science based communication assignment

• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Association of Science Communicators

Giving science a voice.

Search Association of Science Communicators

Practical science communication exercises for the classroom.

Jun 3, 2021 · Sheeva Azma & Nidhi Parekh

This resource was featured in  How Science Communication Can Improve Your Career  on Neuronline.  Visit today  to read more.

We’ve previously blogged for Science Talk about  how to lecture about science communication . In this post, we’ll talk about practical science communication exercises that educators can use, and discuss a few do’s and don’ts in undertaking these exercises in the classroom.

Here are a few examples of science communication exercises

• Layperson summaries of science papers — we like calling them “News and Views.”  Students can summarize a scientific paper’s main points in a few easy-to-understand sentences. To do this, they should only provide as much detail as needed to explain the topic. They should explain the concepts in the paper at the level of someone unfamiliar with the topic who has no formal science training.
• Social media exercises.  Social media is increasingly becoming a source of information, including emerging insights from the scientific community. Your students can  write a tweet  about a paper, summarizing the main takeaway(s) in 280 characters or less. We’ve found that our students were surprisingly good at this task! If your students would like to communicate their science on Instagram, try to get them to explain their study within the 2,200 character limit. Our suggestion is to let your students decide their platform for their science communication.
• Science art.  Alternatively, if they are interested in creating scientific art, they can use this exercise to create accordingly. There’s so many ways to use a creative medium to express scientific concepts: knitting, drawing, illustrations, singing, etc. Try not to limit your students’ way of expression. Need inspiration? Here are a few examples: Sheeva’s favorite science art is the  brainbow  from the Harvard Center of Brain Science, which actually originated from the need to track different brain cells or neurons, by labeling each with a different color. We both love fellow science communicator Raven the Science Maven, who puts out  science-themed music videos . There’s also  a great needlepoint  of supernova remnant Cas-A.
• Writing a paper critique meant for a general audience.  Often, in the science world, papers that are hot off the press are fraught with controversy. An important SciComm skill is to be able to use critical thinking skills to explain why a scientific paper might not be all it’s purporting to be.
• Explaining a complex science topic as one might to friends and family.  Exercises in which students explain scientific concepts to friends and family can be useful to improve science communication skills. We learned in the COVID-19 pandemic that verbal SciComm skills are useful. Talking to people about the science of COVID-19 vaccines can help  dispel vaccine hesitancy . Anyone with a science background can help improve science literacy among the general population by exercising science communication skills. For example, Nidhi’s family had so many questions about the science of COVID-19 that she published various  COVID-19 explainers .
• Doing role-playing to explain a complex science topic to policymakers.  Policymakers are not scientists, but the work they do often occurs at the intersection of society — think agriculture, healthcare, environmental policy, even providing federal funding for both biomedical and basic science. As a result, our lawmakers need someone to explain science to them in order for them to make effective policies. As Sheeva has written before, a neglected aspect of scientific training is  the policy aspect of science communication . So, students can practice their SciComm skills by role-playing interactions with their lawmakers, which can culminate in drafting emails to policymakers about various topics in science, or even picking up the phone and calling their members of Congress (or the relevant lawmaking body in your country, if you are not based in the United States).
• Engage in “science storytelling.”  Stories are a convenient way to communicate, and have been used throughout history. Science can also tell a story. Encourage your students to engage in storytelling using the 5 W’s — what is happening, who is the focus of the story, when and where is the story taking place, and why is it important to the listener or reader?
• Improvise.  Check out the  PLoS SciComm blog’s discussion  of using improvisation in the classroom to improve science communication teaching. If you ask your class an open-ended question, and they provide an answer, continue the conversation using concepts from improv. Say “yes, and” before adding your own information to the mix. The  four C’s of improv  are “creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and communication,” which are also foundational in SciComm.
• Use technology.  Video recordings are a great way to capture oral science communication, as  Ponzio and colleagues  report from their SciComm communication endeavors at Rutgers University. It’s easy to record an oral SciComm presentation on one’s smartphone for feedback from oneself and one’s colleagues. If your students are not comfortable on camera, consider suggesting creating animations of science concepts.
• Leverage outreach opportunities as ways to improve SciComm.  Outreach opportunities, such as teaching science to K-12 students or doing a science demo at a museum, can be a great way for students to gain hands-on science communication experience. While outreach has traditionally been a foundational aspect of most graduate training programs in science, these experiences are rarely leveraged in terms of their ability to improve students’ SciComm skills. ​

​What exercises have you used in the classroom to successfully teach SciComm? What has worked, and what hasn’t worked? Feel free to chime in below in the comments!

Pitch & Contribute

A science blog co-editors.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Apply to Teach a Course

Thank you for your interest in teaching a course within the Science Talk community! Courses taught by Science Talk community members for community members will enable easier dissemination of science communication best-practices, and help scicomm grow as a profession. We want to help this community thrive, and are glad you are a part of it.

In offering courses, Science Talk provides the platform for organizing your course & registering students, course support, and access & marketing to our community of science communicators. We charge for course registrations and split net revenue from registrations on a 50:50 basis with instructors. All course IP remains the property of the instructor. We hope this arrangement will help support facilitators in our community in their work, and also support the growth of our organization & community.

Please, complete the form below. We will use this information to assess the proposed course for inclusion in our catalog of offerings. We review proposals on an ongoing basis, and will get back to you soon!

Science Talk is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization (Tax ID: 82-2076772). We are a volunteer-run organization and depend entirely on donors and sponsors for operational support. Donate now .

• Conferences

PWR91NSC: Introduction to Science Communication

Main navigation.

With the growing impact of science and technology on our world, the need for communicating that science well has never been greater. But what is effective and inclusive science communication? Is it ever ok to use jargon? Is it ok to say "I" in my research report? How do I communicate complex topics in simple, but accurate, ways?

In this course, we will explore the variety of formats that science communication can take--from technical research papers on particle physics to children's books about genetics to climate art depicting climate change impacts. We will explore how different audiences shape the way science is communicated, and we will develop a set of best practices for effective science communication. Students will then apply these strategies in their own science communication projects. Prerequisite: PWR 1 or its equivalent.

Main Assignments

•   Genre Analysis Discussion/Activity Leading:  Coordinating with 2-3 other students, you will design and lead class discussion and activities to facilitate our investigation of different science communication genres, helping us to understand the rhetorical situations they have evolved to address and to consider their characteristic forms, techniques, successes, and challenges.
•   Literature Review:  You will produce a literature review — a technical, written overview that draws from the existing literature — on a topic of your choice. You will pitch your topics early in the quarter and create a figure to accompany your review. Students in the past have written on topics such as: Google DeepMind and using gaming as a sandbox for AI development, tuberculosis in Tibetan refugee populations, and how visual prostheses and retinal implants could cure blindness.
•   Public Audience Text:  You will distill your technical literature review for a non-specialist audience. You can choose the medium/genre you want to work with, either written or non-written (podcast, video, infographic, etc.). For example, students in previous classes have produced magazine-style articles, short science fiction stories, podcasts, recorded presentations, and video animations.

Catalog Number:  PWR 91NSC

Prerequisite:  WR-1 requirement or the permission of instructor

Grade option:  Letter (ABCD/NP)

Course Feature:  Science Communication Track. This course does not fulfill the WR-1 or WR-2 Requirement

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Establishing a baseline of science communication skills in an undergraduate environmental science course

Rashmi shivni, christina cline, morgan newport, shupei yuan, heather e bergan-roller.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

Received 2020 Aug 17; Accepted 2021 Jul 2; Issue date 2021.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Seminal reports, based on recommendations by educators, scientists, and in collaboration with students, have called for undergraduate curricula to engage students in some of the same practices as scientists—one of which is communicating science with a general, non-scientific audience (SciComm). Unfortunately, very little research has focused on helping students develop these skills. An important early step in creating effective and efficient curricula is understanding what baseline skills students have prior to instruction. Here, we used the Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework to survey the SciComm skills of students in an environmental science course in which they had little SciComm training.

Our analyses revealed that, despite not being given the framework, students included several of the 13 elements, especially those which were explicitly asked for in the assignment instructions. Students commonly targeted broad audiences composed of interested adults, aimed to increase the knowledge and awareness of their audience, and planned and executed remote projects using print on social media. Additionally, students demonstrated flexibility in their skills by slightly differing their choices depending on the context of the assignment, such as creating more engaging content than they had planned for.

Conclusions

The students exhibited several key baseline skills, even though they had minimal training on the best practices of SciComm; however, more support is required to help students become better communicators, and more work in different contexts may be beneficial to acquire additional perspectives on SciComm skills among a variety of science students. The few elements that were not well highlighted in the students’ projects may not have been as intuitive to novice communicators. Thus, we provide recommendations for how educators can help their undergraduate science students develop valuable, prescribed SciComm skills. Some of these recommendations include helping students determine the right audience for their communication project, providing opportunities for students to try multiple media types, determining the type of language that is appropriate for the audience, and encouraging students to aim for a mix of communication objectives. With this guidance, educators can better prepare their students to become a more open and communicative generation of scientists and citizens.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40594-021-00304-0.

Keywords: Science communication, Environmental science, Undergraduate, Content analysis, Baseline skills

Introduction

Scientists engage in a number of practices in their pursuit of understanding. Having students participate in these same practices—and as early as possible—is vital in fostering future generations of scientists and developing a scientifically literate society (ACARA, 2012 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; American Chemical Society, 2015 ; Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, 2016 ; NGSS Lead States, 2013 ). One such practice is effective science communication.

Science communication can take many forms and is typically grouped into one of two types depending on the target audience—either a scientific audience or a non-scientific, general audience. While both types of audience-oriented communication are important for scientists and students, the focus of this study is on communicating science with non-experts (abbreviated as SciComm). In the current study, we describe SciComm as the use of appropriate media, messages, or activities to exchange information or viewpoints of science opinion or scientific information with non-experts. Depending on the goal of SciComm, it can be used for “fostering greater understanding of science and scientific methods or gaining greater insight into diverse public views and concerns about the science related to a contentious issue” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 2017a , p. 14).

SciComm is an important scientific practice that benefits both scientists and the public. With effective SciComm, the public learns about foundational and modern scientific understanding that can guide personal and societal decisions. Additionally, the public can appreciate the credibility of scientists and the scientific process to trust scientific consensus even if the scientific content is not easily understood. Communication also allows scientists to recruit more people to engage with science as well as to collaborate and learn about issues in need of more research.

As such, scientists are being encouraged to engage in SciComm by their scientific communities and the public (Cicerone, 2006 ; Department of Science and Technology, 2014 ; European Commission, 2002 ; Jia & Liu, 2014 ; Leshner, 2007 ; National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, 1989 ; Royal Society (Great Britain) & Bodmer, 1985 ), as well as combat the spread of misinformation (Scheufele & Krause, 2019 ). Additionally, surveyed scientists report viewing themselves as important components in societal decision-making (Besley & Nisbet, 2013 ) and commonly communicate with the public (Hamlyn et al., 2015 ; Rainie et al., 2015 ). Moreover, support and focus for more effective SciComm across STEM fields has grown. For example, researchers have investigated how to communicate engineering issues and technological perspectives of science, such as genetic engineering (Blancke et al., 2017 ; Kolodinsky, 2018 ), nanotechnology (Castellini et al., 2007 ), and artificial intelligence (Nah et al., 2020 ).

A pertinent example of scientists practicing effective SciComm was seen throughout the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, where technical experts in virology, epidemiology, data science, etc. took to social media and news media to produce and disseminate evidence-based, accurate health protocols and information about the novel coronavirus (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), 2020 ). During major events, such as the pandemic, scientists are responsible for an important role in communicating emerging science with the public to ease fears, inform decisions, encourage engagement, and give hope to the future.

Because SciComm is an important practice for scientists, it is also essential that undergraduate science students engage with SciComm (Brownell et al., 2013b ). All college students are expected to become proficient in interpersonal skills, including communication (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 2017b ), and this is expressly true for students in STEM fields including biology (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ), chemistry (American Chemical Society, 2015 ), physics (Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, 2016 ), engineering (Eichhorn et al., 2010 ; Riemer, 2007 ), technology (Bielefeldt, 2014 ), and math (Saxe & Braddy, 2015 ).

Environmental science is an important context in which to study SciComm skills because it is transdisciplinary—at the intersection of biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences. Seminal documents in biology (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Clemmons et al., 2020 ), chemistry (American Chemical Society, 2015 ), and physics (Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, 2016 ) have explicitly stated the need for helping students develop science communication skills. These seminal documents are being used across the sciences to inform curricula and are relevant in guiding curricula and research in environmental science education. Additionally, environmental science encompasses some vital topics relevant to all of society (e.g., climate change) and thus students learning about these important topics should also be learning about how to share that information with the public. Helping a wide range of students develop science communication skills may help students understand scientific concepts, the process of science, and the skills to engage with science after they are out of school regardless of whether they pursue science-related careers. These outcomes are essential in promoting the science literacy of our students and citizens.

Conceptual framework

When aiming to help students develop skills, it is an important first step to operationalize those skills. In the context of undergraduate life sciences, the 2011 Vision and Change report broadly defined the skills, labeled as core competencies, students should develop in their undergraduate programs (AAAS, 2011 ). Clemmons et al. ( 2020 ) unpacked these core competencies into program- and course-level outcomes. Regarding communication, they define that students should be able to “share ideas, data, and findings with others clearly and accurately”; “Use appropriate language and style to communicate science effectively to targeted audiences (e.g., the general public, biology experts, collaborators in other disciplines)”; and “Use a variety of modes to communicate science (e.g., oral, written, visual).” We expanded those definitions, using evidence-based practices and principles of science communication, to define the key elements of SciComm that are appropriate for undergraduate science students. The resulting Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework (Wack et al., 2021 ) adapts skills and concepts from the literature (Besley et al., 2018 ; Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2017 ) and organizes them into four strategic categories of storytelling: “who,” “why,” “what,” and “how” (Fig. 1 ). The full framework is available in Wack et al. ( 2021 ).

Overview of the Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework (adapted from Wack et al., 2021 ). Elements are organized into interrelated strategic categories of who, why, what, and how. The element of purpose is broken down into important SciComm objectives as defined by Besley et al. ( 2018 )

The framework is further broken down into 13 elements that are organized under these four categories, which we used to assess the students’ baseline SciComm skills. As shown in Fig. 1 , the four categories overlap to represent the interrelated nature of the 13 elements. In order to create effective and cohesive SciComm, each element must be considered in relation to the others. Briefly, we describe the categories and the elements they encompass below.

The elements for who science students should communicate science with include identifying and understanding a suitable target audience and considering the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience. The elements for why science students should communicate science include identifying the purpose and intended outcome of the communication; this element is expanded upon by the important SciComm objectives defined by Besley et al. ( 2018 )—including to increase knowledge and awareness, boost interest and excitement, listen and demonstrate openness, prove competence, reframe issues, impart shared values, and convey warmth and respect. Further, science students should understand the theories of science communication and why science communication is important. The elements of what science students should communicate include focusing on narrow, factual content and situating that content in a relevant context that is sensitive to social, political, and cultural factors. Finally, the elements for how science students should communicate science includes encouraging a two-way dialogue with the audience, promoting audience engagement with the science, using appropriate language, choosing a mode and platform to reach the target audience, and adding stylistic elements (e.g., humor, anecdotes, analogies, metaphors, rhetoric, imagery, narratives, and trying to appeal to multiple senses). See Wack et al. ( 2021 ) for the full framework.

The EEES framework was originally used to guide the development of a lesson for undergraduate biology students in an introductory lab (Wack et al., 2021 ). This framework is relevant here because, while biology is only a portion of the course context in this study (i.e., environmental science), this framework was developed to be broadly applicable to any science students in undergraduate programs. Also, the framework describes the best practices for communicating science; through the lens of the backward design process (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005 ), these best practices can be thought of as learning objectives. Therefore, it is appropriate to then assess student work with the same framework.

Baseline skills

After operationalizing competencies to provide a clear picture of what instructors should help their students attain, it is also important to understand what baseline skills students have at the start of a lesson; that way, a curriculum can be tailored to skim through honed skills and emphasize weaker skills. Identifying baseline skills, therefore, makes helping students learn these skills as efficiently and effectively as possible (Novak, 2010 ; Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007 ). A similar argument is well-established in the context of helping students achieve conceptual understanding with the literature on prior knowledge (e.g., Ausubel, 2012 ; Bergan-Roller et al., 2018 ; Binder et al., 2019 ; Lazarowitz & Lieb, 2006 ; National Research Council (U.S.) & Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools., 2002 ; Tanner & Allen, 2005 ; Upadhyay & DeFranco, 2008 ); however, assessing skills before a lesson is less commonly discussed in the literature, which we designate as baseline skills .

Assessment is required to identify students’ skills, including their baseline skills. However, to our knowledge, there is very little literature that provides insight into the assessment of undergraduate science students on science communication skills. Kulgemeyer and Schecker ( 2013 ) examined how students communicate science in the limited context of older secondary students communicating physics phenomena to younger students. In another study, Kulgemeyer ( 2018 ) went further by testing older secondary students on audience-oriented SciComm best practices and found that those with more SciComm experience, or more developed baseline skills, were better at discerning an audience’s needs for particular SciComm content than students who had less experience with SciComm but were quite knowledgeable about the content. Other studies related to students and SciComm have measured application of SciComm knowledge with closed-response quiz questions (Wack et al., 2021 ), perceptions and confidence in communicating science (Brownell et al., 2013a ), the value of SciComm (Edmondston et al., 2010a ), and perceptions of SciComm skills (Yeoman et al., 2011 ); but they have not assessed how students demonstrate SciComm skills. More work needs to be done to assess how students communicate science in a variety of contexts (e.g., disciplines, audiences, level of the student) in order to establish a generalized baseline of skills from which to build an effective curriculum.

In this descriptive study, we surveyed baseline SciComm skills of students in an undergraduate environmental science course in order to inform instructors and curriculum designers on how to help similar science students develop SciComm skills. We took an exploratory, qualitative approach to investigate the following research questions:

RQ1- How did these students demonstrate their SciComm skills according to the EEES framework?

RQ2- How did the way these students planned their SciComm compare to how they executed their SciComm projects?

RQ3- Did instructions influence the SciComm skills that these students demonstrated?

We conducted an exploratory case study according to VanWynsberghe and Khan ( 2007 ); our unit of analysis was students’ SciComm skills and our case was one undergraduate environmental science course in which the students demonstrated their baseline skills with a project that included planning and executing a SciComm product.

Study context

The study was conducted at a large 4-year, doctoral-granting, regional comprehensive university in the Midwestern United States with students enrolled in an environmental science course. This course focused on the functioning of ecosystems, the patterns of biological diversity, the processes that influence those patterns over space and time, and how human activities can disrupt those processes. The course included a SciComm project, which we used for this research; however, SciComm was not a focus of the course. Students did not receive formal training on the underlying theories or practices of SciComm relevant to the EEES framework or otherwise; and we did not gather background information on whether students had knowledge from elsewhere to apply to their SciComm projects. We saw this as a unique opportunity to obtain a baseline of SciComm skills.

Study participants were recruited by one author attending a class period early in the semester, describing the study, and asking for their explicit consent. The entire class was given the opportunity to participate in the study, of which 32 (65%) consented. Students were assigned to plan and execute SciComm products, which we analyzed for this research. From the consenting students, 27 plans and 21 products were available for this research. All names listed herein are pseudonyms. Demographics for each of these populations are shown in Table 1 and the result show that they are equivalent. Generally, the samples consisted of more females than males. Most of the students were White/non-Hispanic, juniors, and 18–25 years old. About one-third of the students were first-generation college students and two-thirds were transfer students. Cumulative GPAs averaged 3.1 to 3.3 (with standard deviations of 0.9). The demographics of these students are typical for the university and major, as well as for undergraduate biology students throughout the USA—as compared to data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (Data USA, 2018 ).

Demographic information from the consenting students and their coursework (plans and products) included in this research

Numbers represent students in each category of consenting students and the student plans and products that were available for this research

As a regular part of the course, students were assigned a project to communicate science with a general, non-scientific audience. Their projects included having students submit a plan to the instructor, who gave individual feedback, and then execute their plan in what we call their product. Assignment instructions and rubric, which were provided to the students when the project was assigned, are available in supplemental materials S 1 and S 2 , respectively. Students were given creative freedom to communicate scientific content—using any means such as presentations, social media, and blogging—to a specific audience of their choosing. The instructions required the students to interact with an audience from the public. Though the assignment was developed solely by the instructor (the researchers and the framework were not a part of the assignment design), there was some overlap with the EEES framework that was explicitly mentioned in the assignment.

Data sources

Several course artifacts and student demographics were collected for this research (Table 1 ). Students’ plans and products were collected to identify which elements of the framework they included as evidence of their baseline skills. The students’ final products are available through the figshare data repository (Bergan-Roller & Yuan, 2021 ). Additionally, we collected the assignment instructions and rubric (supplemental materials S 1 and S 2 ) to identify which elements of the framework were included in order to provide insight into the possible influence that instruction can have on the students’ demonstration of skills. However, we did not analyze the individualized feedback given by the instructor after students submitted their plans as we focused on students’ skills in aggregate.

The plans, products, assignment instructions, and rubric were imported into qualitative software (NVIVO) and analyzed using content analysis which describes the themes in artifacts such as coursework (Neuendorf, 2017 ). First, we conducted a priori thematic analysis by coding for the presence or absence of each of the elements of the EEES framework (codebook provided in Supplemental Materials S 3 ). Three elements were not observable in the products (purpose, prior knowledge, and theory). After the presence of elements was identified, student plans and products underwent further thematic analysis to identify themes in how students addressed the elements of the framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). An excerpt of an example product is presented in Fig. 2 with a description of how it was coded in the figure caption. To ensure the reliability of the codes, two of the authors co-coded all the data. The initial agreement was 83%. All dissimilar codes were discussed to a consensus, and the codebook was revised to clarify the codes. The final codebook is available in supplemental materials S 3 .

Example product from student Zoe. This product was coded to include the following elements with the types and levels indicated in parentheses: audience (general, primarily young adult to adult), content (apex predators and ecological topic; human and biological components), dialogue (social media Q&A and conversations with audience members; high), language (no jargon, mixed formality), mode (remote location; print media), platform (social media, specifically Twitter), and engagement (asks specific questions; low). The product was absent of style, appeal, and context. The elements of prior knowledge, purpose, and theory were not observable for any products

Most students completed the assignment individually; however, when a pair worked together on the assignment, the project artifacts (plans and products) were treated as single artifacts. This work was conducted with prior approval from the institutional review board (#HS17-0259).

Below we describe if and how the elements of the EEES framework appeared in students’ projects (i.e., plans and products). Later, in the discussion, we interpret these descriptions to characterize these students’ baseline SciComm skills. Additionally, we examined the project instructions for alignment with the EEES framework as an indication of how instruction may be able to influence the development of SciComm skills in undergraduate science students.

Presence of SciComm elements

The elements of SciComm that students described in their plans were similar to those demonstrated in their products, but there were a few key differences (Table 2 ). Students described a similar number of elements in their plans (8.0 ± 1.0) as they demonstrated in their products (8.1 ± 0.9), despite all 13 elements being observable in plans but only 10 being observable in products. Most to all the students described the elements of content, platform, mode, audience, dialogue, and engagement in their plans and demonstrated these elements in their products. Additionally, plans and products were similar in how few students included the elements of context and style. Dissimilarities existed in the number of students who described intending to use language in the plans and who demonstrated language in the products. Appeal was also present in more products than plans. Most students described a purpose in their plans while less than a third described considering the prior knowledge of their audience or the theoretical rationale for their decisions.

Presence of essential elements for effective SciComm in student projects out of 27 plans and 21 products

Elements that were not observable are denoted with NA. Brackets in the left margin indicate which elements were explicitly addressed in the assignment instructions and rubric

The instructor’s assignment instructions and rubric included some of the EEES framework elements even though the instructor did not have the framework and the researchers did not direct the instructor on assignment design prior to the semester. Nevertheless, we compared what elements appeared in the assignment instructions and rubric with the elements students demonstrated in their projects to provide insight into the effect that instruction can have on the students’ demonstration of skills (as further explained in the discussion). Elements that were explicitly mentioned in the assignment instructions were described in plans and demonstrated in products by most students (Table 2 ); fewer students described elements in their plans that were only present in the rubric, while many more students demonstrated these rubric-only elements in their products. Elements that were not explicitly asked for in either the instructions or rubric were present in the fewest student plans and products.

Themes for how students presented SciComm elements

Beyond if the elements were present in the students’ projects, we analyzed how the students presented these elements. We organized the results below into the four strategic categories to which the elements belong in the framework.

Who did students communicate with?

The students defined their audiences through categories of specificity, age, and interest (Table 3 ). More than half the students targeted both a specific audience in conjunction with a general audience in their plans and products. For example, Wells wrote,

Thematic categories and subcategories of students’ target audiences out of 27 plans and 21 products

Numbers represent the number of students that defined their audience with each category (i.e., specificity, age, or interest) and subcategory. Percentages represent the percent of students that described their audience with the subcategory (e.g., adult) out of the number of students that defined their audience within the broader category (e.g., age)

My target audience would be people that work outdoors first and foremost, as this issue would affect them the most from a health perspective. Otherwise, I think the environmental aspect of the issue affects everyone and anyone, so I would want to spread that information to as many people as possible.

When specifying their audience, the students described age and interest. More students targeted adults over young adults or children. In the plans, about half of the students aimed for an audience with identified interest or non-interest in the scientific content that they intended to communicate. Of the 15 plans that addressed the interest of the audience, most targeted an audience with an interest in the subject. A few of the students explicitly sought out an audience who were not already interested in the scientific content (Table 3 ). For example, Bellamy wrote,

I hope to reach people that are not extremely in tune with the environment.

Two out of the 27 plans (Bellamy and Echo) described wanting to address an audience that included both interested and uninterested members. The interest of the audience was not observable in the final products as this work focused on the students and their work, not the students’ audiences.

Prior knowledge

The students approached the element of prior knowledge by collecting and sometimes using information about their audiences’ understanding to influence their projects. Eight students (30%) planned to collect information on the prior knowledge of their audience. For example, Raven wrote,

I plan to ask the children about their own thoughts on the subject, of what they already know about sharks and how they perceive them, why they think sharks are important and helpful to the ecosystem, and what they can do to help preserve the shark's habitat.

Raven planned to move forward with her presentation irrespective of the children’s input. Four students (15%) described planning to use the prior knowledge information they gathered by adapting their products accordingly. For example, Niylah wrote that she would (emphasis is ours):

create a survey with a mixture of multiple-choice and open-ended/extended-response questions to gauge the public’s knowledge on recycling (what is recyclable, where do these materials go after they are recycled, etc.) and what questions they have about recycling…Create easy-to-understand and visually appealing infographics on recycling based on survey results …in an attempt to address and clarify common misconceptions.

Why did the students communicate this science?

Purpose: communication objectives.

We examined how students described the purpose of their projects in their plans through the lens of Besley’s work that defines important science communication objectives (Besley et al., 2018 ) (Table 4 ). Several students intuitively developed their project’s purpose and described between zero and four objectives with two objectives being the most common (9 students, 33%). The objective to increase knowledge or awareness was the most common followed by the explicit goal to cause their audience to act, which is not a part of the Besley framework of objectives. For instance, Wells planned to create a public service announcement to show the effects of climate change on human health. His call to action was to help people slow the buildup of greenhouse gases from everyday changes, such as providing examples of cleaner forms of transportation and energy use.

Science communication objectives students reported as the purpose of their projects out of 27 plans analyzed through the work by Besley et al. ( 2018 )

a Not present in the Besley framework but emerged from our data. Objectives were not observable in products

The next most common objectives were to boost interest and excitement, as well as listen and demonstrate openness. For example, Echo demonstrated openness by starting a discussion on Facebook—within her circle of family and friends—to understand different points of view on climate change. She stated that she would “respond politely with facts, but in a way where [my peers] don’t feel attacked.” Few students included any one of the other four objectives.

For the students that included some element of theory (7 plans, 26%), their rationalization for why they made certain decisions did not align with science communication theory or evidence-based practices. For example, Clarke said she wanted to make the project entertaining so that the audience would be more likely to remember the information, and Anya chose college students as a target audience because she believed that people who go to college are more passionate and generally interested in changing the world. These explanations seemed to be based on their interpretations of how learning works and how education increases interest, respectively, but not necessarily based on the literature.

Another student, Madi, chose a target audience of high school students because “They are mature enough to instill the information being taught, but just as immature enough to refuse to accept it.” Her rationale stems from, as she explained, her upbringing in a household with parents who were teachers. Though not established in the literature on teaching nor SciComm, this student made a decision about her audience based on descriptions from her parents—her authority figures.

What did the students communicate?

We analyzed the scientific content of the students’ projects regarding what components they included and what topics they focused on (Table 5 ). Most to all students incorporated a human component to their projects and several included a biological (non-human) component. The human component was labeled if the plans and products presented anything related to human involvement. For instance, climate change would fall into this category only if a student explicitly talked about human roles in either causing climate change or how their actions could mitigate the effects of climate change. There had to be some language explicitly relating to people and not just assumed human involvement. For the biological component, the projects had to explicitly reference non-human biological species. For example, a student working on a climate change SciComm project would need to mention the effects on other species than humans. Components relating to earth sciences (e.g., weather and oil spills) were present but infrequent (four or fewer students). The students focused on topics that were covered at other times during the course at relatively equal proportions with an ecological topic being slightly more popular than sustainability or climate change.

Thematic categories and subcategories of content out of 27 plans and 21 products

Numbers represent the number of students that included a biological or human component or focused on the listed topics

Some of the students considered the social, political, and/or cultural context of the scientific information (4 out of 27 plans, 5 out of 21 products). Although there were too few of these students to decipher themes within context, examples included describing the culture of coastal fishermen in relation to overfishing issues (Harper), and that the ability to choose foods from sustainable farming practices may be impacted by socioeconomic status (Lincoln).

How did the students communicate science?

Dialogue pertains to any conversation between the student presenter and the audience. Conversation could be on any subject including on scientific content being communicated or other topics. Student plans and products were analyzed for the element of dialogue in two ways: the direction and level of dialogue. For the direction of dialogue, all students talked to their audience and most students also received input from their audience (Table 6 ).

Thematic categories of how students communicated, including dialogue, engagement, language, mode, and platform out of 27 plans and 21 products

Numbers represent the number of students under each subcategory

The level of dialogue indicated how much dialogue was planned or occurred. Low dialogue was when only one direction of communication was planned or occurred (e.g., student communicating to the audience only). Fewer students executed low dialogue than described low dialogue in their plans (Table 6 ). Medium dialogue was when both directions of dialogue were planned or occurred, but one direction was much more prevalent than the other (e.g., a presentation with a brief question-and-answer (Q&A) session). Over half of the students described medium dialogue in their plans while only about a third executed dialogue at this level (Table 6 ). High dialogue was when both directions of dialogue were planned or occurred frequently and throughout the communication. The fewest number of students planned high dialogue, although the largest number of students executed high dialogue (Table 6 ).

Engagement pertains to how the audience engages with the science. Student plans and products were analyzed for the element of engagement in two ways: the type and level of engagement. Most of the students passively engaged their audience by having the audience listen and/or observe the presentation (Table 6 ). Engagement commonly took the form of asking the audience specific questions about the science or allowing for questions or comments from the audience. Only 1 out of 27 students planned to actively engage their audience with the science by having them play a board game on migration and go bird watching (Indra). Only 1 out of 21 students executed active engagement by having students identify rocks with a game (Lexa). A few of the students mentioned engaging their audience with the science but did not further describe how they planned to do so (coded as ambiguous) (Table 6 ).

The level of engagement indicated how much the student planned or facilitated the audience to engage with the science. Low engagement was when the student presented to the audience who only viewed or listened nearly the entire time. A third of students planned to engage their audience at a low level but a slightly lower percentage executed low-level engagement (Table 6 ). Medium engagement was when the student presented and the audience viewed and/or listened most of the time but there were some other types of engagement, commonly as questions between the audience and student. Most students planned and executed medium-level engagement (Table 6 ). High engagement was when the student facilitated active and/or frequent engagement between the audience and the science, such as the audience answering frequent specific questions and modeling or observing a scientific phenomenon (e.g., bird watching or the rock game). The fewest students planned high-level engagement; however, more of the students executed high engagement (Table 6 ).

We coded language for whether students used jargon and the formality of their language (Table 6 ). Only 1 out of the 27 students (Abby) described in her plans what language she would use by “avoiding jargon.” More students omitted jargon from their products than included jargon. More students used informal language when communicating science than formal language, or they used a mix of formal and informal rhetoric.

Mode and platform

The students approached the elements of mode and platform in terms of location, use of media types, and use of social media (Table 6 ). More of the students had projects that were remote from their audience than in-person. A few of the students planned projects that involved both remote and in-person portions. In-person projects were commonly set in a classroom. As for media types, most students used print media (e.g., the Twitter Q&A and conversations in Fig. 2 ) in their final products and several students used multiple types of media (Table 6 ). While many of the 27 students planned to do audio-based projects such as podcasts, only 2 out of 21 executed that plan. Regarding where to put their SciComm, most students included social media, which included sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Table 6 ).

Appeal and style

The students appealed to their audiences’ senses primarily with visuals including PowerPoint slides, photos, artwork, and charts. Some of the students used stylistic elements to present scientific information. For example, Bellamy included humor and satire by dressing up in a penguin suit and advertising to “kill the penguins.” Gaia employed narration and described her adventures at the local farmer’s market.

To tailor a curriculum to be meaningful and authentic, educators and education researchers need to first define learning outcomes that align with professional, scientific practice, and then use those definitions to assess students’ baseline skills, including for SciComm. Then, the curriculum can be built upon this solid foundation. Here, we provided a rich description of the baseline SciComm skills of students in an undergraduate environmental science course. Overall, our results showed that these undergraduate students are on their way to being effective science communicators and have room to develop these skills further with proper curricular support. We next interpret that description to guide instructors on how to help students develop important SciComm skills.

Students demonstrated their skills consistently, between their plans and products, in many ways including identifying their audience and focusing on factual content. However, there were a few notable exceptions. Students planned primarily one-way dialogue (e.g., talking at a class) but executed frequent two-way dialogue (e.g., played a game with the audience) throughout their SciComm; this switch to more interaction from planning to execution was similar to how students engaged their audiences with the science. But not all skills listed in the framework were observed in the students’ work, which provides instructors the room to give students a wide variety of opportunities and circumstances to demonstrate, practice, and develop their SciComm skills.

Furthermore, the results showed that it is important to recognize the value of the instruction given by the instructor, which affected the types of skills students demonstrated. The students demonstrated most of the elements in their plans and products that aligned with what was asked of them in the instructions. This suggests that students would benefit from explicit SciComm instruction and training on effective SciComm to develop their SciComm skills in the context of their science coursework.

Pedagogical and curricular recommendations for integrating SciComm into science courses

Below, we take a fine-grain view of the SciComm skills these students demonstrated and make recommendations on how instructors and curriculum can build off this baseline to effectively help science students develop their SciComm skills.

With whom to communicate science

Help students identify a narrow audience. Our findings showed that the students commonly described a specific population but then also described trying to reach a broader audience. Students may need help recognizing that fostering quality communication with a small and specific audience is more effective than just exposing their SciComm to large quantities of people (Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2017 ).

Help students understand their audience. Here, about a third of the students considered the prior knowledge of their audience and fewer used it to influence their products. Similarly, about half of the students did not describe whether they thought their audience was explicitly interested or not interested in the subject. A presenter must acknowledge and understand what their audience already knows (i.e., prior knowledge) and what the audience is interested in to increase knowledge (Ausubel, 2012 ; Novak, 2010 ; Vosniadou, 2013 ), which was the most commonly stated purpose objective. This is true whether the setting is a classroom between an instructor and students or on a public stage such as with these environmental science students and their target audiences.

Why communicate science

Introduce students to the theories that make for effective SciComm. Despite not being asked to, some of the students described their rationale behind why their project would effectively communicate science with the public (theory element). However, these explanations seemed to be based on intuition, and were lacking operational description, which are often ineffective and can be harmful to the public’s perceptions of science (Scheufele, 2013 ). Therefore, instructors may consider introducing SciComm via its theoretical underpinnings to help students better understand the need for developing such skills.

Encourage students to aim for diverse communication objectives. Here, many students intuitively aimed to increase knowledge and awareness. Similarly, scientists focus more on this traditional knowledge-based objective than other equally important objectives (Besley et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, scientists, and thus science students, need to aim beyond just increasing knowledge and awareness as many other objectives are key to effective SciComm (Besley et al., 2018 ). Specifically, appropriate for science students are the objectives of boosting interest and excitement, conveying warmth and respect, conveying shared values, and listening and demonstrating openness (Fig. 1 ). Further, having an audience take action is an assumed, ultimate goal of communication (Besley et al., 2018 ); here, about half of the students’ plans made this goal explicit. More work is needed to know if students are thinking about an ultimate goal for their SciComm. Together, our work suggests that the curriculum should provide support to help students identify their broader goals and specific objectives for SciComm.

How to communicate science

Give students practice with multiple media types. Here, many students planned to use audio and video, but then executed their SciComm with print media. A recent report concluded that Gen Z (people born between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s) prefer video over print for learning, whereas Millennials (people born in the early 1980s to mid-1990s) prefer print (Pearson Education Inc., 2018 ). The students studied here were composed of approximately 75% Gen Z and 20% Millennials. One explanation for our results could be that the students had ambitions to increase the knowledge and awareness of their audience using a medium which they themselves prefer and commonly consume (video) but potentially experienced logistical constraints that directed them to a simpler media (print) that could still reach a large audience (e.g., Lincoln’s switch from podcast to print). Scientists have increasingly connected with the public, using print, audio, and video remotely due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (ASBMB, 2020 ). Therefore, students need practice with a variety of media types, especially on a variety of platforms as communication with the public evolves.

Example curricula

There are a few published examples of integrated SciComm and science curriculum that may help science students develop their SciComm skills. These are organized either as whole courses or modules within science courses. Examples of whole courses include an undergraduate neuroimmunology and writing course (Brownell et al., 2013a ) and a biotech and SciComm course (Edmondston et al., 2010a , 2010b ). Examples of the modular approach have been documented in the contexts of junior high school (Spektor-Levy et al., 2008 , 2009 ), undergraduate physics (Arion, 2016 ; Arion et al., 2018 ), mid-level undergraduate biology, physics, and chemistry (Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2016 ), and upper-level undergraduate biology (Yeoman et al., 2011 ). Additionally, we applied the EEES framework to develop and assess a module for introductory undergraduate biology students (Wack et al., 2021 ). These curricula may be excellent sources for instructors looking for guidance on how to help their students develop SciComm skills.

Assessment and feedback

Vital components of learning are assessment and feedback. Assessment of students should be based on the learning goals and objectives that instructors make explicit at the beginning of any lesson (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005 ) and thus can vary considerably. The options to assess SciComm lessons include what others in the literature have done, including using a closed-response quiz where students apply their knowledge of SciComm (Wack et al., 2021 ); asking for students to report on their gained skills (Yeoman et al., 2011 ); measuring perceptions, value, and confidence in communicating science (Brownell et al., 2013a ; Edmondston et al., 2010a ); and characterizing the skills students demonstrate as we have done here. Additional assessment could include input from the audience to gauge the effectiveness of the communication. These assessment options can be used to provide feedback to students so that they may reflect on their performance and how they may perform better in the future—an important step in developing lasting skills.

Limitations and future directions

We recognize the limitations of this research and suggest how future studies could augment this work. For instance, we intentionally omitted giving the students the framework in the instructions and rubric so that we could observe a baseline of SciComm skills. Future work should investigate how providing different scaffolds, or support such as the framework, affects students’ SciComm skills.

By using content analysis of student work, we were able to provide rich descriptions of students’ SciComm skills. Future work should use student interviews and reflective journaling to triangulate evidence on SciComm skills. When only a few students described a certain element, it reduced our ability to establish themes for how students commonly address an element and limits the generalizability of the results. Nevertheless, our findings on these elements provide some anecdotal examples of what one might expect from their students or study population.

Many of the elements of SciComm are intertwined, as are best practices for SciComm. For example, the audience one targets (e.g., young children) will impact the platform they choose (e.g., a classroom, not Twitter). These interconnections led to occasional overlap in our coding (e.g., engagement/dialogue, types/levels) and results could be influencing other results. Nonetheless, descriptions of each element provided a comprehensive survey of the students’ baseline skills and thus were important to characterize individually.

We recognize that this is just one class in one context; much more work needs to be done in a variety of contexts, and separate results based on student demographics, to gain additional perspectives on undergraduate life science students’ baseline SciComm skills. For example, repeating this study with larger groups of students in more disciplines would improve statistical strength; additionally, larger samples would allow for testing the effects of age or experience on outcomes so that these results may be extrapolated to other institutions and other disciplinary contexts across STEM fields.

SciComm is an important scientific practice for which undergraduate science students should develop skills. To effectively help students develop these skills, it is important to understand what baseline skills students have. Here, we used the EEES framework to explore the SciComm skills students in an environmental science course demonstrated with little training. Despite not being given the framework, students included several of the 13 elements, especially those which were explicitly asked for in the assignment instructions. Students exhibited SciComm skills similar to scientists who are novice in SciComm but showed promising development by following many of the instructions and refining their work from planning to execution. Together with the recommendations we make for how instructors can use these findings, a curriculum that is grounded in effective science communication can help undergraduate science students develop meaningful SciComm skills.

Additional file S1: Assignment instructions

Acknowledgments

We thank the faculty member who instructed the course for providing access to her class and supporting the project. We thank Dr. Devarati Bhattacharya for her advice on content analysis. We thank Dr. Jaime Sabel, Dr. Jenny Dauer, the NIU DBER group, and the anonymous reviewers for their input on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Abbreviations

Elements for Effective Science Communication framework

Written documents students submitted to plan their SciComm

Evidence students submitted of their executed SciComm

The combination of students’ plans and products

Question and answer

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Communicating science with non-experts

Authors’ contributions

RS analyzed and interpreted the data and substantively revised the manuscript. CC acquired, analyzed, and interpreted the data and wrote portions of the manuscript. MN analyzed and interpreted the data and wrote portions of the manuscript. SY helped conceive the work, and substantively wrote and revised the manuscript. HBR helped conceive and design the work, analyzed and interpreted the data, and substantively wrote and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This project was funded by the Department of Biological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the Division of Research and Innovative Partnerships at Northern Illinois University, as well as the Summer Internship Grant Program at Northwestern University. Funds were used to support the authors in their work on this project. The funders had no input on any aspect of this project.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Student products, specifically, are available in the figshare repository, 10.6084/m9.figshare.14544072 (Bergan-Roller & Yuan, 2021 ).

Declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• ACARA. (2012). The Australian Curriculum—Science . https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ .
• American Association for the Advancement of Science . American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2011. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Chemical Society. (2015). Undergraduate professional education in chemistry: 2015 ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs. Retrieved August 15, 2018, from https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf .
• American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (2020). Shaping the narrative: Effective science communication in the COVID-19 era . Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.asbmb.org/meetings-events/shaping-the-narrative .
• Arion, D. N. (2016). Improving science communication and engaging the public in astronomy and nature. American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #227, Id.446.01 , 227 . Retrieved September 18, 2017, from  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AAS...22744601A .
• Arion, D. N., OConnell, C., Lowenthal, J., Hickox, R. C., & Lyons, D. (2018). Public science education and outreach as a modality for teaching science communication skills to undergraduates. American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #231, Id. 216.04 , 231 . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AAS...23121604A .
• Ausubel, D. P. (2012). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view . Springer Science & Business Media. https://books.google.com/books?id=wfckBAAAQBAJ .
• Bergan-Roller, H. E., Galt, N. J., Helikar, T., & Dauer, J. T. (2018). Using concept maps to characterise cellular respiration knowledge in undergraduate students. Journal of Biological Education. , 54 (1), 33–46. 10.1080/00219266.2018.1541001.
• Bergan-Roller, H. E., & Yuan, S. (2021). Shivni et al_IJSTEMED_Student products . Figshare.  Retrieved May 15, 2021, from 10.6084/m9.figshare.14544072.
• Besley JC, Dudo A, Yuan S. Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science. 2018;27(6):708–730. doi: 10.1177/0963662517728478. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Besley JC, Nisbet M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science. 2013;22(6):644–659. doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bielefeldt, T. (2014). Know the ISTE Standards for Students, Standard 2: Communication and Collaboration | ISTE . Retrieved May 11, 2021, from  https://www.iste.org/explore/ISTE-Standards-in-Action/Know-the-ISTE-Standards-for-Students%2C-Standard-2%3A-Communication-and-Collaboration .
• Binder T, Sandmann A, Sures B, Friege G, Theyssen H, Schmiemann P. Assessing prior knowledge types as predictors of academic achievement in the introductory phase of biology and physics study programmes using logistic regression. International Journal of STEM Education. 2019;6(1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0189-9. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blancke, S., Grunewald, W., & De Jaeger, G. (2017). De-problematizing ‘GMOs’: Suggestions for communicating about genetic engineering. In Trends in Biotechnology (Vol. 35, Issue 3, pp. 185–186). Elsevier Ltd, 35 (3), 185–186. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.12.004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ]
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education. 2013;37(1):70–79. doi: 10.1152/advan.00138.2012. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013b). 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 : JUNE : A Publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience , 12 (1), E6–E10 Retrieved September 13, 2017, from . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24319399 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, Theim TJ, Zenner GM, Crone WC. Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2007;9(2):183–189. doi: 10.1007/s11051-006-9160-z. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicerone, R. J. (2006). Celebrating and rethinking science communication. Focus , 6 (3).
• Clemmons, A. W., Timbrook, J., Herron, J. C., & Crowe, A. J. (2020). BioSkills Guide: Development and national validation of a tool for interpreting the Vision and Change core competencies. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 19 (4), ar53, 19 (4), ar53. 10.1187/cbe.19-11-0259. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Data USA. (2018). Data USA:Biology . Retrieved August 11, 2020, from  https://datausa.io/profile/cip/biology .
• Department of Science and Technology. (2014). Science engagement framework . Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.npep.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Science-Engagement-Framework.pdf .
• Edmondston J, Dawson V, Schibeci R. Undergraduate biotechnology students’ views of science communication. International Journal of Science Education. 2010;32(18):2451–2474. doi: 10.1080/09500690903514598. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondston J, Dawson V, Schibeci R. Are students prepared to communicate? A case study of an Australian degree course in biotechnology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2010;8(6):1091–1108. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9234-3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eichhorn, K., Thompson, C., Vampola, D., Messere, F., & Manseur, R. (2010). Infusing communication skills in an engineering curriculum . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  https://peer.asee.org/infusing-communication-skills-in-an-engineering-curriculum.pdf .
• European Commission. (2002). Science and Society Action Plan . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/ss_ap_en.pdf .
• Hamlyn, B., Shanahan, M., Hanson, T., Mortimer, E., Lewis, H., O’Donoghue, E., & Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtp060032.pdf .
• Jia H, Liu L. Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science. 2014;23(1):32–37. doi: 10.1177/0963662513476404. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs. (2016). Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st-Century Careers . Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.compadre.org/JTUPP/docs/J-Tupp_Report.pdf .
• Kolodinsky, J. (2018). Ethical tensions from a ‘science alone’ approach in communicating genetic engineering science to consumers. In Ethical tensions from new technology: The case of agricultural biotechnology . Retrieved May 11, 2021, from  https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ethical_Tensions_from_New_Technology/WJJqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thical+Tensions+from+a+%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%CB%9CScience+Alone%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2Approach+in+Communicating+Genetic+Engineering+Science+to+Consumers&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover .
• Kulgemeyer C. Impact of secondary students’ content knowledge on their communication skills in science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2018;16(1):89–108. doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9762-6. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulgemeyer C, Schecker H. Students explaining science—Assessment of science communication competence. Research in Science Education. 2013;43(6):2235–2256. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9354-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarowitz, R., & Lieb, C. (2006). Formative assessment pre-test to identify college students’ prior knowledge, misconceptions and learning difficulties in biology. In International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, Issue 4, pp. 741–762). Springer, 4 (4), 741–762. 10.1007/s10763-005-9024-5.
• Leshner, A. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science (New York, N.Y.) , 315 (5809), 161, 315 (5809), 161. 10.1126/science.1138712. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ]
• Mercer-Mapstone LD, Kuchel L. Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B. 2017;7(2):181–201. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer-Mapstone LD, Kuchel LJ. Integrating communication skills into undergraduate science degrees: A practical and evidence-based approach. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal. 2016;4(2):1–14. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.11. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nah S, McNealy J, Kim JH, Joo J. Communicating artificial intelligence (AI): Theory, research, and practice. Communication Studies. 2020;71(3):369–372. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2020.1788909. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and M. (2017). Supporting students’ college success: The role of assessment of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies (J. Herman & M. Hilton (eds.)). National Academies Press. 10.17226/24697.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and M (2017). Communicating science effectively . National Academies Press. 10.17226/23674. [ PubMed ]
• National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on risk perception and communication. (1989). Improving risk communication. National Academies Press. Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=gj8rAAAAYAAJ .
• National Research Council (U.S.), & Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools. (2002). Learning and understanding. In Learning and Understanding . National Academies Press. Retrieved August 14, 2018, from 10.17226/10129.
• Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook , (2nd ed., ). Sage. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/nMA5DQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP1 . 10.4135/9781071802878.
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  http://www.nextgenscience.org/trademark-and-copyright .
• Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://books.google.com/books?id=dXiMAgAAQBAJ , DOI: 10.4324/9780203862001
• Pearson Education Inc. (2018). Beyond millennials: The next generation of learners . Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2018/The-Next-Generation-of-Learners_final.pdf .
• Quitadamo IJ, Kurtz MJ. Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology. CBE Life Sciences Education. 2007;6(2):140–154. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rainie, L., Funk, C., & Anderson, M. (2015). How scientists engage the public . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/ .
• Riemer MJ. Communication Skills for the 21st Century Engineer. Journal of Engineering Education. 2007;11(1):89–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Royal Society (Great Britain), & Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from .
• Saxe, K., & Braddy, L. (2015). A common vision for undergraduate mathematical sciences programs in 2025 .
• Scheufele DA. Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013;110(Supplement 3):14040–14047. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheufele DA, Krause NM. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2019;116(16):7662–7669. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805871115. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spektor-Levy O, Eylon B-S, Scherz Z. Teaching communication skills in science: Tracing teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2008;24(2):462–477. doi: 10.1016/J.TATE.2006.10.009. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spektor-Levy O, Eylon B-S, Scherz Z. Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2009;7(5):875–903. doi: 10.1007/s10763-009-9150-6. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanner K, Allen D. Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the wrong answers—Teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biology Education. 2005;4(2):112–117. doi: 10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Upadhyay B, DeFranco C. Elementary students’ retention of environmental science knowledge: Connected science instruction versus direct instruction. Journal of Elementary Science Education. 2008;20(2):23–37. doi: 10.1007/bf03173668. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• VanWynsberghe R, Khan S. Redefining case study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2007;6(2):80–94. doi: 10.1177/160940690700600208. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vosniadou, S. (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change (S. Vosniadou (ed.); 2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Wack J, Jaeger CP, Yuan S, Bergan-Roller HE. A framework and lesson to engage biology students in communicating science with nonexperts. The American Biology Teacher. 2021;83(1):17–25. doi: 10.1525/abt.2021.83.1.17. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiggins, & McTighe. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd Expand). Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum Development. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-By-Design-Grant-Wiggins/dp/1416600353 .
• Yeoman KH, James HA, Bowater L. Development and evaluation of an undergraduate science communication module. Bioscience Education. 2011;17(1):1–16. doi: 10.3108/beej.17.7. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data availability statement.

• View on publisher site
• PDF (1.0 MB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• Publications
• Conferences & Events
• Professional Learning
• Science Standards
• Awards & Competitions
• Instructional Materials
• Free Resources
• For Preservice Teachers
• NCCSTS Case Collection
• Science and STEM Education Jobs
• Interactive eBooks+
• Digital Catalog
• Regional Product Representatives
• e-Newsletters
• Browse All Titles
• Bestselling Books
• Latest Books
• Popular Book Series
• Submit Book Proposal
• Web Seminars
• National Conference • New Orleans 24
• Leaders Institute • New Orleans 24
• National Conference • Philadelphia 25
• Exhibits & Sponsorship
• Submit a Proposal
• Conference Reviewers
• Past Conferences
• Latest Resources
• Professional Learning Units & Courses
• For Districts
• Online Course Providers
• Schools & Districts
• College Professors & Students
• The Standards
• Teachers and Admin
• eCYBERMISSION
• Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision
• Junior Science & Humanities Symposium
• Teaching Awards
• Climate Change
• Earth & Space Science
• New Science Teachers
• Early Childhood
• Middle School
• High School
• Postsecondary
• Informal Education
• Journal Articles
• Lesson Plans
• e-newsletters
• Science & Children
• Science Scope
• The Science Teacher
• Journal of College Sci. Teaching
• Connected Science Learning
• NSTA Reports
• Next-Gen Navigator
• Science Update
• Teacher Tip Tuesday
• Trans. Sci. Learning

MyNSTA Community

• My Collections

Integrating Science Communication Into a Large STEM Classroom

Journal of College Science Teaching—November/December 2021 (Volume 51, Issue 2)

By Kerri Donohue, Katherine VanDenburgh, Cathrine Reck, and Gayle Buck

Share Start a Discussion

The communication of scientific findings through writing is an important skill for undergraduate science majors to develop as they move through their respective degree programs. Seeing the importance of science communication skill development, we brought a science communication blog written by graduate students on the same campus to the attention of a large undergraduate organic chemistry lecture in collaboration with their professor. These undergraduate students were then given an assignment in which they would write their own blogs, go through a process of peer review, and then have the opportunity for their blog to be published on a website for high school students. The undergraduate students were able to consider the role that science communication will play in their future careers and practice the basics in a low-stakes, brief assignment. Overall, the learning goals we set for the assignment were met with a positive impact on the students. While there were several small challenges associated with the first implementation of this assignment, we were pleased to learn of the high level of value that students placed on this assignment.

The communication of scientific findings through writing is an important skill for undergraduate science majors to develop as they move through their respective degree programs. While improving their scientific writing skills, students concomitantly develop their level of conceptual understanding and overall confidence in regards to subject matter knowledge ( Pelger & Nilsson, 2015 ). Besides becoming proficient in the academic style of scientific writing, undergraduate students should also aim to use their newfound science verbiage to communicate science to diverse audiences of laypeople. Students can strengthen both their writing and communication skills by presenting science concepts to different target audiences ( Pelger & Nilsson, 2015 ; Smith, 2016 ). In contrast to the more traditional style of scientific or academic writing used in lab reports or formal research papers, science communication focuses on presenting ideas clearly and placing science within a broader context ( Treise & Weigold, 2002 ). While scientific writing is also vital to those embarking on a possible career in the sciences, knowledge and experience engaging with the public is a skill that is becoming more desirable and necessary ( Brownell et al., 2013 ). Furthermore, these skills may help future researchers consider how to design broader impact statements that highlight both scientific and societal merit as they move forward in scientific career fields ( Treise & Weigold, 2002 ; Smith, 2016 ). In this study, we focused on the communication skills of peer review, both as an author and a reviewer, and on writing for a target audience while discussing majoring in the sciences and the college experience.

Treise and Weigold (2002) speak of science communication as placing “scientific activity within a broader context” when reporting the latest findings in science, while Mercer-Mapstone and Kuchel (2015) address science communication as an exchange between scientists and laypeople, rather than the deficit model that is quickly becoming outdated. The challenge for instructors, then, is how to fit science communication into an already packed curriculum and formulate assignments that properly teach this skill. Mercer-Mapstone and Kuchel (2016) found that by embedding explicit science communication skill development within the curriculum, gains could be made on student learning with small class sizes. However, this was not as successful with larger classes. As discussed by Train and Miyamoto (2017) , explicitly teaching popular science writing may lead to more gains in conceptual understanding of a student’s respective content area while simultaneously serving their development for the job market. Additionally, the authors found that graduate assistants play an important role in the success of scaffolding science communication skills in larger classes, especially within the realm of implementation and assessment.

Peer review of science writing was shown to be a positive experience and an effective method of improving students’ writing and collaborative skills, whether they were working on grant proposals or popular science writing ( Walker et al., 2013 ; Conte, 2010 ). Research has shown that peer review is best completed between students, as equivalent rounds of feedback with an instructor would be far more time intensive, even with a small class size ( Cole et al., 2013 ).

The sustainability of teaching science communication in higher education depends on instructors finding the work meaningful for their students, along with the ability to teach this topic to be implemented easily and efficiently ( Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2016 ). Seeing the importance of science communication skill development, we collaborated with the instructor of a large undergraduate organic chemistry lecture course to design a short creative writing assignment that would help students develop a few of the skills needed to be effective science communicators, without taking up a large amount of class time. The idea for this assignment was based on a science communication blog by graduate students from the same campus. Graduate student representatives from the campus blog presented on science communication to the undergraduate students to introduce the assignment. The undergraduate students were then given an assignment to write their own blogs, go through a process of peer review, and then have the opportunity for their blog to be published on a website.

This assignment, titled “What’s Your Major? Blog Assignment,” was designed for a larger science class (more than 100 students), keeping in mind that a small number of teaching assistants would be available. We had two main goals for the project: improving students’ writing and editing skills and communicating to high school students about what attracted the college students to science and their respective majors. We decided that a creative assignment focused on the choice of major was a simple way to meet both goals and for students to begin to develop the skills for writing about the science that interests them. The choice of major is relevant for a science communication topic, as many laypeople do not necessarily understand the differences between all the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) tracks. For instance, majors such as chemistry, biochemistry or biology, and microbiology may sometimes blend together, as can the career paths available within each major. Also, by focusing on students’ choice of major, we saw this as a unique opportunity for the undergraduates to work on writing for a target audience: high school students trying to decide on a college major track. A target audience is an important part of science communication, as keeping in mind the needs of the reader is critical when conveying new information. High school students are a target audience with which undergraduate students could easily identify, as they had recently needed to make the same decision. The undergraduate students thus had a specific purpose in mind while completing this low-stakes assignment, and the blog posts, when published, could help high school students learn about the variety of STEM career paths as well as gain an understanding of the diversity of STEM students.

The assignment was designed and implemented in collaboration with a faculty member from the chemistry department. Each piece of the assignment was submitted to the course learning management system (LMS), with the faculty member grading each part of the assignment upon completion. The overall assignment and surveys were posted on the course LMS, with each step separated out based on their respective due dates, along with a guideline for what was due at each step. Each student was responsible for submitting one blog post ( Figure 1 ; approximately 300–500 words; email the author for supporting material on the blog assignment) detailing their journey toward a science major. The blog post was intended to be a self-reflection on the major the student chose, any surprises regarding the major, and any unique opportunities the student experienced that helped solidify this choice (e.g., research experiences). Students were then placed in groups of six, and each group chose the two “best” blogs to continue with toward the peer review portion of the assignment. At this point, two group members became authors and the other four became the peer reviewers (two reviewers per blog post), with the reviewers expected to provide constructive feedback for their respective author. The class was given general guidelines for the process (email the author for supplemental material), including how to give comments on flow, clarifications, and grammar. The authors would then have an opportunity to edit their pieces and send them back to the group. Once the group received the edited blogs, one was chosen by the full group for submission to the faculty member to be considered for publication on the blog. All students in the class had the chance to submit their posts for publication, even if their blog was not chosen by their group.

Blog assignment flow.

Pre- and post-assignment surveys were given to each student to gauge how students perceived this assignment in terms of both relevance and their growth as a science student, as well as to gather feedback that would allow us to modify or improve this activity. The 22-question surveys, which included both short-answer and Likert-scale questions, were identical, with the exception of three questions on the post-assignment survey that asked for feedback regarding the activity itself (email the author for sample surveys).

The survey results showed that the majority of the 239 respondents had no experience in writing a blog post or short article about any topic in science but considered learning how to be a science communicator as valuable to their future goals ( Figure 2 ). Additionally, they believed peer review to be important while revealing that they were neutral in terms of their comfort with the peer review process. The post-assignment survey showed that the overall range of comfort level with the peer review process increased as a result of this assignment. Also shown in the post-survey was an increase in students’ overall confidence as writers.

Sample pre-assignment survey results representing 239 student responses.

When students were asked if they felt that science communication should be taught in an undergraduate science classroom, 81% said yes and 16% said maybe. Students were then asked to share what they liked and disliked about the assignment, along with suggestions for what could be improved upon and why. The majority of responses were positive:

“It’s interesting to see how writing is important in science because it gives me a glimpse of what my career might be like.”

“I liked getting to read about why other people chose their majors. It was interesting to me to see what other people’s career paths are because it helped me to understand mine more clearly.”

“I also like that this assignment gives a basic introduction to the peer review process, which will be essential if students move forward in the field of science and scientific research.”

“I like the cooperation that was needed. My peers helped me write a very well thought out response to the prompt.”

“I liked the democratic portion of it. I liked being able to work on our own and decide who will be the authors and who will be the reviewers.”

“I liked reading other people’s blog assignments. I thought it was very interesting to hear about my peers’ future goals as well as the events in their past that have shaped the people they have become and the values they deem most important. It put a story to the faces I see around me and made the huge lecture hall feel a lot smaller.”

Beyond the students’ perceptions of the assignment, we observed improvements in the blog posts submitted on the LMS ( Figure 3 ). The peer review feedback was generally clear and constructive, with corresponding improvements in the final edited posts. The published blog was also able to take advantage of the posts submitted, and many are available on the blog. These were only minimally edited by graduate students before publication.

An example section of a blog post before and after editing, based on peer review.

The biggest challenge that students shared with us was that group communication was sometimes difficult, so point values should be adjusted to reflect who completes work and who does not. Challenges with group work are not a new issue in education, so instructors should take steps to mitigate these challenges wherever possible. We offer several suggestions in the next section specific to this assignment.

While we were pleased with the feedback from students and the blogs they produced, we were able to identify areas for improvement. One student, for example, said,

“Overall I liked the assignment; however, my group was pretty disorganized. I think it would’ve been better if there was a set way to communicate.”

The main issue that came up in several ways was the timeline we set up for the assignment, which took place almost over the entirety of the semester. First, students were put into groups before the drop deadline for the course, which completely changed the makeup of several of the individual groups once that deadline passed. Second, we believed that students would be able to get together on campus or through the online collaborative pages we set up for them in the LMS. However, we did hear that students would have preferred some class time to work on the assignment. Looking at the feedback, we find it key that students are given at least a brief opportunity to meet with their partners face-to-face so they can plan where to go from there, especially in large classes. Students also suggested that their groups, which were predetermined by the instructor, should include only students from the same lab or recitation to give them more opportunities for face-to-face meetings. Due to the perceived challenging nature of the course, students recommended more reminders of when work was due. Even though they enjoyed and found value in the assignment, they were heavily focused on learning the material for their exams and did not always remember the due dates for this assignment. We agree with the feedback and have shortened the timeline of the overall assignment, made due dates consistent (e.g., having sections due each Wednesday), and started posting reminders and alerts in the LMS. Finally, the majority of students knew how to work within the LMS, but for the few who did not, the LMS created extra stress. Therefore, a page of instructions on how to use the LMS for this assignment should be made accessible to all students. These logistical issues are easily modified so this assignment can work more effectively in a large science course.

Conclusions

While there were several small challenges associated with the first implementation of this assignment, we were pleased to learn of the high level of value that students placed on the work. Students discussed that peer review was sometimes awkward but an important process for them to practice as they plan on career paths in the sciences. The fact that students were given a tangible target audience helped provide them with motivation, relevancy, and practice in one of the two most essential science communication skills, as described by Mercer-Mapstone and Kuchel (2015) : “[T]o identify and understand a suitable target audience” (p. 193). They also gained experience with the second essential skill: “[U]se language that is appropriate for your target audience” (p. 193). The undergraduate students were able to consider the role that science communication will play in their future careers and practice the basics in a low-stakes, brief assignment. Overall, the learning goals we set for the assignment resulted in a positive impact on the students ( Figure 4 ). While there may be barriers to implementing science communication skills development in a large undergraduate science classroom, we believe that short assignments focused on one or two skills can lead to positive outcomes for student development while not affecting the overall amount of topic-specific content that needs to be covered in a course. Additionally, science communication may better serve the students in terms of learning these skills as they become more relevant to their area of study when part of a content course rather than outside of the realm of science ( Conte, 2010 ; Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2015 ). Because it is important to speak the language of science in terms of being an effective educator and having the ability to identify the broader impacts of one’s scientific endeavors for successful grant application, undergraduate science students would benefit from an introduction to science communication skills, including writing, while taking a content course ( Treise & Weigold, 2002 ; Smith, 2016 ). ■

Blog assignment goals and workflow.

Kerri Donohue ( [email protected] ) is a doctoral student of science education, Cathrine Reck is a professor of chemistry, and Gayle Buck is a professor of science education, all at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. Katherine VanDenburgh , a recent graduate of Indiana University, is an associate editor at AIP Publishing. 

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (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.

Cole, K. E., Inada, M., Smith, A. M., & Haaf, M. P. (2013). Implementing a grant proposal writing exercise in undergraduate science courses to incorporate real-world applications and critical analysis of current literature. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1316–1319.

Conte, D. (2010). Peer review improves undergraduate science writing skills. UC Merced: Center for Research on Teaching Excellence, 1–14. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1200h325

Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2015). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(2), 181–201.

Mercer-Mapstone, L. D., & Kuchel, L. J. (2016). Integrating communication skills into undergraduate science degrees: A practical and evidence-based approach. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 1–14.

Pelger, S., & Nilsson, P. (2015). Popular science writing to support students’ learning of science and scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 439–456.

Smith, D. R. (2016). One scientist’s struggle to be a better writer, and a plea for undergraduate science-writing engagement. Science Communication, 38(5), 666–674.

Train, T. L., & Miyamoto, Y. J. (2017). Encouraging science communication in an undergraduate curriculum improves students’ perceptions and confidence. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(4), 76–83.

Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication, 23(3), 310–322.

Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2013). Argument-driven inquiry: An introduction to a new instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1048–1056.

Instructional Materials Pedagogy STEM Teaching Strategies Technology

You may also like

Reports Article

Web Seminar

Join us on Thursday, February 20, 2025, from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM ET, to learn about plasma physics and its applications. What is inside our sun and&nb...

Journal Article

Career of the Month November/December 2024...

Browse Course Material

Course info, instructors.

• Prof. John Durant
• Dr. Bina Venkataraman

Departments

• Science, Technology, and Society

As Taught In

• Academic Writing
• Nonfiction Prose
• Technical Writing

Learning Resource Types

Science communication: a practical guide, lecture notes.

Below are selected lecture notes.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 03 July 2024

All STEM students should learn inclusive science communication

• Nicole C. Kelp   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8462-5689 1 ,
• Ashley A. Anderson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8386-5576 2 &
• Joy C. Enyinnaya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2809-7540 3  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  8 ,  pages 1232–1235 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

629 Accesses

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Communication
• Science, technology and society

Science communication often assumes a ‘deficit’ in knowledge on behalf of the recipient, but this deficit-based approach is inequitable and ineffective. We must train all STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) students in inclusive science communication, which uses collaboration with diverse people to address misinformation and solve socioscientific issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A. & Yeo, S. K. Public Underst. Sci. 25 , 400–414 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Nogueira, L. A., Bjørkan, M. & Dale, B. Front. Environ. Sci. 9 , 699397 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Covitt, B. A. & Anderson, C. W. Sci. Educ. 31 , 1155–1180 (2022).

Choi, S., Anderson, A. A., Cagle, S., Long, M. & Kelp, N. PLoS ONE 18 , e0287870 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Judd, K. & McKinnon, M. Front. Comm. 6 , 744365 (2021).

Canfield, K. et al. Front. Comm. 5 , 2 (2020).

Vickery, R. et al. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 22 , ar8 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alderfer, S., McMillan, R., Murphy, K. & Kelp, N. Front. Educ. 8 , 1173661 (2023).

Besley, J. C. & Tanner, A. H. Sci. Commun. 33 , 239–263 (2011).

Shah, H., Simeon, J., Fisher, K. Q. & Eddy, S. L. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21 , ar12 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

N.C.K. has received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Building Capacity in STEM Education Research grant no. 2225095 and the Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science’s College Research Council science pedagogy grant programme. All authors received funding from Colorado State University’s Office of the Vice President for Research’s ‘Accelerating Innovations in Pandemic Disease’ initiative, made possible through support from The Anschutz Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Nicole C. Kelp

Department of Journalism and Media Communication, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Ashley A. Anderson

School of Communication, University of the Frasier Valley, Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada

Joy C. Enyinnaya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole C. Kelp .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kelp, N.C., Anderson, A.A. & Enyinnaya, J.C. All STEM students should learn inclusive science communication. Nat Hum Behav 8 , 1232–1235 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01918-4

Download citation

Published : 03 July 2024

Issue Date : July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01918-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Evidence-Based Science Communication (EBSC)

Effective science communication can empower research and innovation systems to address global challenges and put public interests at the heart of how knowledge is produced, shared, and applied. For science communication to play this mediating role effectively, we propose a more integrated and “evidence-based” approach. This commentary identifies key issues facing the science communication field. It suggests a series of prescriptions, inspired by the impact of “evidence-based medicine” over the past decades. In practice, evidence-based science communication should combine professional expertise and skills with the best available evidence from systematic research. Steps required to achieve this outcome include more quality assurance in science communication research, significant changes in teaching and training, and improved interfaces between science communication research and practice.

Translations:

Audio Version

Dr Eric Jensen and Prof Alexander Gerber have also recorded an audio version of the commentary.

Future of SciComm – Recorded Discussion

A recorded discussion of the authors goes into further detail about the Future of Science Communication .

Prof. Pedersen: SciComm research needs to take its own medicine!

Dr. Eric Jensen interviews Prof. David Budtz Pedersen (University of Aalborg) following a meeting about the COST Cross-Cutting Action project on EU science communication .

Dr Eric A. Jensen

Dr Eric A. Jensen has a global reputation in impact evaluation of public and stakeholder engagement with science. Dr Jensen’s track record includes dozens of major projects on science communication, public engagement and responsible research and innovation. He has worked as an evaluation trainer, advisor and consultant for many government departments, agencies and public engagement institutions globally, such as Science Foundation Ireland, Science Gallery Dublin, the European Space Agency, CERN, Arts Council England, the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, Association of Science & Technology Centers and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Dr Jensen’s PhD is in sociology from the University of Cambridge. Dr. Eric A. Jensen is currently a senior research fellow at ICoRSA working on the RRING and GRRIP projects about responsible research and innovation. Most of his papers can be accessed freely on Warwick.academia.edu .

Selected Publications

• Why impact evaluation matters in science communication: Or, advancing the science of science communication Eric A. Jensen (2019, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.35572131)
• Preaching to the scientifically converted: evaluating inclusivity in science festival audiences Eric B. Kennedy, Eric A. Jensen & Monae Verbeke (2018, doi: 10.1080/21548455.2017.1371356)
• Highlighting the value of impact evaluation: Enhancing informal science learning and public engagement theory and practice Eric A. Jensen (2015, doi: 10.22323/2.14030405)
• Evaluating impact and quality of experience in the 21st century: Using technology to narrow the gap between science communication research and practice Eric A. Jensen (2015, doi: 10.22323/2.14030305)
• The Problems with science communication evaluation Eric A. Jensen (2015, doi: 10.22323/2.13010304)

Other Resources

• Webinar on science communication teaching Frans van Dam, Liesbeth de Bakker, Marina Joubert, Eric A. Jensen & Jadranka J. Turnes (2020, Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tqwIll1cfI&t=113s)
• Discussion on monitoring and evaluating public engagement efforts, accomplishments, and impact, with Dr. Eric Jensen:

Prof Alexander Gerber

Alexander Gerber is Full Professor of Science Communication at Rhine-Waal University and Research Director of the Institute for Science and Innovation Communication, INSCICO . His work crosses what is often seen as a divide between scholarship and practice, trying to drive the field of science communication towards social innovation. Professor Gerber also serves as an elected member of the Steering Board of PCST, the world association for science communication. He has deep practical experience working in the field of science journalism and innovation communication. A leading proponent of evidence-based science communication, Prof. Gerber has coordinated and advised numerous public engagement-related projects such as NUCLEUS , RRING , GRRIP , Project Ô , TeRRIFICA , CREATIONS or PLACES.

• How to mainstream upstream engagement Alexander Gerber (2018, doi: 10.22323/2.17030306.2018)
• Science Caught Flat-footed: How Academia Struggles with Open Science Communication Alexander Gerber (2014, ISBN 978-3319000251)
• Science communication research: an empirical field analysis Alexander Gerber (2020, ISBN 978-3-947540-02-0)
• Why we need evidence based science communication Swedish Research Council (2018, Retrieved from https://www.vr.se/english/just-now/news/news-archive/2018-08-10-why-we-need-evidence-based-science-communication.html )