Project pairs students with community organizations that need a written product. Students create a document for their community partner through a series of assignments, including a proposed plan, peer review, and multiple revisions. The series of assignments require text and at least one visual element (such as a photograph, figure, table, or diagram); these assignments incorporate the seven recommended characteristics for writing assignments in Public Health (Anderson et al., 2020; August et al., 2019). The assignments are summarized in the supplementary material (see Supplemental Appendix) and can be obtained by emailing the authors.

Most students partnered with community organizations such as nonprofit agencies. Partnered projects required students to communicate with a contact at their partnering organization. Some contacts specified that a site visit was required and students were instructed to choose these projects only if they were able to visit the site. Partnered projects could include multiples of the same project (e.g., five newsletter articles for the same organization) or multiple distinct projects (e.g., one newsletter article and one brochure for the same organization). Students were required to incorporate their contact’s feedback into the final product.

Some projects were “partnerless publications,” wherein students submitted their work to an outlet that allowed student submissions. Examples of these publications include Perspectives or Field Notes submissions to the Journal of Global Health (a student-run journal at Columbia), Reflections submissions to the Journal of Cancer Education, and Stories or Commentaries submitted to the Undergraduate Journal of Public Health at the University of Michigan. Students submitted their final product to the publication, with no guarantee that it would be published.

A third category allowed students to create blog-style content for the University’s web page. Like partnered projects, students received feedback from contacts who were editors of the venue, but like partnerless publication projects, there was no guarantee the material would get published.

Sample

In the capstone course 100% of the enrolled students (n = 91) participated in the Real-World Writing Project, 28 students (31%) completed the anonymous survey for this study, and 27 (30%) of the survey respondents gave permission to use their data for this report. In the nutrition course, with 83 students, 53 (64%) participated in the Real-World Writing Project, and 26 (49%) of these completed the survey with permission to use their data.

Community partners included 12 nonprofit organizations, four grant-funded research studies, two academic institutes, and one academic extension service as well as one academic website (which is the University blog project). Of 21 community partners (including the University blog), 20 (95%) completed the anonymous online evaluation and 18 (86%) gave permission to use their survey data for this report.

Survey Distribution and Measurements

Anonymous online surveys were distributed to community partners and students to evaluate the Real-World Writing Project. Partner evaluations were sent to contacts at each “partnered” project and contacts were asked to evaluate their overall experience with the Real-World Writing Project, the clarity of information provided to them about the project and process including their interactions with students, and their satisfaction with the final product provided by the student. Response options for these questions were a Likert-type scale: extremely dissatisfied = 1, dissatisfied = 2, to extremely satisfied = 6.

Partners were also asked what went well and were prompted for suggestions to improve the Real-World Writing Project. Evaluations were also sent to contacts at the University blog; they were asked the same questions as contacts at partnered projects but were not asked to evaluate every student they worked with as this number was quite large (n = 66). Evaluations were not sent to partnerless publication projects because there were no individual contacts at these publications.

In the online evaluation, students were asked to provide feedback on the skills they used in completing the assignment (they could check as many as applied: writing, data analysis, map creation, development of an infographic in specialized software such as Canva, gathering statistical information from sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, interpreting scientific data, and deciding which information or statistic is most relevant to include in their document). Students were allowed to enter additional skills they used into an open text-entry option.

We also asked students to rate the ease of working with their community partner (partnered and University blog projects only; Likert-type scale: 1 = difficult to work with, 2 = somewhat easy, 3 = very easy), their satisfaction with working with their partners (partnered and University blog projects only; Likert-type scale: extremely dissatisfied = 1, dissatisfied = 2, to extremely satisfied = 6), the quality of peer feedback on their work (Likert-type scale: extremely dissatisfied = 1, dissatisfied = 2, to extremely satisfied = 6), the quality of instructor feedback on their work (Likert-type scale: extremely dissatisfied = 1, dissatisfied = 2, to extremely satisfied = 6), and their satisfaction with their final product (Likert-type scale: not satisfied = 1 to very satisfied = 4). Additionally, students were asked to rate their satisfaction in completing the Real-World Writing Project versus “a more traditional assignment” with a three-page paper given as an example to which students could refer when reflecting on this survey item (rated on a scale of 10, with 10 representing the most satisfaction).

Data Analysis

We describe postproject evaluations using descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means. We defined the project genres based on our understanding of these genres (no formal definitions exist, to our knowledge). They include newsletter articles, reports, factsheets, brochures, social media posts with implementation strategy, project briefs, infographics, profiles of public health professionals, curricula, bookmarks, and PowerPoint-style presentations.

This study was determined as exempt through the University of Michigan Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board (HUM00157405).

Results

Student projects included a variety of genres and are described in Table 1. All the partnerless publication projects were articles or blogs for student academic journals.

Table 1.

Types of Projects That Students Completed for the Real-World Writing Project.

Genre	Partnered	University blog	Partnerless publications
Blog-style article	3	66	7
Newsletter article	5		20
Other article	5
Report	7
Social media posts with strategy for implementation	10
Project brief	1
Profile of public health professional	2
Fact sheet	8
Infographic	1
Curriculum	1
Brochure	6
PowerPoint presentation	1
Large bookmark (with visuals and text)	1

Community Partner Survey Results

Overall, the community partners’ interactions with the students were positive. A total of 33 students were evaluated on their communication skills in the survey. Of those students, the partners rated 85% (n = 28) as having satisfactory communication with them (Figure 1A). Thirty-three students were also evaluated by community partners on their professionalism. The partners were satisfied with the professionalism of nearly all the students (94%; n = 31) who were evaluated (Figure 1A). The quality of 34 products created by students was also evaluated by partners who responded to the survey; partners were satisfied with the quality of nearly all the products (94%; n = 32; Figure 2A).

Figure 1.

The overall satisfaction with professional interactions by community partners and students. (A) Partner satisfaction with the clarity of their students’ communication (solid bars; n = 33) and satisfaction with the professionalism and courteousness of their student(s) (gradient bars; n = 33).^* (B) Student responses indicating the ease of working with their community partner (n = 49).

Figure 2.

The overall satisfaction with the final Real-World Writing Project products. Partner satisfaction with the final written products is represented by solid bars (n = 34)^* and students’ satisfaction is represented by gradient bars (n = 52).

Overall, partners indicated that the instructors provided clear instructions to them about the project (85%; n = 13 respondents). All partners were satisfied with the overall experience of working with the Real-World Writing Project (mean rating of 5.14 on 6-point Likert-type scale of 1 = extremely dissatisfied to 6 = extremely satisfied).

When asked what worked well during the semester, 10 community partners stated that they were pleased with student interactions. One community partner commented,

The students did a wonderful job with this project overall. They understood the project goals and objectives clearly, and all produced good final products. This is a great way for students to get exposure to the work local agencies are doing, and also a great way for agencies to partner with students and get value-add to their organizations given limited capacity.

Additionally, three respondents expressed satisfaction with the final products submitted to them; one respondent stated, “The end product was well developed and in our small non-profit, the time it took to develop this project would not have been possible with our limited staff,” and another, “I got a couple of good products to use.”

When partners were asked what could be done differently, three respondents indicated the need for more interaction time with students. With regard to more student interaction, one partner commented, “Would have been helpful for the student to visit the program they were writing about,” and another, “. . . emphasizing the importance of listening to the partner to make sure that the product, first and foremost, meets their needs.”

Student Survey Results

The students reported practicing several skills throughout the Real-World Writing project; the skills they used most included writing (96% of the respondents), deciding on relevant data to provide in their product (86%), and interpreting scientific data (54%). See Figure 3 for other skills often used by the students during the project.

Figure 3.

Skills students (n = 53) reported utilizing while engaging in their Real-World Writing Project (n = 174 total reported skills^*).

Student survey respondents mostly indicated that working with their community partner was “very easy” (84% of respondents; Figure 1B). The majority of student survey respondents were satisfied with the final written product they submitted to their community partner (94% of respondents reported that they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied; Figure 2).

The majority of students found the peer feedback from their classmates to be helpful (80% of respondents reported that this feedback was extremely or somewhat helpful; n = 41). Four students indicated that their peer review was not helpful. In addition to peer feedback, nearly all students responded that instructor feedback was helpful (94% of respondents; n = 50).

Student survey respondents were satisfied with the Real-World Writing Project as being beneficial to them versus a more traditional assignment (mean response of 8.0 [SD 2.3] on a sliding scale of 10, 10 representing the most satisfaction).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of a written assignment or series of assignments in the field of public health in which the instructors incorporated the seven recommended characteristics that yield more effective writing assignments for the student. The students who engaged in the Real-World Writing Project were satisfied with their experience of working with a community partner and with their final written product. The community partners also reported being satisfied with the final written products provided by the students as well as with the clear communication from students and instructors.

The applied nature of the Real-World Writing Project provides meaningful experiences for the students, instructors, and the community partners, and though we did not measure this directly, it could be implied by the satisfaction reported by students and community partners. As public health curricula evolve, there is a call to engage students in experiential opportunities (Drain et al., 2017; Pinahs-Schultz & Beck, 2016). Because students pair with a community partner on a written assignment that is intended to be used by that agency, the process of developing their product may be more meaningful for the student and represents a workflow that students may engage in once they enter the professional workforce.

Likewise, as instructors required students to create a written product for a real community partner, they anticipated that the majority of students would approach the process more thoughtfully than an assignment intended only for the instructor to read and assess. Instructors were aware that participating in the project prepares the students with professional skills required for the workforce, such as using good professional communication skills and implementing feedback (McIntyre et al., 2005; Wurdinger & Allison, 2017). Moving forward, as long as the process is straightforward with clear lines of communication, the community partners can only benefit from working with a student as they will provide a written product to the agency at no cost.

One of the seven characteristics of effective writing assignments recommends that they incorporate tasks that support writing development such as peer evaluation. To reflect this characteristic, the Real-World Writing Project assignment required peer evaluation on a draft of each student’s written product. Peer review was presented as a professional development opportunity; that is, even if the feedback was not helpful for a student’s writing draft, they still benefited from giving and receiving feedback (Klucevsek, 2016; Topping, 1998). During the peer evaluation process, the students also practiced active listening skills, reflected on what they think and do when they receive feedback, how they selectively choose which feedback to incorporate, and engaged in collaboration with their peers (van Gennip et al., 2010). Overall, more student writers rated the instructor feedback as helpful compared with the peer review, although many students did feel that peer review was helpful.

Lessons Learned

Some of the community partners indicated that better communication by the student/s could have facilitated a smoother work process. While communication guidelines were incorporated into class, such as template emails, more formal professional development instruction and practice could build the confidence and skills of students to communicate effectively with their community partners.

The instructors learned several things during the semester with regard to the logistics of the Real-World Writing Project that could be improved for future offerings. Although community partners and students were mostly satisfied with the communication about the project, being clearer about the process may have been helpful. The project needs to be spread over the entire semester to allow time for the multiple drafts required of the students. Spreading the project assignments across the semester means that it overlapped with other class projects, which students found frustrating. Clarity about the long-term nature of the project at the start of the semester and the reasons for this timing could help alleviate some of the students’ frustrations. The community partners would also benefit from more transparent expectations from the instructors of the tasks required from the partners upfront. For example, the instructors now provide an explicit week-by-week timeline with draft due dates and guidelines so that partners can appreciate why they are expected to provide feedback far in advance of product delivery and why the final product takes so long to produce.

Larger class sizes make it difficult for an instructor to identify an adequate amount of community partners for every student. Incorporating partnerless publication projects such as written submissions to journals for publication is an opportunity for students to develop an authentic product while allowing for greater project feasibility for large courses.

Finally, in the next offering of the Real-World Writing Project, pairing students working on similar projects (e.g., pairing two students who are both working on newsletter articles) may present the peer evaluation as a more credible experience in receiving feedback as the student dyads will have had relatable processes in their product development.

Limitations of Study

We only implemented this project in two classes at a single institution, and therefore the evaluations are not widely generalizable. Additionally, the survey did not capture the satisfaction and perceptions of the Real-World Writing Project assignment by project type because the evaluations were anonymous, which may have provided insights on specific issues related to the production of certain genres. Since we only implemented this in one year and are reporting evaluation data, there is no comparison group available to measure attainment in students’ skills, and similarly, there was no pre-assessment of the students with regard to their skills before starting the course. Finally, though partners did report being satisfied, the process is slow and therefore the products most suitable for this project are not time-sensitive.

Conclusions

The Real-World Writing Project is a model writing project for Public Health courses that incorporates the seven recommended characteristics for effective writing assignments (Anderson et al., 2020; August et al., 2019). Students who engaged in the assignment series reported using a variety of professional skills, and they were pleased, overall, with their final written products. Community partners were similarly satisfied with the experience, student interactions, and products. Partnerships between students and their community contacts allowed Public Health students to apply their skills to create a document used by public health–focused organizations, representative of work they may be involved in as a public health professional. Future work will include an evaluation of the project within graduate-level courses.

Supplemental Material

PHP928094_suppl_mat – Supplemental material for The Real-World Writing Project for Public Health Students: A Description and Evaluation

Supplemental material, PHP928094_suppl_mat for The Real-World Writing Project for Public Health Students: A Description and Evaluation by Olivia S. Anderson and Ella August in Pedagogy in Health Promotion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the University of Michigan Edward Ginsberg Center and Ms. Dana Thomas, Director of Public Health Practice at University of Michigan School of Public Health, who helped us recruit community partners. We are grateful to our community partners, including staff from Michigan Public Health’s The Pursuit, who partnered with many students for this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Olivia S. Anderson

Ella August

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online at .

References

Anderson

O. S.

Kardia

Gupta

August

. (2020). Are we teaching our students visual communication? Evaluation of writing assignments in public health. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 43(1), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2019.1698943

August

Burke

Fleischer

Trostle

(2019). Writing assignments in epidemiology courses: How many and how good? Public Health Reports, 134(4), 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354919849942

August

Trostle

J. A.

(2018). Using writing assignments to promote critical thinking, learning and professional identity: The epidemiology workplace writing repository. Journal of Public Health (Oxford), 40(3), e419–e422. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy011

Beard

(2018). Why we must teach writing to MPH students. https://www.bu.edu/sph/2018/03/23/why-we-must-teaching-writing-to-mph-students

Drain

P. K.

Mock

Toole

Rosenwald

Jehn

Csordas

Ferguson

Waggett

Obidoa

Wasserheit

J. N.

(2017). The emergence of undergraduate majors in global health: Systematic review of programs and recommendations for future directions. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 96(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0687

Galea

(2019). The language of public health. Boston University School of Public Health. 2015. https://www.bu.edu/sph/2016/11/06/the-language-of-public-health

Klucevsek

(2016). Transferring skills from classroom to professional writing: Student faculty peer review as an extension of cognitive apprenticeship. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(6), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i6.20077

Lang

T. A.

(2019). Who me? Ideas for faculty who never expected to be teaching public health students to write. Public Health Reports, 134(2), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354918821880

Laubinger

Quinn

Hildenbrand

Gibson

(2018). Health professions students expand public health knowledge and professional skills through internships with community organizations. In INTED2018 Proceedings (pp. 1950–1953). https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018

10.

Mackenzie

S. L. C.

(2018). Writing for public health: Strategies for teaching writing in a school or program of public health. Public Health Reports, 133(5), 614–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354918785374

11.

Mackenzie

S. L. C.

Hinchey

D. M.

Cornforth

K. P. A.

(2019). Public health service-learning capstone: Ideal for students, academia and community. Frontiers in Public Health, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00010

12.

McIntyre

Webb

Hite

(2005). Service learning in the marketing curriculum: Faculty views and participation. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2005.11488889

13.

Meredith

G. R. F.

Patchen

A. K.

Baker

A. Z.

(2020). Community engaged teaching, research and practice: A catalyst for public health improvement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 26(1). https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0026.106

14.

Pinahs-Schultz

Beck

(2016). Development and assessment of signature assignments to increase student engagement in undergraduate public health. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 2(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379915606454

15.

Topping

(1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249

16.

van Gennip

N. A. E.

Segers

M. S. R.

Tillema

H. H

. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010

17.

WAC Clearinghouse. (2019a). What is a WAC program? https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/programs/

18.

WAC Clearinghouse (2019b). What makes a good writing assignment? https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/wac/intro/assignments/

19.

Wurdinger

Allison

(2017). Faculty perceptions and use of experiential learning in higher education. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1309

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB