The research describes efforts toward developing a valid and reliable scale used to assess science communication training effectiveness (SCTE) undertaken in conjunction with a 4-year project funded by the National Science Foundation. Results suggest that the SCTE scale possesses acceptable psychometric properties, specifically reliability and validity, with regard to responses from graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. While it cannot be concluded that the SCTE scale is the “be-all-end-all” tool, it may assist investigators in gauging success of science communication training efforts and by identifying aspects of the program that are working or that need improving.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.
2.
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.
3.
AndersonC. B.LeeH. Y.Byars-WinstonA.BaldwinC. D.CameronC.ChangS. (2016). Assessment of scientific communication self-efficacy, interest, and outcome expectations for career development in academic medicine. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(1), 182-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714565780
4.
AndersonJ. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
5.
AshbyF. G.IsenA. M. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529-550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.3.529
6.
BanduraA. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
7.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2013). Assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35(1), 56-85. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473941618
10.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2016). Assessment. In Van der SandenM. C. A.de VriesM. (Eds.), Science and technology communication and education (pp. 163-185). Sense.
11.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2017a). Preparing scientists to be science communicators. In PatrickP. G. (Ed.), Preparing informal science educators (pp. 437-471). Springer International.
12.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2017b). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach?International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756
13.
Baram-TsabaraiA.OsborneJ. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21202
14.
BauerM.GregoryJ. (2007). From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In BauerM.BucciM. (Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations (pp. 33-51). Routledge.
15.
BeardenW. O.NetemeyerR. G.MobleyM. F. (1993). Handbook of marketing scales. Sage.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.StorksdieckM. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186
18.
BesleyJ. C.TannerA. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972
19.
BlumD.KnudsonM.Marantz HenigR. (2006). A field guide for science writers (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
20.
BrayB.FranceB.GilbertJ. K. (2012). Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say?International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627
21.
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. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000569
22.
BunceD. M.VandenPlasJ. R.NeilesK. Y.FlensE. A. (2010). Development of a valid and reliable student-achievement and process-skills instrument. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 50-55.
23.
BurnsT. S.O’ConnorD. J.StocklmayerS. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
24.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought listing technique. In MerluzziT. V.GlassC. R.GenestM. (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 309-342). Guilford Press.
25.
CameronC.LeeH. Y.AndersonC.Byars-WinstonA.BaldwinC. D.ChangS. (2015). The role of scientific communication skills in trainees’ intention to pursue biomedical research careers: A social cognitive analysis. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 14(4), Article 46. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0152
26.
ChristophR. T.SchoenfeldG. A.TanskyJ. W. (1998). Overcoming barriers to training utilization technology: The influence of self-efficacy factors on multimedia-based training receptiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920090104
27.
ClarkG.RussellJ.EnyeartP.GraciaB.WesselA.JarmoskaiteI.PolioudakisD.StuartY.GonzalezT.MacKrellA.RodenbuschS.StovallG. M.BeckhamJ. T.MontgomeryM.TasneemT.JonesJ.SimmonsS.RouxS. (2016). Science educational outreach programs that benefit students and scientists. PLOS Biology, 14(2), e1002368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002368
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 9(2), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
30.
DeciE. L.VallerandR. J.PelletierL. G.RyanR. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2025
31.
DeVellisR. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
32.
DudoA. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845
33.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). Psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
34.
FeldonD. F.MaherM. A.TimmermanB. E. (2010). Performance-based data in the study of STEM Ph.D. Education. Science, 329(16), 282-283. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191269
35.
FischhoffB.ScheufeleD. A. (2014). The science of science communication II. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A, 111(4), 13583-13584. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414635111
36.
GriffinR. J.DunwoodyS.ZhangZ. J. (2013). Linking risk messages to information seeking and processing. In SalmonC. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 36 (pp. 323-362). Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
37.
GriffinR. J.YangZ.HuurneE.BoernerF.OrtizS.DunwoodyS. (2008). After the flood: Anger, attribution and the seeking of information. Science Communication, 29(3), 285-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007312309
38.
HamernikD. L.JohnsonK. A. (2015). Communicating animal science to the public, policymakers, and students. Animal Frontiers, 5(3), 4-5. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2015-0024
39.
HaugtvedtC. P.PettyR. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308
40.
HaynesS. N.RichardD. C. S.KubanyE. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment. A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
HolsteinS. E.Mickley SteinmetzK. R.MilesJ. D. (2015). Teaching science writing in an introductory lab course. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 13(2), A101-A109.
43.
HryciwD. H.DantasA. M. (2016). Scaffolded research-based learning for the development of scientific communication in undergraduate physiology students. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 24(1), 1-11.
LentR. W.LopezA. M.Jr.LopezF. G.SheuH. B. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.002
46.
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). Springer.
47.
LuisiM. L.RodgersS.SchultzJ. C. (2019). Experientially learning how to communicate science effectively: A case study on decoding science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(8), 1135-1152. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21554
48.
MathieuJ. E.MartineauJ. W.TannenbaumS. I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implication for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 125-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00870.x
49.
MillerS.FahyD., & The ESConet Team (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009339048
NewmanT. P. (Ed.). (2019). Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
53.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
54.
NoblittL.VanceD. E.SmithL. D. (2010). A comparison of case study and traditional teaching methods for improvement of oral communication and critical-thinking skills. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 26-32.
55.
O’LearyS.AbbaspourP. (2015). LCphysX: Teaching undergraduate physics majors multi-media science communication skills for public outreach. In Eblen-ZayasM.BehringerE.KozminskiJ. (Eds.), 2015 Conference on Laboratory Instruction Beyond the First Year (pp. 72-75). AAPT Advanced Labs. https://doi.org/10.1119/bfy.2015.pr.018
56.
PeterrmanK.Robertson EviaJ.CloydE.BesleyJ. (2017). Assessing public engagement outcomes by the use of an outcome expectations scale for scientists. Science Communication, 39(6), 782-797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017738018
57.
PettyR. E.PriesterJ. R.WegenerD. T. (1994). Cognitive processes in attitude change. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 69-142). Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
PintrichP. R.SmithD. A.GarciaT.McKeachieW. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
59.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29(2), 242-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
60.
RenningerK. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In SansoneC.HarackiewiczJ. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 373-404). Academic Press.
61.
Robertson EviaJ.PetermanK.CloydE.BesleyJ. (2018). Validating a scale that measures scientists’ self-efficacy for public engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(1), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1377852
62.
RodariP.WeitkampE. (2015). Short training courses in science communication. Why? To whom? What?Journal of Science Communication, 14(4), Article E. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.14040501
63.
RodgersS.WangZ.MarasM. A.BurgoyneS.BalakrishnanB.StemmleJ.SchultzJ. C. (2018). Decoding science: Development and evaluation of a science communication training program using a triangulated framework. Science Communication, 40(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017747285
64.
RosenbergM. (1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books.
65.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.FreemanH. E. (2003). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage.
66.
RussellJ. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
SaksA. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 221-225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.211
69.
SchwarzerR.JerusalemM. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In WeinmanJ.WrightS.JohnstonM. (Eds.) Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio (pp. 35-37). NFER-NELSON.
70.
SilvaJ.BultitudeK. (2009). Best practice in communications training for public engagement with science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Communication, 8(2), A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.08020203
71.
StocklmayerS. M.RennieL. J. (2017). The attributes of informal science education: A science communication perspective. In PatrickP. G. (Ed.), Preparing informal science educators (pp. 527-544). Springer.
72.
ThompsonL.BlankinshipL. A. (2015). Teaching information literacy skills to sophomore-level biology majors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 16(1), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.818
73.
TrenchB.MillerS. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722-731. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs090
74.
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. CBE: Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0231
WoolfolkA.HughesM.WallupV. (2008). Psychology in education. Lowman.
77.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1943.10673459
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.
