){kind=logo}
){kind=icon}
){kind=logo}
){kind=icon}
Unfortunately, many college students face significant challenges when expressing their ideas using academic writing requirements. Frequently, they work without a clear purpose, articulate ideas weakly, use decontextualized information, and apply the rules of citation and reference deficiently. All this significantly impacts on the quality of the texts produced and the ability of future professionals to access and transform their disciplinary knowledge. Confronted with this scenario, the primary challenge for teachers is to propose pedagogical strategies that enable students to develop writing and research skills in an integrated and meaningful manner.
Thus, academic literacy must provide a framework for action for the educational community to promote literacy practices in a model that strengthens students’ skills in disciplinary communication. In this sense, the letter to the editor is an innovative academic writing tool that facilitates students’ interaction with research as readers and writers. This article examines how the letter-to-editor strategy promotes active learning, enhances critical thinking, and contributes to developing research competencies. With this, our students will produce and disseminate knowledge in a more reflective and committed manner.
Rethinking the teaching of writing in the first university years
Various studies, such as the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (OECD, 2024), have highlighted the concerning situation of students in their first university years, reporting a decline in their literacy level, for which a higher level of education does not always guarantee better skills and knowledge. Regarding writing, the research carried out by Chanamé et al. (2021) found that university students’ academic work has several deficiencies, including a lack of coherence and cohesion of ideas, inadequate grammatical and recording skills, difficulties in identifying reliable sources, poor planning, and the selection of inappropriate strategies. This situation reflects a structural problem in the university environment, as writing is not always approached as a formative and transversal process, which can consequently result in students experiencing much uncertainty.
Academic literacy, particularly in writing, has been gaining traction in higher education in response to this issue. Hilsdon et al. (2019) emphasize viewing writing as a social practice, inseparable from the development of academic content, and urge commitment to the intellectual, critical, and transformative value of writing, approaching it as a formative learning process and dialogue between students and teachers. In practice, however, some difficulties hinder this literacy development. Navarro and Montes (2021) reveal that students encounter the most challenging discursive genres (theses, reports, scientific articles) at the end of their degree and that they often develop these skills independently through trial and error. Therefore, the need arises to implement didactic strategies in the first training cycles that enable students to acquire the codes of written culture while developing their research skills.
Some specialists have championed the potential of the “letter to the editor” in formative research, as it is a brief communication that requires rigor and clarity to present scientific information effectively (Pedrós et al., 2007; Lozada-Martínez, 2022). Similarly, Castro-Rodríguez (2021) notes that the letter to the editor’s simple structure makes it a deserving didactic strategy, facilitating students’ entry into the world of research by allowing them to master writing, critical reading, and analysis skills that prepare them to produce more complex academic texts. This proposal suggests that the significant advantage of implementing the letter to the editor as an innovative strategy for teaching writing derives from its appropriation of academic language and empowerment of students to become producers of knowledge.
Didactic experience with the letter to the editor: design, process, and results
This study implemented the “letter to the editor” strategy within the framework of a general studies course to develop research competency in undergraduate university students. This experience occurred in the subject “Historical Training of Peru,” which focused on strengthening academic writing skills. The students recognized the importance of research but expressed difficulties in producing a scientific text within the short course period. They were also unaware of the Vancouver regulations, which standardize references and citations, especially in health sciences.
The Schema-Based Learning methodology (SBL) was employed to facilitate the process. The premise of this approach follows the principle of relational proximity, which states that schemas activate relevant mental structures that help interpret unknown situations based on generalized knowledge (Corbacho, 1998; Lee & Seel, 2012). Using representative examples of successful task completion helps students’ structure and relate new knowledge meaningfully in pedagogical practice. The students worked in pairs. They were free to choose a topic if it was relevant to the profile of their disciplinary career.
Additionally, students utilized technological resources, such as Zotero and institutional repositories, for searching and selecting sources, as well as checklists and rubrics as evaluation instruments. Their final products were reviewed with Turnitin to ensure their originality. This experience was replicated for postgraduate students with a second specialty in University Didactics.
In both cases, the results showed a significant improvement in the students’ ability to propose a line of argument, locate and utilize current scientific information, and communicate their results by editorial standards. (Note that the final goal of the didactic proposal was not the publication of the letters to the editor, although some did evidence that potential.) Moreover, formative evaluation included continuous feedback, which facilitated the identification of students’ difficulties or gaps and the application of timely adjustments. The students highlighted that the experience allowed them to understand the academic writing process more deeply and within a specified timeframe. They also mentioned feeling more confident in their research and critical analysis skills. However, they identified areas for improvement, such as the need to provide better guidance on using generative artificial intelligence programs and to enhance support for the critical review of sources. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was promoted for the planning stage to ensure coherence of the objective, topic, and subtopics; however, it was observed that, in some cases, students used it during the drafting phase, which contradicted the evaluation guidelines.
Implementing the letter to the editor as a didactic strategy in the early stages of undergraduate and postgraduate studies allows us to affirm that academic writing can be approached more accessibly and meaningfully when integrated with active learning processes. This experience clarified that providing a clear structure and continuous guidance helps students improve their writing skills and strengthens their ability to analyze information critically and base arguments on scientific evidence. Moreover, using digital tools (Zotero, Google Drive, databases, and institutional repositories) and teamwork facilitated the search and management of information, bringing students closer to the real practices of academic research. Likewise, timely feedback through formative assessment became crucial for adjusting the process to students’ particular needs and ensuring more profound and reflective learning.
Reflection
Beyond its achievements, this proposal highlights the importance of rethinking didactic strategies in higher education to address the challenges faced by the student community, considering twenty-first-century competencies. The letter to the editor, being a concise yet rigorous and discursive configuration, serves as an alternative to initiate students in their disciplinary fields through an integrated process of research and academic writing. However, it is also necessary to pay closer attention to the activity planning process to anticipate problems, such as the division of tasks within work teams and the unethical use of AI. Ultimately, this experience underscores the importance of pedagogical innovation in training processes, where dialogue, reflection, and continuous support are essential elements for sustained learning.
We invite university faculty to implement the “letter to the editor” strategy to strengthen their students’ writing and research skills. Additionally, sharing their experiences will help identify the strengths and limitations of the proposal, as well as explore lines of research to enhance its effectiveness, thereby enriching the academic dialogue.
About the Authors
Gricelda Lizarraga Halanocca (gricelda.lizarraga@upn.edu.pe) holds a master’s degree in education specializing in Didactics of Reading and Writing. She is currently a professor in the Department of Humanities at the Universidad Privada del Norte (Peru).
Carmen Rosario Almeyda Barzola (calmeydab@cientifica.edu.pe) holds a master’s degree in Higher Education and a second specialty in University Didactics. She is a professor at the Scientific University of the South (Peru).
References
Castro-Rodríguez, Y. (2021). La carta al editor en la publicación científica. Consideraciones para su elaboración. Odontoestomatología, 23(37), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.22592/ode2021n37a5
Chanamé, R., Valle, S. M., & López, O. (2021). Limitaciones en la escritura académica en los estudiantes universitarios: revisión sistemática. Revista PAIAN, 12(1), 17-31. https://www.semanticscholar.org/reader/dc1a9a26ac582bf6a1a97ce9e6be962fc4813337
Corbacho, F. (1998). Schema-based learning. Artificial Intelligence, 101(1-2), 337-339, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00029-0
Hilsdon, J., Malone, C., & Syska, A. (2019). Academic literacies twenty years on: a community-sourced literature review. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (15). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.v0i15.567
Lee, J., Seel, N.M. (2012). Schema-Based Learning. En Seel, N.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 2946-2949). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1663
Lozada-Martínez, I. D. (2022). Carta al Editor: Herramienta para la iniciación científica del estudiante de medicina. Acta Neurológica Colombiana, 38(3), 182-283. https://actaneurologica.com/index.php/anc/article/view/1124
Navarro, F. & Montes, S. (2021). Los desafíos de la escritura académica: concepciones y experiencias de estudiantes graduados en seis áreas de conocimiento. Onomázein, 54, 179-202. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8283260
OCDE (2024), ¿Tienen los adultos las habilidades que necesitan para prosperar en un mundo cambiante?: Encuesta sobre habilidades de los adultos 2023. Estudios de habilidades de la OCDE, Publicaciones de la OCDE. https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en
Pedrós Pérez, G., Martínez Jiménez, M. P., & Varo Martínez, M. (2007). La sección de cartas al editor: Un planteamiento científico y social en la didáctica de las ciencias. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 25(2), 195-204. https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/87872
Editing
Edited by Rubí Román (rubi.roman@tec.mx) – Editor of the Edu bits articles and producer of The Observatory webinars- “Learning that inspires” – Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education at Tec de Monterrey.
Translation
Daniel Wetta
){kind=icon}
){kind=icon}
This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 
