The authors describe a science communication training called “Decoding Science” and the steps taken to develop and assess program effectiveness. Evaluation is based on a triangulated framework involving feedback from graduate student trainees, faculty trainers, and ordinary citizens who are not specialists in the field. Three cohorts of graduate STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) students participated in the training in Spring 2016 (N = 18), Fall 2016 (N = 11), and Spring 2017 (N = 14). Analysis of these evaluations indicates significant improvements in trainees’ communication of science. We conclude that our triangulated approach can be useful in science communication training.
AlexanderH.WaldronA. M.AbellS. K. (2011). Science and me: A student-driven science outreach program for lay adult audiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(6), 28-34.
2.
AndersonC. B.LeeH. Y.Byars-WinstonA.BaldwinC. D.CameronC.ChangS. (2015). Assessment of scientific communication self-efficacy, interest, and outcome expectations for career development in academic medicine. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(1), 1-15.
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
4.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35, 56-85.
5.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2017). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach?International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7, 285-300.
6.
BenwareC. A.DeciE. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.
7.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.StorksdieckM. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220.
8.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.YuanS.Abi GhannamN. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38356-381.
9.
BesleyJ. C.TannerA. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33, 239-263.
10.
BlackP. J.AtkinJ. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London, England: Routledge.
11.
BlackP. J.WilliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-73.
12.
BrownellS. E.PriceJ. V.SteinmanL. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6-E10.
13.
BurnsT. S.O’ConnorD. J.StocklmayerS. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202.
14.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing, Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
15.
CarlsonR. E.Smith-HowellD. (1995). Classroom public speaking assessment: Reliability and validity of selected evaluation instruments. Communication Education, 44, 87-97.
ClarkG.RussellJ.EnyeartP.GraciaB.WesselA.JarmoskaiteI.. . . RouxS. (2016). Science educational outreach programs that benefit students and scientists. PLOS Biology, 14(2), e1002368.
18.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
19.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
CrooksT. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.
22.
DahlstromM. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13614-13620.
23.
DenzinN. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
24.
DerbaixC. (1995). The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertisement and the brand: A step toward ecological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 470-479.
25.
DilgerA. C.McKeithF. K. (2015). Training graduate students to communicate science to broad audiences. Animal Frontiers, 5(3), 60-63.
26.
DudoA. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501.
27.
DunwoodySNeuwirthK. (1991). Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risk judgments. In WilkinsL.PattersonP. (Eds.), Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy (pp. 11-30). New York, NY: Greenwood.
28.
FeldonD. F.MaherM. A.TimmermanB. E. (2010). Performance-based data in the study of STEM Ph.D. Education. Science, 329(16), 282-283.
29.
FischhoffB.ScheufeleD. A. (2013). The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14031-14032.
30.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
31.
GazianoC.McGrathK. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451-462.
32.
GoodwinJ.DahlstromJ. F. (2014). Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(1), 151-160.
33.
GoodwinJ.DahlstromM.KemisM.WolfC.HutchisonC. (2013). A preliminary report on the cases for teaching responsible communication of a science project. In GoodwinJ.DahlstromM. F.PriestS. (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach (pp. 71-79). Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.
34.
GriffinR. J.DunwoodyS.YangZ. J. (2013). Linking risk messages to information seeking and processing. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 323-362.
35.
HaleyE. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumers’ understandings of organization sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 19-35.
36.
HaugtvedtC. P.WegenerD. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 205-218.
37.
HeathK. D.BagleyE.BerkeyA. J. M.BirlenbachD. M.Carr-MarkellM. K.CrawfordJ. W.. . . WesselnC. J. (2014). Amplify the signal: Graduate training in broader impacts of scientific research. BioScience, 64, 517-523.
38.
JohnsonK. A.HamernikD. L. (2015). Science and society: Challenges of communicating science. Animal Frontiers, 5(3), 6-12.
39.
KahanD. M.PetersE.WittlinM.SlovicP.OuelletteL. L.BramanD.MandelG. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735.
40.
KolbA. Y.KolbD. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 193-212.
41.
LongneckerN. (2016). An integrated model of science communication: More than providing evidence. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), 1-13.
42.
LongneckerN.GondweM. (2014). Graduate degree programmes in science communication: Educating and training science communicators to work with communities. In Wee HinL. T.SubramaniamR. (Eds.), Communicating science to the public (pp. 141-160). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
43.
MacKenzieS. B.LutzR. J.BelchG. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 519-529.
44.
McGrawK. O.WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30-46.
45.
Mercer-MapstoneL.KuchelL. (2015). Teaching scientists to communicate: Evidence-based assessment for undergraduate science communication. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1613-1638.
46.
MezirowJ. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
47.
MillerS. (2009). So where’s the theory? On the relationship between science communication practice and research. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneN. R. J.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 275-287). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
48.
MillerS.FahyD., & The ESConet Team. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement: The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31, 116-126. doi:10.1177/1075547009339048
49.
MowbrayC.HolterM. C.TeagueG. B.BybeeD. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315-340.
50.
NeeleyL.GoldmanE.SmithB.BaronN.SunuS. (2014). Mapping the pathways to integrate science communication training into STEM graduate education. Seattle, WA: COMPASS.
51.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.
52.
O’DonnellC. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33-84.
53.
Ofen-NoyN.DudaiY.KarniA. (2003). Skill learning in mirror reading: How repetition determines acquisition. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 507-521.
54.
PegrumM.BartleE.LongneckerN. (2014). Can creative podcasting promote deep learning?British Journal of Educational Technology. 46, 142-152.
PlutchikR. (1980). Emotion: A pscychoevolutionary synthesis. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
57.
PriestS. (2014). Critical sense of science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, 138-145.
58.
RakedzonT.Baram-TsabariA. (2017). Synergy or interference in learning to write scientific genres: Assessing and improving L2 students’ popular science writing in an academic writing course. Educational Psychology, 37, 48-66.
59.
RodgersS. (2003). The effects of sponsor relevant on consumer reactions to Internet sponsorships. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 66-76.
60.
SchwarzerR.JerusalemM. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In WeinmanJ.WrightS.JohnstonM. (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio (pp. 35-37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.
61.
SilvaJ.BultitudeK. (2009). Best practices in communication training for public engagement with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Science Communication, 8(2), 1-13.
62.
TreiseD.WeigoldM. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23, 310-322.
63.
TrenchB. (2008). Towards an analytical framework for science communication models. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneN. R. J.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119-138). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
64.
TrenchB.MillerS. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39, 722-731.
65.
Van Der VegtG. S.BundersonJ. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.
66.
WardJ. R.ClarkeH. D.HortonJ. L. (2014). Effects of a research-infused botanical curriculum on undergraduates’ content knowledge, STEM competencies, and attitudes toward plant sciences. Life Sciences Education, 13, 387-396.
67.
WebbA. B.FetschC. R.IsraelE.RomanC. M.EncarnacionC. H.ZacksJ. M.. . . HerzogE. D. (2012). Training scientists in a science center improves science communication to the public. Advances in Physiological Education, 36, 72-76.
68.
WebbE. J.CampbellD. T.SchwartzR. D.SechrestL. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
69.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70.
