1

HONOURS RESEARCH REPORT (BIOL6501)

School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia

Name: Lucy Mercer-Mapstone (42041469) Supervisor: Dr Louise Kuchel

Word Count: 9930

*Word limit revised to 10,000 as permitted by the Honours coordinator

Teaching communication in undergraduate science: the current

standard and best practice recommendations on how to improve.

2

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

The research carried out in the course of this investigation and the results presented in this report

are, except where acknowledged, the original work of the author, and all research was conducted

during the Honours program.

Signature:

Name: Lucy Mercer-Mapstone

Date: 17/10/2014

3

ABSTRACT

There is an international push from many sectors of society to improve the effectiveness with

which scientists communicate to non-scientific audiences. One approach to facilitating this

change is to ensure science graduates are equipped with a relevant and developed

communications skillset. This study used an evidence-based approach to explore ways to

improve the teaching of non-technical communication skills to undergraduate science students at

Australian research-intensive universities. A list of 12 ‘Key Elements of Effective Science

Communication’ was developed based on a literature critique and validated through a survey of

relevant experts. A detailed evidential baseline for not only what but how communication skills

are being taught currently was established by quantifying which communication skills are taught

explicitly, implicitly, or are absent in undergraduate science assessment tasks from a range of

assessment tasks (n=35) at several universities (n = 4) around Australia. Results indicate that 10

of the 12 key elements were absent from more than 50 per cent of assessment tasks and 77.14%

of all assessment tasks taught less than 5 key elements explicitly. Tasks aimed at non-scientific

audiences were significantly more explicit in teaching communication than those aimed at

scientific audiences. Innovative ‘template-style’ learning activities structured around selected

key elements and aimed explicitly to develop student ability to communicate with non-scientific

audiences were designed and implemented in three tertiary science courses. Triangulation of

multiple data sources showed that students improved in both their understanding of, and ability

to do, targeted communication. Academics reported improved learning of the science involved

in the tasks and indicated the tasks would be sustainable and implemented in future years. This

study indicates that important principles for effective communication to non-technical audiences

generally are absent from science assessment tasks but that effective science communication

skills can be integrated into existing science curricula successfully through the use of ‘template’

activities. Doing so can require little input from teaching academics and enhance student

learning of both science and communication.

Keywords: science communication, undergraduate skills, novel teaching activities, education,

learning gains.

4

INTRODUCTION

“Scientists must learn to communicate with the public, be willing to do so, and indeed consider it

their duty to do so” (Bodmer 1985). This widely disseminated statement was made by the Royal

Society of London nearly 30 years ago and since then the field of science communications has

undergone a rapid evolution. Originally, the transmission model of communication – a top down

transferal of facts from scientific to non-scientific audiences (van der Sanden & Meijman 2008)

– fulfilled the assumptions of the then popular deficit model of science communication – that by

simply making the facts of science available we are fulfilling the role of public education and

generating more interest in, and improving the understanding of, science and technology (Besley

& Tanner 2011). The proliferation of new media platforms, however, has underpinned current

recommendations for best practice to move away from the deficit or transmission model to a

more egalitarian two-way discourse, or dialogue-based science communication model (Mulder et

al. 2008; Bray et al. 2011). It is the engagement between scientific audiences (with technical

training in science) and non-scientific audiences (with no technical training in science) that is

pivotal in promoting the much-needed public engagement with science rather than just the public

understanding of science (Besley & Tanner 2011).

The non-scientific public are increasingly encouraged to be involved in the scientific debate

(Bubela et al. 2009) due to the rapid development of scientific and technological complexities

within society (Ryder 2001) but to what extent are they equipped to do so? Scientific literacy is

becoming problematic as the distance between scientific and non-scientific dialects is increasing

as science becomes progressively more specialised and jargon-heavy. So how do we bridge this

divide? One approach is to ensure that science graduates are equipped with the ability to

communicate science in an accessible manner to a range of audiences. It is increasingly

acknowledged that this role of science communication to broader range of audiences is the

responsibility of the science community (Brownell et al. 2013a; Leshner 2003; Greenwood

2001). Brownell et al. (2013a) argue that integrating structured communication training into

undergraduate science degrees will improve the two-way dialogue between scientists and the

public, and help to avoid mistrust of science research and diminish misunderstanding of pivotal

scientific issues such as those surrounding the debate over climate change (Brownell et al.

2013a; Somerville and Hassol, 2011).

5

‘Science communication’ will be defined for the purpose of this study as the process of

translating complex science into language and concepts that are engaging and understandable to

non-scientific audiences such as politicians, industry professionals, educators, journalists,

government, business, and the lay public (adapted from Burns et al. 2003). The need to provide a

definition arises because of the variation that exists in the literature. Science communication is a

young and interdisciplinary academic field. It draws on areas such as science, education, social

science, and communication (Mulder et al. 2008; Bray et al. 2011); a diversity which often

results in conflicting definitions and standards.

One area that lacks standardization or recommendations for ‘best practice’ is the teaching and

learning of communication with non-scientific audiences in an undergraduate science context.

There is an international movement acknowledging the benefits that training in science

communication would bring to undergraduate and postgraduate science students (e.g., Besley &

Tanner 2011; Bray et al. 2011). However, there are currently no requirements in Australia for

BSc programs to teach these skills. This also is the case in the United States of America (US)

where an analysis of neuroscience courses showed that students were required to undertake

specialized training in core components such as ethics or statistics but none in communication,

despite its inclusion as a core graduate competency (Brownell et al. 2013a). Undergraduate

science students often practice communication with scientific audiences through written reports

or seminars to peers but “they usually receive no explicit training in communication of scientific

concepts to a layperson audience” (Brownell et al. 2013a). There is very little evidence for, or

examples of, how to teach these skills effectively or to support what content should constitute the

core elements of such training (Mulder et al. 2008; Bray et al. 2011).

Tertiary education guidelines from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (2011) include

communication as one of five fundamental learning outcomes for Australian undergraduate

science degrees. These guidelines dictate that science graduates should be able to communicate

scientific results effectively “to a range of audiences, for a range of purposes, and using a variety

of modes” (Jones et al. 2011). This statement indicates the requirement for a diverse range of

communication skills, but research indicates that the actuality of what is being taught currently

does not align with these requirements (Stevens 2013). Similarly, research shows that the current

training received by Australian science undergraduates does not align with employer and

6

workplace requirements (Zou, 2014; Herok et al. 2013; McInnis et al. 2000). Analytical,

technical, and problem-solving skills along with subject-specific knowledge apparently are being

taught successfully but communication skills consistently are falling short (according to surveys

of science graduates and employers) and do not reflect the needs of writing tasks outside

academia (McInnis et al. 2000; Gray et al. 2005). These findings gain further significance in

light of the fact that only 20 per cent of science graduates progress to be employed as technical

scientists (Graduate Careers Australia, 2011; University of Sydney, 2008).

So how can tertiary education practices be improved to meet modern educational, societal, and

employment demands for communication skills? Higher education has begun to address this

issue through a movement towards evidence-based strategies for improving teaching and

learning. A predominant example is the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) in

the US which is “aimed at dramatically improving undergraduate science education” (Wieman et

al. 2010). The CSWEI takes a four-step approach to improving teaching methods. These steps

involve establishing what students should learn, quantifying what they actually learn, developing

teaching and learning methods to produce optimum learning gains, and then disseminating and

adopting those practices which are most effective (Wieman et al. 2010). The current study aims

to address the need for explicit communication training (Brownell et al. 2013a) and the lack of

educational guidelines for communication in science degrees (specifically for communication

with non-scientific audiences) by implementing the first three steps of the CWSEI with a focus

on research-intensive universities around Australia.

The first aim of this study addresses the current lack of guidelines for teaching science

communication with non-technical audiences within an undergraduate science context, despite

recognition that a fundamental “recognizable framework” is essential for science communication

curricula (Mulder et al. 2008). Past international research has produced lists of ‘essential

elements’ or ‘core competencies’ for science communication in various post-graduate or

professional courses (Sevian & Gonsalves 2008; Miller et al. 2009; Bray et al. 2011; Baram-

Tsabari & Lewenstein 2013; Brownell et al. 2013; Fischhoff 2013) but this apparently has not

been explored or synthesized within an Australian undergraduate science context.

The second aim is to establish the extent to which communication concepts are being taught in

undergraduate science courses by examining contemporary assessment instructions. Previous

7

research has shown that 96-99 per cent of undergraduate science assessment tasks that involve

communication across five Group of Eight (Go8) Australian research-intensive universities are

targeted at an audience of ‘scientists of the same discipline’ (Stevens 2013). This highlights the

fact that there are very few assessment tasks that teach science undergraduates how to

communicate with non-scientific audiences but the study examined only general descriptions of

assessment tasks. These data do not answer the question: which core communication concepts

are being taught and assessed currently (and how) in Australian science courses? Establishing

this baseline is important in identifying effective solutions to improving the teaching of

communication skills.

The third aim of this study is to work with science teaching academics to develop and implement

innovative science communication assessment tasks and activities that explicitly teach

undergraduate science students how to communicate effectively with non-scientific audiences.

Brownell et al. (2013a) state that “upper-level undergraduate science courses should begin to

incorporate formalized, layperson-directed communication exercises” in parallel with science

content, but the practicalities of doing so present many implementation barriers. One such hurdle

includes the observation that science lecturers who are specialized in one specific subject cannot

be expected to be masters of educating undergraduates on a topic they themselves may find

challenging (Brownell et al. 2013a). Science academics rarely have the time, resources, or

formal training to communicate their own research to non-scientific audiences (Metcalfe &

Gascoigne 1995) let alone to develop the skills and courses required to teach such

communication thoroughly. A second hurdle to consider is the need to be explicit in the teaching

of communication skills. Detailed learning goals often are poorly articulated or implicit in course

content and this fundamental flaw in many curricula is addressed by Colthorpe et al. (2013) who

identify the need to teach and assess explicitly those concepts which are central to student

learning.

8

AIMS

These aims are to be explored within the context of undergraduate science education at

Australian research-intensive universities.

Research Question 1: What are the key elements of effective science communication to non-

scientific audiences appropriate to an undergraduate science

education?

Aims:

1A: Develop a list of the key elements of effective science communication derived from a

critique of the literature.

1B: Substantiate the list from 1A by seeking consensus and critical feedback among experts from

the fields of science, communication, education, and science communication.

Research Question 2: Are the key elements identified in Aim 1 assessed in undergraduate

communication tasks and how explicit are they?

Aims:

2A: Identify which key elements of effective science communication are explicit, implicit, or

absent in a selection of assessment tasks.

2B: Compare and contrast results of aim 2A for assessment tasks that target technical and non-

technical audiences, different year levels, and disciplines.

Research Question 3: How can explicit teaching of science communication elements be

integrated into undergraduate science degrees?

Aims:

3A: Work with science academics to design, implement, and assess activities that scaffold (i.e.

support/aid) explicitly the learning of one or more key elements (Aim 1) of science

communication in existing assessment tasks.

3B: Evaluate the activities from 3A to determine their success in teaching and learning.

9

METHODS

Ethics approval for this study was granted by the University of Queensland Behavioural &

Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee (Approval Number: 2014000655).

This research focused on assessment practices in undergraduate science courses at a subset of

Australian universities belonging to the Go8 coalition (Table 1), all of which are research-

intensive universities with similar teaching missions and cultures (Rowland 2012).

Undergraduate demographics of these universities are relatively uniform with the majority of

science students being Australian domestic students aged 17-25 years (Australian Government

Department of Industry 2013; Universities Australia 2014).

Aim 1A: Key elements of effective science communication’

Science communication is inherently interdisciplinary and a literature review was conducted

using various combinations of the following search terms accordingly: ‘science’,

‘communication’, ‘science communication’, ‘education’, ‘core competencies’, ‘key concepts’,

‘essential elements’, ‘communication skills’, ‘Australian tertiary education’, and

‘undergraduate’. A total of 99 articles from the fields of science, science communication,

communication, and education were identified as potentially useful to this study, 19 of which

contained information that was deemed specifically relevant. The 19 articles where then analysed

according to the following factors: sample size and type, methodology, analysis of results, and

justification of findings. A comprehensive list of key elements was compiled by recording any

element (element being defined as a skill, consideration, principle, or competency) cited in one

or more scholarly articles as important to effective science communication.

The comprehensive list of elements was distilled by relevance against the following criteria:

1. The number of scholarly citations – elements with five or more citations were included

automatically; elements cited only once were excluded as not representing common

themes in the literature; and elements with two to four citations were included or

excluded using criteria 2 and 3.

2. Relevance to an undergraduate science education context – based on the Teaching and

Learning Outcomes and standards for undergraduate science outlined by the Australian

Learning and Teaching Council (2011); and

10

3. Complexity – judged by what might be expected of undergraduate students with the

demographic outlined above.

Aim 1B: Obtaining feedback from experts

The resulting list from aim 1A was presented in an online survey (Appendix 1.1) to 20 experts

across Australia and New Zealand; five each from the fields of science, education,

communication, and science communication. Experts were identified based on their practical and

theoretical expertise in one of the above fields, and their familiarity with the Australian tertiary

education system. The survey contained a mix of open answer, multiple choice, and Likert scale

questions. Experts were asked first to provide their view on what concepts are central to effective

science communication (Appendix 1: Question 4), and thereafter invited to rate and comment on

the applicability and essentiality of the list of key elements. Results from the survey were used to

revise the list from aim 1A by highlighting the common themes that emerged in open response

answers using a simplified version of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006).

Aim 2A: Quantifying communication elements in undergraduate science assessment tasks

Written assessment instructions for communication-style assessment tasks in undergraduate

science courses were analysed to quantify the presence of each element of effective science

communication identified from Aim 1B. Tasks targeting communication with technical and non-

technical audiences were included in the analysis, where a technical or scientific audience was

defined as scientists from the same or similar discipline (e.g. tasks such as laboratory reports)

and a non-technical or non-scientific audience referred to non-scientists. Teaching materials

included written instructions, course profiles, assessment outlines, criteria rubrics, lecture notes,

and tutorial notes made available to students prior to completing the assessment. Verbal

instructions and supplementary documents (such as ‘suggested’ readings) were excluded from

analyses.

A total of 35 assessment tasks were analysed from four of the Go8 universities (ANU, UQ,

UniMelb, UWA). Table 2 summarizes the categories, year levels, and sample sizes of these

tasks. Suitable assessment tasks were identified using a database of existing Australian

undergraduate science assessment tasks (Stevens 2013) and teaching documents were obtained

11

by contacting by email course coordinators for all existing non-technical communication tasks (n

= 23) and for technical assessment tasks (n = 84).

Each key element (Aim 1B) was assessed per assessment task as being: ‘Explicitly present’ —

having words or phrases within the written assessment instructions which directly outline the

core aspects of that element; ‘Implicitly present’ — the element was indirectly alluded to but not

obviously stated; or ‘Not present’ — the key element was not referenced at all. The decision

process used is outlined in Appendix 1.2. In some cases elements existed only in marking criteria

provided as feedback post-assessment. These elements were recorded as implicit, even if

explicitly stated, since the provision of post-assessment feedback was not formative for the task

being assessed.

Aim 2B: Comparisons between tasks of different audiences

Statistical analyses (see Statistical Analyses, below) were run to compare and contrast

similarities and differences between the influences that the predictor variables (Table 2) had on

the explicitness of teaching in the assessment tasks.

Aim 3A: Developing and implementing novel science communication teaching activities

Science communication activities teaching communication of science to non-technical audiences

were designed and implemented in three undergraduate science courses at UQ, in consultation

with coordinating academics. The courses addressed a total of 294 students across the three

scientific disciplines of biology, physics, and chemistry. The implementation of these activities

was used to modify existing assessment tasks in each course. The following three courses and

tasks were used for the trials.

1. BIOL3000 – a third year biology course in ‘Conservation’ with 115 students, coordinated

by Dr John Dwyer. The assessment task required that students, in groups of three,

produce a 3 – 5 minute radio program that discussed multiple stakeholder perspectives on

a conservation issue.

2. PHYS3900 – a third year physics course in ‘Perspectives in Physics Research’ with 50

students, coordinated by Professor Michael Drinkwater. The assessment task required

students to explain complex physics concepts to two audiences (one scientific, one non-

scientific) in less than 70 words.

12

3. CHEM2052 – a second year chemistry course in ‘Chemical Biology’ with 129 students,

coordinated by Dr Philip Sharpe. The assessment task required students to produce three

pieces of assessment: a story pitch, a magazine article written for New Scientist, and a

short video segment for the nightly news, all based on an academic paper from the field

of chemistry.

The activities designed for each course focused on various key elements (Aim 1B) as chosen by

the course coordinators to be most relevant to the task. Template tutorial activities and aligning

teaching resources were designed to teach each of the selected elements explicitly and then

tailored to suit the specifications of each course, with regular consultation with the course

coordinators. The design of the activities was based on the best practice theories of active

learning, formative feedback, constructive alignment, and student engagement (Cook-Sather

2011; Biggs & Tang 2011; Wolf-Wendel et al. 2009; Kuh 2008; Ramsden 2003). Teaching was

delivered by Mercer-Mapstone with minimal input from the course coordinators.

Aim 3B: Evaluating and quantifying student learning

Control treatments in education research are not viable ethically, so triangulation across three

different data sources (Kember 2010) was used to evaluate student learning from the activities

designed in Aim 3A. The same data were collected for all three courses.

Student perspective

Students completed a paper-based survey at the end of each class (Appendix 1.3). Both open-

ended and Likert scale response questions were used. Students were asked about their level of

engagement with the activity (enjoyment, perceived value to future career, relevance to

assessment task), learning gains (the extent to which they felt their ability had improved), their

self-efficacy (confidence), and to identify the most important skills they learned from the activity

(one minute essay; Anderson & Burns 2013). The latter was used to determine whether the

intended explicit learning objectives for that activity were comprehended by students. These

open response answers were analysed using simplified thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006).

Coded categories (Appendix 1.5) were formulated inductively (prior to analysis) and modified

deductively following a trial analysis of 30% of responses. Categories were refined until >95%

agreement was achieved in independent assessments by two researchers to guarantee their

validity and repeatability in application to remaining assessments.

13

Teaching Academics’ perspectives

Academic perceptions of student learning were recorded digitally via semi-structured interviews.

Questions for the interview (Appendix 1.4) also asked academics their perception of the

strengths and weaknesses of the activities, potential improvements, and the sustainability of

implementing the activities in subsequent years. Common themes, main points, and quotes were

extracted and transcribed for the purpose of providing supporting evidence for conclusions from

this study.

Student performance

Science communication criteria were designed to assess the intended learning outcomes for each

activity (Appendix 1.6) based on the key elements being taught explicitly. The criteria were

applied to student work upon completion of the task as a measure of student performance.

Student performance following implementation of the learning activities (2014 cohort) was to be

compared with student performance without implementation (2013 cohort) to quantify any

differences in application of communication skills.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Summary statistics such as percentages, standard errors (SE), means ( ̅), and modes (Mo) were

calculated using Microsoft Excel 2007. All other statistics were calculated using the R statistical

package (R Core Team 2014).

Aim 2A & 2B: Quantifying the teaching of communication elements in Australian

undergraduate science degrees

Data for the classification of key element presence (implicit, explicit, absent) in the 35

assessment tasks were summarized by calculating percentages, standard errors, means, and

modes. A multinomial model (Venables & Ripley 2002) was built to include the response

variable (presence of communication elements as explicit, implicit, or absent within each of the

35 individual assessment tasks) and the following predictor variables: audience, year level,

major, assessment format, participation structure, and key element (levels for each variable

shown in Table 2). Only main effects were considered. Interactions amongst variables were not

analysed because those results would not have been meaningful within the context of this study.

A permutation test for association between predictors and the response variable was done as

follows. The deviance chi-square statistic was calculated for the model and observed data. The

14

data were then permuted under the null hypothesis of “no association between predictor variables

and the response” 10,000 times and a corresponding null distribution of associated chi-square

statistics derived. The value of the observed deviance chi-square statistic was then compared to

this null distribution to test for a significant association between the predictors and response

variable. The test was declared significant if the observed chi-squared value was greater than the

95th

percentile of the null distribution. A permutation test was used because many of the

categories of observed data contained fewer than five counts, which violated assumptions for the

standard large-sample chi-square test. Deviance chi-square tests were subsequently run for the

data relating to each of the 12 elements, separately, to elucidate the element-specific effects in

the model. Statistical values reported for effects of the predictor variables on individual elements

are those from the observed data. Element 12 (Table 6) was excluded because the response

variable had only one level.

Aim 3B: Evaluating and quantifying student learning gains

Responses to the 5-point Likert scale survey questions were treated as discrete and ordinal for

analysis. A conditional logit model (clm) was built to include the response variable (Likert

survey answers) and the following predictor variables (and levels): subject (biology, chemistry,

or physics), year level (two or three), and tutorial size (small: <50 students, or large >50

students). Only the main effects were explored; interactions amongst variables were not included

due to the small sample size. A likelihood ratio test was used to test for significant differences

between the clm with explanatory variables and a second clm without explanatory variables (the

null hypothesis). Aposteriori z-tests were used to explore differences between each combination

of levels for those significant variables more than two levels.

RESULTS

Aim 1A: Developing a list of ‘Key elements of effective science communication’

The majority of the 99 articles in the literature review discussed the theoretical basis of science

communication. There were no scholarly articles discussing the practicalities of implementing

science communication education in undergraduate science degrees or other levels of Australian

science training. Some did address various educational contexts in America and Europe, such as

15

for post-graduate or professional training courses in science communication (Brownell et al.

2013; Mayhew & Hall 2012; Miller et al. 2009; Tuten & Temesvari 2013; Whittington et al.

2014). Most methods used in the reviewed articles were qualitative rather than quantitative,

relying primarily on the Delphi methodology (Murry & Hammons 1995), surveys or interviews

to gauge expert opinion, or literature reviews and critiques.

Seventeen key elements of effective science communication were identified from the 19 relevant

scholarly articles derived from the literature review (Table 3). This comprehensive list was

distilled to a draft list of 10 essential elements (Table 5) against the stated assessment criteria.

Detailed descriptions of the decision making process and outcomes are outlined in Appendix 2.1.

Aim 1B: Obtaining feedback from experts

Fifteen out of the 20 invited experts participated in the survey (Table 4). Experts rated the draft

list of 10 key elements (as a whole) as ‘Extremely applicable’ (average of 4.8 out of 5) within the

context of teaching undergraduate students to communicate with non-scientific audiences. All

individual elements were rated as either mostly, highly, or absolutely essential within the context

(Table 5). Incorporating feedback from the survey of experts resulted in the list of elements

being edited and expanded from 10 to 12 elements (Table 6). Open responses generally aligned

with or reflected the list of 10 key elements when experts were asked prior to being presented

with the list of key elements to identify what they believed to be the key elements integral to

educating undergraduate science students to communicate to non-scientific audiences.

Aim 2A: Quantifying the communication elements that are explicit, implicit, or absent in

Australian science assessment tasks

Supporting materials were collected for 35 assessment tasks. Positive response rates from course

coordinators were: 79% (n = 18) for non-technical communication tasks and 20% (n = 17) from

technical tasks. There was a significant difference in how explicitly each of the 12 key elements

of effective science communication was taught across the 35 assessment tasks (Figure 1,

Permutation Test χ2

= 214.24, p = ˂ 0.0001). The majority of elements (83.33% or 10 of 12)

were absent from more than 50% of assessment tasks, with the exception of elements one and ten

(reference numbers in Table 6) which were taught explicitly in 51.43% and 94.29% of

assessment tasks respectively. The percentage of tasks that taught an element explicitly ranged

16

between 0% (element 12) and 94.3% (element 10). One task had all elements absent, 77.14% of

all assessment tasks taught less than five key elements explicitly, and 22.86% taught five or more

key elements explicitly. No task taught more than seven elements explicitly and only two of 35

tasks included this maximum number of explicit elements. Only 2 tasks (5.71%) had fewer than

five elements absent from their documentation and 65.71% of tasks had eight or more essential

elements absent from teaching materials. The percentages of tasks that taught each element

explicitly, implicitly, or not at all are shown in Figure 1.

Aim 2B: Similarities and differences in teaching of communication skills

Assessment tasks aimed at a non-scientific audience (n = 18) were significantly more explicit in

the teaching of communication elements than those assessment tasks aimed at scientific

audiences (n = 17; Permutation Test χ2

= 11.80, p < 0.01). The detailed comparisons between

these two types of assessment task for each individual element are shown in Figure 2.

There was a significant difference in how explicitly the communication elements were taught

between science majors (Permutation Test χ2

= 29.81, p = 0.045) with marine science having the

highest proportion and geography having the lowest (Figure 3). Overall, physics assessment

tasks were slightly more explicit in teaching communication elements than biology, chemistry, or

geography when majors were pooled into the four disciplines (Figure 3).

Various predictor variables significantly affected whether certain elements were taught explicitly

(Table 7). Prominent trends were that (a) communication elements in tasks aimed at non-

scientific audiences were taught more explicitly than in tasks aimed at scientific audiences, and

(b) the majority of group and multimedia tasks taught communication elements more explicitly

than individual or written or oral tasks.

Aim 3A: Developing and implementing explicit teaching of communication

Learning activities and assessment tasks

Seven activities (Table 8) were designed and implemented to support student learning of selected

key elements in the three undergraduate science courses. The three course coordinators chose

similar key elements as the focus for the activities despite differences in year level, discipline,

and assessment format: Elements One, Two, Three, and Seven (Table 6) were all selected by

17

every academic. Each course allocated different amounts of class time to the communication

activities: BIOL3000 – two x 45minute communication workshops integrated into two x 3hr

science practicals; CHEM2052 – one x 90minute communication workshop integrated into one x

3hr science practical; and PHYS3900 – eight hours across four workshops. Common features of

the learning activities were: teaching notes for lecturers to guide delivery plus handouts for

students; an engaging introductory presentation as to why science communication is important

and its relevance to students; and explicit learning objectives and their relevance to the

assignment. A mixture of oral, written, and multimedia formats was used across the activities.

Details of the activities, the elements they addressed, and lists of provided documentation are in

Table 8 with some examples of the teaching documentation provided in Appendix 2.2.

Adaptations were made to the assessment task formats and assessment instructions for all three

courses, with a new assessment task being designed and implemented specifically as a result of

this study for PHYS3900 (outlined in methods, above).

Aim 3B: Evaluating and quantifying student learning

Self-reported student perceptions

Student perceptions – learning gains

232 of the 294 students enrolled across the three courses (79%) responded to the Likert scale

survey questions. On average, across all communication skills, 94.91 ± 0.19% of students

reported improvements in their ability to carry out communication skills taught across all

subjects (Figure 5). 94.39% of students reported improvements in their confidence in

communicating science to non-scientific audiences as a result of the activities (Figure 6). Student

perceptions of improvement in their ability to “consider the social, political, or cultural context

of a scientific issue” and to “visualize data effectively” differed significantly between courses.

Students in third year biology (n = 86) reported significantly more improvement in the skill

involving context than second year chemistry students (n = 109) (LRTχ2

1 =5.529, p = 0.018).

Second year chemistry students reported significantly more improvement in their ability to

visualise data than third year physics students (n = 37, LRTχ2

1 =1 8.458, p = 0.003).

Student perception - engagement

18

Students’ enjoyment of the communication activities varied significantly among subjects

(LRTχ2

2 = 12.755, p = 0.002, Figure 6). Both second year chemistry and third year physics

students enjoyed the activities more than third year biology students (z = 3.462, p < 0.001, z =

2.073, p = 0.038 respectively). Enjoyment was also significantly different between year levels

and between tutorial sizes, with the second year students (chemistry) enjoying the activities more

than third year students (biology and physics) (LRTχ2

1 = 8.438, p = 0.004). Students in small

tutorial sizes enjoyed activities more than those in large tutorial sizes (LRTχ2

1= 10.903, p <

0.001). Students (on average) from each course placed different value on communication skills

for their intended career in science (Figure 6), with biology students rating them as very valuable

(Mo = 5/5), chemistry students as quite valuable (Mo = 4/5), and physics students as only

somewhat valuable (Mo = 3/5). Students across all courses rated the communication skills as

relevant to their assignments with very little variation (Figure 6). It should be noted, however,

that each of the above comparisons was partly confounded as a consequence of the small number

of courses involved.

Student perceptions – were the activities explicit?

188 of the total 294 students (64%) answered the open response question on the surveys. The

strongest response across all three subjects when asked to highlight the main skills they had

learned referred to aspects of ‘Target Audience’ (present in 68.09% of responses) followed by

the ability to ‘Translate complex science language into simple language for different audiences’

(40.96% of all responses). The most common skill relevant to ‘target audience’ identified in

these responses was the ability to “Recognise/identify the existence and/or the importance of

different/suitable target audiences” (28.76%). Chemistry (n = 95) and physics (n = 35) students

highlighted data visualisation and infographics in 37.9% and 20% of their responses respectively.

The use of appropriate style elements was a predominant theme for physics students, with the

ability to use analogy, metaphor, and simile being cited in 48.6%, 20%, and 20% of answers

respectively. Skills involving the ability to ‘Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target

audience’ and ‘Separate essential from non-essential factual content’ were present in a much

higher proportion of the responses from physics students (26% and 20% for each skill

respectively) than from biology (3.4% and 0% for each skill respectively, n=58) or chemistry

students (8.4% and 3.2% for each skill respectively). The predominant skills highlighted through

these open responses aligned with the learning objectives for the respective activities (Table 8).

19

Other skills that students said they had gained from the activities included the simplification of

concepts, clarity and conciseness, problem solving and creativity, group work, the ability to

make communication interesting or engaging, and the need to communicate without bias.

Academic perceptions of student learning

All academics (n = 3) agreed that the teaching of science communication skills in the activities

was clear and explicit. Dr Sharpe (CHEM2052) noted that the approach of introducing students

to the key elements and engaging them in “developing their own conceptions” through class

discussions was effective and that the students would “probably have longer term memories of

those [communication] strategies than if it was a straight ‘infodump’”. All academics agreed that

the skills taught would be highly relevant and useful in helping students to complete the

assignment to a high standard. Prof. Drinkwater stated that he “saw it as a big improvement on

what we were doing last year. The things that made it better were that we were teaching,

practicing, and testing some specific [communication] skills”.

Academic perception – sustainability of activities

All academics stated they intended to implement the same learning activities and materials again

in future years. Dr Sharpe highlighted that “the most useful aspect [of the activities] is actually

having something compiled and ready to go that you can tweak around the edges”.

Academic perception – student engagement

All academics noted the success of using multimedia aspects during activities in stimulating

student engagement. Dr Sharpe stated that this “aspect gave students something concrete to

analyse which was good because it was less abstract and very practical”. All academics thought

that students received the activities positively and Prof. Drinkwater (PHYS3900) noted that

“most students were very enthusiastic…the number [of unenthusiastic students] was much less

than in previous years”. Dr Dwyer noted that he was expecting a higher caliber of assignments

this year relative to last year, specifically in terms of the extent of research and respect for

communication skills. Dr Sharpe and Prof. Drinkwater agreed that the icebreaker introductory

activity at the start of the first workshop was a successful approach to improving student

engagement and enthusiasm.

20

Academic perception – communication facilitating science content

Professor Drinkwater highlighted that in teaching communication he also taught science: “I was

very pleased with the idea of using specific concepts from the physics meaning that I could work

in two objectives from the course: one was to teach communication skills but the other one was

to teach core physics”. Dr Sharpe also agreed that the teaching of communication skills aided the

teaching of science skills by highlighting areas in need of improvement for student

understanding of science. He noted that in the language translation activity, when asked to

explain a chemistry concept to a non-scientific audience, students would say “Oh, I understand

the concept, I just can’t explain it” which for him, indicated that they didn’t have a fundamental

understanding of the science.

Areas for improvement included the need for smaller tutorial sizes in BIOL3000 and

CHEM2052, and either more time or better strategies for managing the larger tutorial sizes.

Quantitative student performance

Results presented here include assignments from BIOL3000 and PHYS3900 in 2014. The due

date for the CHEM2052 (2014) assignment was after the due date for this honours report.

Collection of 2013 assignments is ongoing but was unable to be completed within the honours

timeframe due to the ethics requirement of obtaining student consent. Analysis of these data will

continue and be included in future research and publications. Grades reported below are on a

scale of one to seven (one being ‘fail’ and seven being ‘outstanding’ (Appendix 1.6)).

BIOL3000 assignments for 2014 (n = 16 groups of three students) were assessed across eight of

the relevant communication criteria (Appendix 1.6) in alignment with the learning outcomes.

The average grade for all communication criteria across all assignments was 5.88 ± 0.11 or

‘Good with minor faults that need some work’. Groups scored highest for the criterion

‘Separating essential from non-essential scientific content’ ( ̅ = 6.31 or Excellent’) and least

well on ‘identifying a suitable audience’ ( ̅ = 4.06 or ‘Poor’). Grades were fairly uniform across

the other seven criteria with averages ranging from 6 – 6.31.

PHYS3900 assignments for 2014 (n = 29) were marked across four of the relevant

communication criteria (Appendix 1.6). The average grade for all communication criteria across

all assignments was 5.89 ± 0.09 or ‘Good with minor faults that need some work’. Students

21

scored highest for the criterion ‘Using language appropriate for the target audience’ ( ̅=6.25 or

‘Excellent’) and least well on ‘separating essential from non-essential scientific content’ ( ̅=5.60

or ‘Good’).

DISCUSSION

This research provides the first evidence-based approach to integrating explicit teaching of

science communication into undergraduate science degrees in Australia. This is an important

step towards enhancing the narrow and generally outdated communication skillset currently

taught in undergraduate science degrees (Stevens 2013; Colthorpe et al. 2013; Zou, 2014). The

results highlight that there is work to be done in improving the alignment between theory and

practice for teaching communication in science degrees but also provides encouraging evidence

for an efficient and effective solution. A critique of relevant literature (Aim 1) found that there

are common theoretically-derived elements for effective science communication across the fields

of science, communication, education, and science communication. These elements align closely

with the skills highlighted by expert practitioners from each of those fields as important for

successful science communication. The quantitative analysis of communication in assessment

tasks (Aim 2) revealed that most of these key communication elements were absent from the

majority of assessment instructions for communication-style learning tasks and relatively few

were taught explicitly. These results provide the first detailed evidence that Australian BSc

programs are not supporting adequately student development of the communication Threshold

Learning Outcome (TLO4) for science degrees, which recommends that science graduates be

competent in a diverse communication skillset (Jones et al. 2011). The learning activities

designed and evaluated in Aim 3 provide a successful example of an evidence based approach

that will help address the problem. Evidence shows that explicit support for student learning of

communication skills can be made with minimal time or resource commitment on behalf of the

teaching academics and result in improved learning of both communication and science within

existing assessment tasks. The results indicate that, with some tweaking and further validation,

the approach used in this study may provide a sound, empirically proven foundation from which

to develop useful templates that can be implemented readily across science courses, disciplines,

and universities.

22

The Theory and Practice of Science Communication (Aim 1)

The literature critique revealed that there has been thorough discussion and research on the

theoretical basis for ‘best practice’ in modern science communication. A predominant theme

focusses on the redefinition of science communication as an “exchange (negotiation) of

knowledge between scientists and the lay public in order to achieve a reciprocal understanding”

(van der Sanden & Meijmen 2007; Felt 2003). There are few studies, however, that articulate

clear recommendations for, or examples of, how apply this theory to train people in best practice

science communication. Miller and colleagues (2009) outlined and tested a curriculum for

training professional scientists in reflexive public engagement (which comprises many generic

communication skills) and Bray et al. (2011) conducted a study which negotiated a consensus

among experts as to which core concepts should be taught in a post-graduate science

communication course. There also are many optional science communication courses such as the

AAAS (2014) online module on communicating with the public or the European Commission’s

survival kit for science communication (Carrada 2006) which provide useful examples of

training targeted at professional scientists. These courses tend to result in the training of a self-

selected bias of scientists who seek out communication opportunities (Brownell et al. 2013a)

rather than providing fundamental education to the broad range of scientists in the context of

their tertiary studies. Those examples are useful in beginning to establish best practice for

science communication and indicating educational practices that do or don’t work, but they have

been targeted mostly at practicing professional or postgraduate audiences only. It is unclear

from previous research whether such teaching practices designed for professionals would be

transferrable to undergraduate science education. The lack of studies that directly address an

undergraduate science context highlights the need for evidence that can be used to inform the

implementation of quality education about communication for BSc students. The list of key

elements derived from the literature critique in this research provides an expert-validated starting

point from which a science communication framework could be developed.

These key elements are likely to be applicable outside of an Australian undergraduate context

due to their overall similarity with comparable resources for international postgraduate and

professional science communicators (Bray et al. 2011). Bray et al. (2011) found that “the

audience comes first in any interaction and this focus is non-negotiable” which aligns with the

23

findings of this study: the ability to identify and understand a target audience was ranked as the

most essential science communication skill by experts. Other similarities were the

acknowledgement of audience engagement, awareness of the social, political, and cultural

context, the tools of storytelling, purpose of communication, and knowledge of science

communication theories. What distinguished the lists was the level of sophistication in the skills

taught. Bray et al. (2011) took into account respect of the audience, fostering of trust between

audience and communicator, and highly specific outcomes of communication, all of which are

important but require a much more developed communicative skillset than can be expected

within an undergraduate context. So much agreement between the two separately derived

resources suggests that adopting common recommendations across multiple levels of tertiary

science education may be possible.

Three key elements have stood out as being the most central to effective science communication

as well as being most relevant to teaching science students how to communicate with non-

scientific audiences. Elements One, Two and Three (addressing audience, language, and content

respectively, Table 6) were most commonly cited in the literature and interestingly, also seen by

academics to be most relevant, which suggests a pedagogical alignment between science

communication literature and science academics. These three elements also had the highest

impact on student learning based on the results of the thematic analysis in Aim 3. It will be likely

that, when it comes to course content, lecturers of undergraduate science won’t have the time or

resources to teach all 12 key elements and so a prioritization of skills must occur. Academics can

be confident that by teaching these three elements, at a minimum, they are introducing the most

essential of science communication skills.

The critique undertaken was comprehensive across science communication, communication, and

science but could have been improved by including more education articles in order to access

some of the nuances relevant to undergraduate education. Similarly, future inclusion of non-

scholarly resources would be beneficial because science communication teaching practices often

are better established in professional training courses outside of the scholarly institution and may

offer more practical examples of effective education techniques. There may have been some bias

towards specifically journalistic principles in the communication field due to the researcher’s

24

training in tertiary journalism which influenced the initial decision-making process but the

validation from experts in a variety of fields suggests that this has not unduly biased the results.

What communication is taught in undergraduate science? (Aim 2)

There is a significant lack of explicitness and diversity in the way communication is currently

being taught to undergraduate science students, as shown by the results of Aim 2 (Figure 1). The

few similar studies that examine communication skills in science degrees (quantitative research

in this field is scarce) all provide evidence that these skills are poorly represented and

underdeveloped in BSc programs (Brownell et al. 2013a; Herok et al. 2013; Stevens 2013) .

Herok et al. (2013) found that although graduate attributes, such as communication, have been

articulated and disseminated, there has been a lack of translation into the constructive alignment

(Biggs & Tang 2011) of these graduate outcomes and educational practices. This has resulted in

a mismatch between what universities say graduates should be able to do at the end of a science

degree and the quality of the skills they actually possess (Herok et al. 2013). The low diversity of

communication elements found in assessment instructions in this study reflect the findings of

Stevens (2013) which showed that descriptions of communication-style assessment tasks mostly

focus on a very narrow range of audience, modes, and purposes. This finding is supported by

widespread complaints from journalists, industry, government and the public that scientists are

rarely equipped with the communication skills required to convey information effectively to non-

scientists (e.g., Zou, 2014; Besley & Tanner 2011; Nelkin, 1996). Significant change in current

teaching practices is required if BSc education is to produce graduates with proficiency in a

diverse range of communication skills.

The ability to identify and understand an audience is considered by some experts to be a

threshold concept in science communication (Pope-Ruark 2011) yet it was absent from almost

half of the assessment tasks analysed. Communication in tertiary science curricula often is taught

with a bias (96 per cent) towards scientific audiences (Stevens 2013). This bias might exist

because the inclusion of communication content in science courses is left mostly to the discretion

of the scientists in charge of lecturing and hence reflect their focus on traditional research and

conventional communication to other scientists (Dietz 2013; Barrie, Hughs & Smith 2009).

Lecturers at Australian research-intensive universities place a high value on teaching

communication skills as part of university courses (Stevens 2013) but this does not align with the

25

evidence showing a lack of implementation of such skills. There may be other implementation

barriers preventing lecturers from teaching communication more explicitly, such as a lack of

familiarity, confidence, or professional training in the subject — which are all major factors

limiting scientists’ willingness to engage with broader communities (Ecklund et al. 2012).

Lecturers who implement tasks aimed at non-scientific audiences are likely do so because of a

personal interest in communication as personal values are integrally involved in final decisions

about course content (Dietz 2013; Stevens 2013). These lecturers may think more deliberatively

about how to carry out science communication which could explain why key elements of

communication were more explicit in those tasks. Interest in communication or innovative

education methods also could explain the differences in response rates from course coordinators

of non-technical (79 per cent) versus technical assessment tasks (20 per cent).

Tasks that specify non-scientific audiences, using multimedia formats, and carried out in a group

structure were found to be more explicit than their alternatives (in the majority of cases, Table 7).

These results in combination with other ‘best practice’ studies give initial evidence for what

practices might promote best the explicit teaching of skills. For example, the idea that using a

multimedia approach is beneficial for student learning is rapidly gaining support with research

showing that new media in the classroom facilitates learning goals rather than distracting from

them (Wilcox 2012). This is important because science communication increasingly occurs

online (Bubela et al. 2009) and familiarity with the creation and use of multimedia will better

equip graduates with the requirements of a modern workplace. Research also indicates that

students have high motivation when completing assessment tasks that include new media skills

and are aimed at non-scientific audiences (Stevens 2013; Hoban 2007). Motivation is integral to

student learning as the more engaged students are with the content the more likely they are to

retain the skills they have learned (Kuh 2008). Academic perceptions in Aim 3 align with this as

all three lecturers commented on the usefulness and benefits of using multimedia in stimulating

student engagement.

The outliers when it came to explicitness of elements in Aim 2 are important in identifying those

areas that are in most need of improvement. Overall, Element Ten was taught explicitly in the

highest proportion of tasks because assessment tasks specify format clearly (e.g. essay,

laboratory report, web page) which aligns closely with the ‘mode’ of communication. It must be

26

considered, however, that the statement of assessment format tends to overlook the ‘how’ aspect

of communicating effectively within that format. The fact that Element Twelve was absent from

all assessment tasks is not surprising given that this element requires the most background

knowledge or research for it to be taught adequately and is rarely cited in the literature. This is an

important finding, however, as this element highlights the importance of why science

communication is necessary for scientists and is an integral part of overcoming many perception-

based implementation barriers within the student cohort, and perhaps for some teaching

academics.

There are three limitations to the interpretation provided for the analysis of assessment

instructions. The first is that judging whether a concept is implicit in instruction is difficult

because by nature an implicit concept is hard to discern. This might explain why the number of

key elements classified as ‘implicit’ in assessment tasks was much lower than for either of the

other categories. The sample size of 35 tasks also is relatively low and plans are in place to

expand the sample size. Verbal assessment instructions and supplementary documents, such as

recommended readings, were excluded from the analysis, which may mean that some nuances

and emphases for the assessment tasks were not recorded. The decision not to include these was

made because it cannot be assumed reliably that students will access them or, in the case of

verbal instructions, be able to refer back to them during completion of the task. It would be

worthwhile for future research to examine the presence of key elements in such instructions, to

explore the rates at which students use supplementary documents, and to establish the reliability

of verbal delivery in conveying this information.

A practical approach to science communication education (Aim 3)

Explicit teaching of science communication skills leads to improvements in students’ abilities to

apply those skills and increases their overall confidence in communicating science. This

conclusion is supported by the alignment of results from multiple data sources in Aim 3 and

provides support for the theory of constructive alignment as “an example of outcomes-based

education” (Biggs & Tang 2011). Constructive alignment is the process of articulating explicit

learning outcomes (for example, the specifications of TLO4) and aligning the design of teaching

activities and assessment tasks to facilitate students’ ability to achieve those outcomes (Biggs &

Tang 2011). This process was applied in Aim 3 by stating explicitly the expected learning

27

outcomes for students and aligning the design of activities, assessment tasks, and marking

criteria with those outcomes. This process appears to have facilitated students successfully

learning the specified science communication skills. The high impact of these learning activities

was evidenced by students’ ability to identify and retain understanding of these skills despite

them being embedded within a science-focused, information-intense class setting. They were

also able to apply them successfully in their assessment tasks as shown by the high scores for the

relevant marking criteria. Academics saw the value in this constructive alignment process for

improving both communication and science content relative to past years. All academics also

indicated that they would continue to teach the activities and tasks in future years, indicating that

sustainability of the implementations is likely. Sustainability is imperative to the efficacy of

these activities as ‘templates’. It suggests that these activities likely will be transferable across

research-intensive universities because student cohorts and teaching practices are fairly uniform

across the Go8 (Universities Australia 2014; Stevens 2013; Australian Government Department

of Industry 2013). The next step is to expand the sample size to establish whether these activities

continue to achieve their learning goals in a larger number of courses, across all year levels, and

between institutions. This will also be important in separating the effects of year level, subject,

and tutorial size without the partial confounding of those factors which was a limitation of this

study.

Results suggest the trialed science communication activities are transferrable across science

disciplines and year levels. The fact there were no significant differences in learning gains for six

of the eight skills taught across courses indicates that teaching and learning generally were

uniform for those skills. This supports development of these activities as ‘templates’ that can be

adapted by academics to suit individual courses. This uniformity also could have been a result of

the same person delivering the teaching and further research will be required to separate these

factors. There were two exceptions to this consistency: the significant differences in learning

gains between courses that taught data visualization and social, political, and cultural context.

These differences could be explained by variances in student cohorts or differences in teaching

time, but are likely due to the relevance of those skills to the corresponding assessment tasks.

Data trends indicate that students found skills that were going to be assessed to be more explicit

than those that were not assessed, suggesting that students focussed selectively on assessable

skills and hence the teaching of those skills had a higher impact. This is shown in both instances

28

with significant differences in learning gains: chemistry students reported significantly higher

learning gains than physics in their ability to visualize data and data visualization was assessed in

the chemistry but not the physics course. Likewise, biology students reported significantly higher

learning gains than chemistry in their ability to consider the social, political, or cultural context

of a scientific issue, which was assessed in biology but not in chemistry. Thematic analysis

results also reflected this trend with assessable skills having higher impact and retention in the

corresponding courses. These results support the large body of evidence that suggests assessment

is central to the quality of learning outcomes in higher education and is critical to optimal student

learning and retention (Biggs & Tang 2011; Morgan et al. 2005; Harden & Crosby 2000; Crooks

1998). It also indicates that academics should to assess the science communication skills taught

for optimal outcomes in future implementations. This could be done using a modified version of

the science communication criteria developed in Aim 3 (Appendix 1.6).

Initial results from student performance on communication criteria are positive and indicate that

on average all criteria were fulfilled to ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’ standard in 2014 assessment tasks.

The exception was that biology students generally completed the identification of a target

audience poorly (Criteria 1, Appendix 1.6). This could be because students did not receive

marking criteria until after completing the task (physics and chemistry received them at the start

of the task), or because the assessment outline did not state the expectations sufficiently clearly.

Education research shows that providing criteria prior to assessment clarifies students’

expectations and helps to standardise the quality of student work and consistency in marking

(Saunders & Davis 2014; Brown et al. 1995; McDonald & Sansom 1979). It is important to note

that the collection of these data is ongoing. The data presented here are representative only of

2014 assessments from biology and physics. Analysis of tasks completed prior to the

implementation of science communication teaching (i.e., in 2013) will help confirm whether the

high standard of communication skills in 2014 are due to the learning activities or simply

attributes of the student cohort. It will also have implications for areas in need of adaptation for

the expansion of this study in the future.

Areas highlighted as having room for improvement were the structure of the activities in needing

more time and depth, and needing smaller tutorial sizes. Initial support for more teaching time is

offered by results of the thematic analysis that indicate certain skills had a much higher impact

29

on physics students than those in biology or chemistry. This could be attributed to the fact that

physics classes received three to four times more teaching hours or because they were given the

opportunity for formative feedback on assessment. Formative feedback allows students to

increase knowledge, understanding, or skills and improve their learning prior to evaluation and

has been shown to facilitate improved learning gains and learning strategies (Shute 2008). The

use of formative feedback in the physics workshops could explain the higher impact and

retention of skills in physics students. The need for smaller tutorial sizes was highlighted by both

students and academics. Communication lends itself to a discursive teaching format which is

much harder to deliver in-depth in large classes. This was indicated by the fact that smaller

tutorial sizes enjoyed the activities significantly more than large tutorials, although this factor

was confounded partially with subject and should be used as an indication for further research

only. It is the recommendation of this study that tutorial sizes of 30 or less would be ideal for

these activities. This limitation on class size is supported by Bandiera et al. (2010) who found

that tertiary student achievement decreased as class size increased in the UK, indicating that

smaller classes optimize student learning. It would be worthwhile investigating whether the

standard of learning would improve further should these changes be made in future years.

This study found evidence that aligned with a growing body of research suggesting that teaching

communication in science courses facilitates the learning of technical science rather than

distracting from it. This finding was supported by multiple data sources such as student

performance measures on science criteria, and student and academic feedback noting the

learning of subject-specific science content through the communication activities. This finding

aligns with a similar study at Stanford University (Brownell et al. 2013) that found that the

teaching of communication to non-scientific audiences in a neuroscience course significantly

improved understanding of original scientific literature, aided students’ critical analyses, as well

as improving communication skills. Similar results from Australian studies say that

communication assessment tasks in science degrees “led to learning gains in quantitative

reasoning skills”, interpretation of scientific results, and learning of core science competencies

(Kuchel et al. 2014; Stevens 2013). These combined results provide solid evidence to support the

idea that assessment tasks which ask students to convey scientific information to non-scientific

audiences lead to significant improvements in both science knowledge and communication

skillsets.

30

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study applied an evidence-based approach to explore ways to improve the teaching of non-

technical communication skills to undergraduate science students at Australian research-

intensive universities. The list of ‘Key Elements of Effective Science Communication’ is the first

such set of guidelines to be developed specifically for an undergraduate context. The list of

elements provides a useful start to the development of a broader communication framework for

Australian undergraduate science degrees. The analysis of what (and how) communication skills

are taught currently in science degrees provides direction as to where and how improvements are

needed. The provision of tested and validated science communication template activities and

marking rubrics that can be adapted to specific courses is a promising approach to overcoming

the commonly cited implementation barrier of time-poor staff, lack of resources, and skill-

specific knowledge. Templates also ensure that the communication skills being taught are

explicit and relevant to students, and successful in achieving the intended learning outcomes.

The learning activities designed for this project represent a starting point for this endeavour.

Important directions in future research include the expansion of the list of key elements into a

detailed framework that considers a wider range of audiences, modes, and purposes for the

teaching of communication in Australian science degrees. Expansion of the sample size of

assessment tasks in Aim 2 to include more disciplines, year levels, and universities (Australian

and international) would help define the extent and nature of what improvements are needed to

achieve educational standards such as TLO4 (Communication). Finally, the dissemination and

implementation of the key elements and the learning activities in a wider range of universities

around Australia, as well as the development and implementation of relevant assessment tasks to

assess those skills, would increase the scope and applicability of this research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to express my deep gratitude for the commitment, support, and

generosity shown by my supervisor, Dr Louise Kuchel, in guiding me through my honours

project. This year would also not have been possible (or as enjoyable) without my colleagues and

friends, Sarah Stevens and Bianca Zou, who were always around to offer advice and a laugh.

Special acknowledgment must go to Dr Simon Blomberg whose statistical knowledge and advice

saved me numerous hours of stress and frustration; and to the collaborative efforts of Dr John

31

Dwyer, Professor Michael Drinkwater, and Dr Philip Sharpe. Thanks also to the unwavering

support of my parents, Dr Gina Mercer and Dr Bruce Mapstone, and to all of my friends who

have ridden the highs and lows with me for every step of the way this year.

REFERENCES

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (2009). Cultivating biological

literacy. In: Vision and change in undergraduate biology: A call to action (eds. Brewer,

C.A., and Smith, D.). Washington DC, pp. 10-19.

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (2014). Communicating

Science: Tools for Scientists and Engineers. Available at:

[http://www.aaas.org/communicatingscience]. Last accessed: 9 October 2014.

Anderson, D. & Burns, S. (2013). One-minute paper: student perception of learning gains. Coll.

Stud. J. 47:1, 219-227.

Australian Government Department of Industry (2013). Higher Education Statistics. Available

at:

[http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/HigherEducationStatistics/Pages/default.

aspx]. Last accessed 14 March 2014.

Bandiera, O., Larcinese, V. & Rasul, I. (2010). Heterogeneous Class Size Effects: New Evidence

from a Panel of University Students. Econ. J. 120:549, 1365-1398.

Baram-Tsabari, A. & Lewenstein, B.V. (2013). An Instrument for Assessing Scientists’ Written

Skills in Public Communication of Science. Sci. Commun., 35, 56-85.

Barrie, S, Hughes, C, Smith, C & Thomson, K. (2009). Key issues to consider in the renewal of

learning and teaching experiences to foster Graduate Attributes. Available at:

[http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/nationalgap/resources/GAPpdfs/NationalGAP_issue

s_Papers.pdf]. Last Accessed 19 September 2014.

Besley, J.C. & Tanner, A.H. (2011). What Science Communication Scholars Think About

Training Scientists to Communicate. Sci. Comm., 33, 239-263.

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Open University

Press, Buckingham. Available at

32

[http://udprism01.ucd.ie/TalisPrism/doOpenURLSearch.do?sid=Talis:prod_talis&pid=Ke

y%3A1400700%3BArtifactType%3AMarc21S]. Last accessed: 14 October 2014.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol., 3:2,

77-101.

Bray, B., France, B. & Gilbert, J.K. (2011). Identifying the essential elements of effective

science communication: What do the experts say? Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B, 2, 23-41.

Brown, S., Race, P. & Rust, C. (1995). Using and experiencing assessment. Assessment for

Learning in Higher Education, Kogan-Page, London.

Brownell, S.E., Price, J.V. & Steinman, L. (2013). A writing-intensive course improves biology

undergraduates' perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature

and communicate science. Adv. Physiol. Educ., 37, 70-79.

Brownell, S.E., Price, J.V. & Steinman, L. (2013a). Science Communication to the General

Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part

of Their Formal Scientific Training. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 12:1, e6-10.

Bubela, T., Nisbet, M.C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G.,

Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-lay, R., Jandciu, E.W., Jones, S.A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S.,

Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O'riordan, K., Ouellette, C., Spear, M., Strauss,

S., Thavaratnam, T., Willemse, L. & Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication

reconsidered. Nature Biotechn. 27:6, 514-518.

Bucchi, M. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Underst. Sci., 22, 904-915.

Carrada. G. (2006). A scientist’s survival kit: communicating science. Available at:

[http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/communicating-science_en.pdf]. Last

accessed: 9 October 2014.

Colthorpe, K., Rowland, S. & Leach, J. (2013). Good Practice Guide (Science) Threshold

Learning Outcome 4: Communication. Available at:

[http://www.acds.edu.au/tlcentre/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Science-Good-Practice-

Guide-2013-TLO4.pdf]. Last accessed: 12 June 2014.

33

Cook-Sather, A. (2011). Lessons in Higher Education: Five Pedagogical Practices that Promote

Active Learning for Faculty and Students. J. Faculty Develop., 25:3, 33-39.

Crooks T. (1998). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Assess. Educ. 5,

131–7.

Dietz, T. (2013). Bridging values and deliberation to science communication. PNAS, 110, 14081-

14087.

Ecklund, E., James, S. & Lincoln, A. (2012). How Academic Biologists and Physicists View

Science Outreach., PLoS ONE. 7:5, e36240.

Eisenberg, A. (1984). Effective writing in science. TrAC-Trend. Anal. Chem., 3, IV-VI.

Felt, U. (2003). Why Should the Public ‘Understand’ Science? A Historical Perspective on

Aspects of the Public Understanding of Science in Between Understanding and Trust:

The Public, Science and Technology, Routledge, London, UK. pp. 7–39.

Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110, 14033-

14039.

Fog, K., Budtz, C., Munch, P. & Blanchette, S. (2010). Storytelling: Branding in Practice.

Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Frederiksberg, Denmark.

Gray, F.E., Emerson, L. & MacKay, B. (2005). Meeting the Demands of the Workplace: Science

Students and Written Skills. J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 14, 425-435.

Green, J. & Britten, N. (1998) Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. Brit. Med. J.

7139, 1230-1232.

Greenwood M. & Riordan D. (2001) Civic scientist/Civic Duty. Sci. Commun. 23, 28-40.

Group of Eight Australia (2014). Students. Available at: [http://www.go8.edu.au/students] Last

Accessed 19 March 2014.

Harden RM. & Crosby JR. (2000). AMEE education guide no. 20: The good teacher is more than

a lecturer – the twelve roles of the teacher. Med. Teach. 22, 334–47.

Hassoi, S. (2008). Improving How Scientists Communicate About Climate Change. Eos, 89,

106-107.

34

Herok, G., Chuck, J. & Millar, T. (2013). Teaching and evaluating graduate attributes in Science

Based Disciplines. Creative Educ. 4:7, 42-49.

Hoban, G. (2007). Using slowmation to engage preservice elementary teachers in understanding

science content knowledge. Contemp. Issues Tech. Teacher Educ. 7:2, 1-9.

Jones, S., Yates, B. & Kelder, J.-A. (2011). Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project:

Science Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement. Available at:

[http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/altc_standards_SCIENCE_240811_v3.pdf]. Last

accessed: 5 May 2014.

Kember, D. (2003). To Control or Not to Control: The question of whether experimental designs

are appropriate for evaluating teaching innovations in higher education. Assess. Eval.

Higher Educ., 28:1, 89-101.

Kuchel, L., Wilson, R., Stevens, S. & Cokley J. (2014, in press). A documentary video

assignment to enhance learning in large first-year science classes. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math.

Educ.

Kuh, G.D. (2008). Why Integration and Engagement are Essential to Effective Educational

Practice in the Twenty-first Century. Peer Review, 10, 27-28.

Kulgemeyer, C. & Schecker, H. (2013). Students Explaining Science—Assessment of Science

Communication Competence. Res. Sci. Educ., 43, 2235-2256.

Leshner A. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science. 299, 977.

Manzini, S. (2003). Effective Communication of Science in a Culturally Diverse Society. Sci.

Commun., 25, 191-197.

Mayhew, M.A. & Hall, M.K. (2012). Science Communication in a Café Scientifique for High

School Teens. Sci. Commun., 34, 546-554.

McDonald, R. & Sansom, D. (1979). Uses of assignment attachments in assessment. Assess.

High. Educ. 5:1, 45-55.

McInnis, C., Hartley, R. & Anderson, M. (2000). What Did You Do with Your Science Degree?

A National Study of Employment Outcomes for Science Degree Holders 1990-2000.

University of Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Available at:

35

[https://cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/disciplines/docs/ScienceR.pdf]. Last accessed: 14

October 2014.

Metcalfe, J. & Gascoigne, T. (1995). Science Journalism in Australia. Public Underst. Sci., 4,

411-428.

Miller, S., Fahy, D. & Team, T.E. (2009). Can Science Communication Workshops Train

Scientists for Reflexive Public Engagement?: The ESConet Experience. Sci. Commun.,

31, 116-126.

Morgan, M. K., Clarke, R., Weidmann, M., Laidlaw, J. & Law, A. (2007). How assessment

drives learning in neurosurgical higher training. J. Clinic. Neurosci. 14:4, 349-354.

Mulder, H.A.J., Longnecker, N. & Davis, L.S. (2008). The State of Science Communication

Programs at Universities Around the World. Sci. Comm., 30, 277-287.

Murry, J.W., & Hammons, J.O. (1995). Delphi—a versatile methodology for conducting

qualitative research. Review of Higher Educ., 18:4, 423–436.

Polman, J., Newman, A., Farrar, C. & Saul, E.W. (2012). Science Journalism: Students learn

lifelong science literacy skills by reporting the news. Sci. Teach. 79, 44-47.

Pope-Ruark, R. (2011). Know Thy Audience: Helping Students Engage a Threshold Concept

Using Audience-Based Pedagogy. Int. J. Schol. Teach. Learn. 5:1, 6.

R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available at

[http://www.R-project.org/]. Last accessed 10 August 2014.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken.

Rowland, S.L. (2012). Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and the Changing Tertiary Education

Landscape in Australia. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 40, 24-28.

Ryan, M. (2004). Narrative across media: the languages of storytelling. University of Nebraska

Press, Lincoln, USA.

Ryder, J. (2001). Indentifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Stud. Sci.

Educ., 36, 1-44.

36

Saunders, K. & Davis, S. (1998). The use of assessment criteria to ensure consistency of

marking: some implications for good practice. Qual. Assur. Educ. 6:3, 162-171.

Sevian, H. & Gonsalves, L. (2008). Analysing how scientists explain their research: A rubric for

measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30, 1441-1467.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Rev. Educ, Research. 78:1, 153-189.

Somerville R. & Hassol SJ. (2011). Communicating the science of climate change. Phys Today.

64, 48-53.

Stevens, S. (2013). What communication skills are taught in Australian science degrees and what

else do students learn from "communication to non-scientists" tasks? Honours thesis.

School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia.

Tuten, H. & Temesvari, L. (2013). Popular science journalism: facilitating learning through peer

review and communication of science news. J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 42, 46-49.

van der Sanden, M. C. A. & Meijman F. J. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding

of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science

communication approaches. Public Underst. Sci., 17:1, 89-103.

van der Sanden, M.C.A. & Meijman, F.J. (2012). A step-by-step approach for science

communication practitioners: a design perspective. J. Sci. Commun., 11.

Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus. Fourth Edition.

Springer, New York, USA.

Whittington, C.P., Pellock, S.J., Cunningham, R.L. & Cox, J.R. (2014). Combining content and

concepts of communication into an upper-level biochemistry course. Biochem. Mol. Biol.

Educ., 42, 136-141.

Wilcox, C. (2012). Guest Editorial It's Time To e-Volve: Taking Responsibility for Science

Communication in a Digital Age. Biol. Bull., 222:2, 85-87.

Zou, B. (2014). Teaching Communication for Science Engagement with Non-scientists in

Tertiary Science Education: Student, Lecturer and Employer Beliefs. Honours thesis.

School of Agriculture and Food Science, University of Queensland, Australia.

37

TABLES

Table 1. Names of Australian Go8 universities included in this study and their abbreviations

Institution Abbreviation

Australian National University ANU

The University of Queensland UQ

The University of Melbourne UniMelb

The University of Western Australia UWA

38

Table 2. Variables used in the analysis of assessment tasks (Aim 2). A total of 35 assessment

tasks were examined..

Category (Predictor

variable) Sub-category

Number of assessment tasks

represented in each category

Audience Non-scientific 18

Scientific 17

University (not included in

statistical analyses)

UQ 20

UWA 2

UniMelb 2

ANU 11

Major Biology 9

Ecology 5

Marine Biology 1

Mathematics and Statistics 1

Chemistry 4

Physics 2

Biochemistry 1

Genetics 2

Geography 10

Discipline (not included in

statistical analyses)

Biology 17

Chemistry 6

Physics 3

Geography 10

Format Multimedia 8

Oral 4

Written 23

Participant Structure Group 11

Individual 24

Undergraduate Year Level First year 4

Second Year 11

Third Year 20

39

Table 3. The comprehensive list of 17 key elements of effective science communication derived from the literature (Aim 1A) in order

from most to least citations. Elements excluded from the refined list of 10 are indicated by the presence of a reason for exclusion.

Essential element of effective

science communication Academic Source(s)

Number of

sources cited

Reason element was excluded

from initial list

Identify/consider a suitable

target audience

Bray et al. (2011); Colthorpe et al. (2013); AAAS (2009);

Miller et al. (2009); van der Sanden and Meijman (2012);

Whittington et al. (2014); Mayhew and Hall (2012);

Kulgemeyer and Schecker (2013); Brownell et al. (2013);

Tuten and Temesvari (2013); Manzini (2003); Eisenberg

(1984); Hassoi (2008)

13

Use language that is appropriate

for the target audience - e.g.

consider what jargon to use or

explain

Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein (2013); Colthorpe et al.

(2013); Sevian and Gonsalves (2008); Mayhew and Hall

(2012); Kulgemeyer and Schecker (2013); Brownell et al.

(2013); Manzini (2003); Hassoi (2008)

8

Use (factual) content that is

appropriate, interesting, and

relevant to the target audience

Bray et al. (2011); Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein (2013);

Colthorpe et al. (2013); van der Sanden and Meijman

(2012); Whittington et al. (2014); Kulgemeyer and

Schecker (2013)

6

Consider the social, political, and

cultural context of the

communication

Bray et al. (2011); AAAS (2009); Sevian and Gonsalves

(2008); Miller et al. (2009); Polman et al. (2012); Tuten

and Temesvari (2013); Manzini (2003)

7

Promote audience engagement

with the scientific content

Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein (2013); Bray et al. (2011);

Colthorpe et al. (2013); Sevian and Gonsalves (2008);

Mayhew and Hall (2012)

5

Use style elements such as

humour, anecdotes, metaphors,

imagery, etc.

Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein (2013); Bray et al. (2011);

Colthorpe et al. (2013); Sevian and Gonsalves (2008);

Bucchi (2013); Eisenberg (1984); Hassoi (2008)

7

40

Essential element of effective

science communication Academic Source(s)

Number of

sources cited

Reason element was excluded

from initial list

Consider the levels of prior

knowledge in your target

audience

Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein (2013); Fischhoff (2013);

Sevian and Gonsalves (2008); Mayhew and Hall (2012);

Kulgemeyer and Schecker (2013)

5

Communicate organised ideas

and concepts using clarity,

accuracy, and logic

Gray et al. (2005); Sevian and Gonsalves (2008); Brownell

et al. (2013); Eisenberg (1984)

4 This element is important to

communication in general and

was not specific enough to

science communication for

inclusion on the final list. It also

usually is included in other

criteria of education

assessment.

Use the tools of storytelling to

create a coherent narrative

Bray et al. (2011); Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein (2013);

Mayhew and Hall (2012)

3

Identify the

purpose/goal/objective of the

communication

Colthorpe et al. (2013); Miller et al. (2009); van der

Sanden and Meijman (2012)

3

Consider aesthetic components

to promote the visual appeal of

the communication

Gray et al. (2005); Sevian and Gonsalves (2008);

Whittington et al. (2014)

3 This is a skill that is specific to

certain categories of

communication (e.g. web

design) rather than a generic or

widely applicable skill of

science communication.

Use a suitable mode of

communication

Colthorpe et al. (2013); Kulgemeyer and Schecker (2013) 2

41

Essential element of effective

science communication Academic Source(s)

Number of

sources cited

Reason element was excluded

from initial list

Present the information within a

relatable context

Kulgemeyer and Schecker (2013); Polman et al. (2012) 2

Use correct grammar,

punctuation, and spelling

Gray et al. (2005) 1 This element is important to

communication in general and

was not specific enough to

science communication for

inclusion on the final list. It also

commonly is categorised as a

skill for primary and secondary

rather than tertiary education.

Use a suitable platform for

dissemination

Colthorpe et al. (2013) 1 The term ‘platform’ holds more

weight in a journalism context

but the connotations are better

expressed in combination with

‘mode’ rather than separately

for undergraduate science.

Consideration of potential

misconceptions as a result of the

communication

van der Sanden and Meijman (2012) 1 Better categorised under more

specific courses such as

environmental management

rather than as a generic science

communication element.

Evaluate the adequacy of the

communication

(Fischhoff (2013)) 1 This requires a more developed

self-evaluative skillset that is

considered too advanced for an

undergraduate demographic.

42

Table 4. Identities of experts who participated in the validation survey that generated the final

list of essential elements (Aim 1B). The indicated fields of expertise are self-reported. Those

experts who did not wish to be identified by name are listed as ‘anonymous’.

Respondent (Institution) Field of expertise

Science Education

Science

Communication Communication Other

Doctor Lindy Orthia (ANU)

Doctor William Rifkin (UQ) Sociology

Doctor Rod Lamberts (ANU)

Doctor Sean Perera (ANU)

Professor Susan Stocklmayer

(ANU)

Associate Professor Nancy

Longnecker (UWA)

Associate Professor Roslyn

Gleadow (Monash)

Donna Meiklejohn (QUT)

Brad Turner (UQ)

Associate Professor John

Cokley (Swinburne)

Journalism

Anonymous 1

Anonymous 2

Anonymous 3

Anonymous 4

Anonymous 5 History &

Philosophy

of Science

43

Table 5: Average rankings from most to least essential of the ten key elements within the context

of undergraduate science tertiary education in Australia. Elements were ranked by 15 experts

across the fields of science, communication, education, and science communication and are

based on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 0 as ‘Not at all essential’ to 7 as ‘Absolutely

essential’.

Rank Key elements of effective science communication

Average rating

of essentiality

1 Use language that is appropriate for your target audience 6.80

2 Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication 6.53

3 Present the scientific information in an engaging context 6.47

4 Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience 6.33

5 Identify a suitable target audience 6.27

6 Use a suitable mode and platform to communicate 6.27

7 Use the tools of storytelling and narrative 6.13

8 Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the science being

communicated

6.07

9 Use style elements such as humour, anecdotes, metaphors, and imagery 6.00

10 Include factual content that is relevant to the target audience's

understanding of the science

5.87

44

Table 6. The final list of key elements of effective science communication in an undergraduate

science context. Changes and additions made in response to feedback from experts (Table 4) are

in bold. Elements are referenced by number in the results section and other figures.

Reference

number

Key elements of effective science communication

1 Identify and understand a suitable target audience

2 Use language that is appropriate for your target audience

3 Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is

relevant to the target audience

4 Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the scientific information

5 Promote audience engagement with the science

6 Use/consider style elements appropriate for the mode of communication (such as

humour, anecdotes, analogy, metaphors, rhetoric, images, body language, eye

contact, and diagrams)

7 Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience

8 Use the tools of storytelling and narrative

9 Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication

10 Use a suitable mode and platform to communicate with the target audience

11 Encourage a two-way dialogue with the audience

12 Understand the underlying theories leading to the development of science

communication and why it is important

45

Table 7. Significant effects of predictor variables on how explicitly certain key elements were taught across the 35 assessment tasks as

determined by deviance chi-square tests (Aim 2B). The symbols > & < are used below to indicate more or less explicit teaching of a

task respectively.

Key Element Predictor variables that

had a significant effect

Statistical values Direction of the effect

Identify and understand a

suitable target audience

Audience LRT χ2

2 = 6.24, p = 0.044 Non-scientific audiences > scientific

audiences

Year level LRT χ2

4= 19.94, p = 0.001 Third year courses > first year > second year

Use language that is

appropriate for your target

audience

Participation structure LRT χ2

2 = 8.12, p = 0.017 Individual tasks > group tasks

Separate essential from non-

essential factual content in a

context that is relevant to the

target audience

Audience LRT χ2

2 = 7.53, p = 0.023 Non-scientific audiences > scientific

audiences

Format LRT χ2

4 = 13.66, p = 0.008 Multimedia > written > oral.

Participation structure LRT χ2

2 = 9.77, p = 0.007 Group tasks > individual tasks

Promote audience engagement

with the science

Year level LRT χ2

4 = 18.67, p < 0.001 First year > second year > third year

Participation structure LRT χ2

2 = 6.59, p = 0.037 Group tasks > individual tasks

Use/consider style elements

appropriate for the mode of

communication

Format LRT χ2

4 = 9.97, p = 0.040 Multimedia > written > oral.

Identify the purpose and

intended outcome of the

communication

Audience LRT χ2

1 = 7.84, p = 0.005 Non-scientific audiences > scientific

audiences

Year level LRT χ2

2 = 7.84, p < 0.001 Second year > first year > third year

Format LRT χ2

2 = 10.72, p = 0.004 Oral > written > multimedia

Use a suitable mode and

platform to communicate with

the target audience

Audience

LRT χ2

1 = 7.74, p = 0.005 Non-scientific audiences > scientific

audiences

46

Table 8. Description and details of the seven learning activities designed and implemented to support explicit teaching of

communication (Aim 3A).

Description of task and purpose

Activity Name: Language and Jargon translation

Duration (minutes): 30

Key Elements Taught: Consider a target audience (Element One)

Use language that is appropriate for your target audience (Element Two)

Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is relevant to the target audience

(Element Three)

Course: BIOL3000, PHYS3900, CHEM2052

Teaching Documents: Teaching notes for delivery, Student handout

Format: Written

Description: This activity guided students through an easily-applied, step-by-step process for translating complex scientific language

into language that was understandable and accessible for different, non-scientific target audiences. Students work through one

example as a class and then practiced this by taking complex science definitions and translating them for pre-specified audiences on a

worksheet in pairs. This activity allows course coordinators to teach/include scientific content that is relevant to their courses as well

as equipping students with a skill that will be applicable in many situations throughout their degree and career.

Activity Name: Effective Data Visualisation Through Infographics

Duration (minutes): 20

Key Elements Taught: Use language that is appropriate for your target audience (Element Two)

Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is relevant to the target audience

(Element Three)

Create/use style elements (diagrams) appropriate for the mode of communication (Element Six)

Course: CHEM2052, PHYS3900

Teaching Documents: Teaching notes for delivery, Student handout

Format: Multimedia, Written

Description: This activity started with a class analysis of two diagrams: one the original table from the scientific literature, and the

other an infographic visualisation of that data. Students worked as a class to create a list of what makes an engaging infographic and

to decide what to do and what not to do when visualizing data for a non-scientific audience. Students were then presented with a data

47

set and asked to work in groups of four to draw their own infographic which visualised the given data in the most effective way on a

sheet of butcher’s paper. Prizes were given for the best infographics. This activity gets students to actively engage in the process of

data visualisation rather than just being told outright, and teaches students to synthesize data sets and to apply some of the basic skills

of effective science communication. This activity also worked well as a class ‘icebreaker’.

Activity Name: Communicating with Style: Analogy, Metaphor, and Simile

Duration (minutes): 30

Key Elements Taught: Consider a target audience (Element One)

Use language that is appropriate for your target audience (Element Two)

Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is relevant to the target audience

(Element Three)

Create/use style elements (analogy, metaphor, and simile) appropriate for the mode of communication

(Element Six)

Consider levels of prior scientific knowledge in the target audience (Element Seven)

Course: PHYS3900

Teaching Documents: Teaching notes for delivery, Student handout

Format: Oral, Written

Description: This activity started with an introduction to analogy, metaphor, and simile: explaining how they are used, their strengths

and weaknesses, and why they are useful for science communication. Students were then given three complex scientific concepts and

asked to explain each concept to three different, pre-specified, non-scientific audiences using an analogy, metaphor, or simile that

simplified the explanation and made the science accessible to the target audience.

Activity Name: Stakeholder Analysis

Duration (minutes): 30

Key Elements Taught: Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the scientific information (Element Four)

Course: BIOL3000

Teaching Documents: Take-home student worksheet

Format: Written

Description: This activity was given as a take home worksheet as part of BIOL3000. Students were asked to identify all the potential

invested stakeholders in a conservation issue in regards to cultural, political, economic, and social investment and then to identify and

analyse the three main stakeholders in regards to how and why they might be invested in the issue. This activity allowed students to

consider all aspects of a conservation issue alongside the science involved in the topic.

48

Activity Name: Science Communication Speed Dating

Duration (minutes): 15

Key Elements Taught: Consider a target audience (Element One)

Use language that is appropriate for your target audience (Element Two)

Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is relevant to the target audience

(Element Three)

Course: PHYS3900

Teaching Documents: Teaching notes for delivery

Format: Oral

Description: This activity was used as an ‘icebreaker’ at the start of the course and as an introduction to science communication.

Students were asked to pair up and over four rounds were given four science concepts to explain verbally to their respective partners

who enacted being a specified non-scientific target audience. Each round lasted two minutes and then the roles reversed in the pairs so

that each had a chance to do the explaining. At the end of the speed dating round there was a class discussion about what the most

important considerations were in regards to communicating science to non-scientific audiences which meant students were actively

engaged in the learning rather than just receiving the information outright. The activity made students communicate science and then

allowed them to analyse the results of this interaction, as well as getting them to recall scientific information. It was a good way to

warm up the class in the first tutorial and helped students to realise that science communication is perhaps not as easy as some might

think. This helped reinforce the importance of learning these communication skills.

Activity Name: Target Audience Analysis: Radio

Duration (minutes): 25

Key Elements Taught: Identify a suitable target audience (Element One)

Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication (Element Nine)

Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the scientific information (Element Four)

Course: BIOL3000

Teaching Documents: Teaching notes for delivery, Student handout, Radio segment

Format: Multimedia, written

Description: Students were asked to listen to a five-minute radio segment on a controversial conservation issue and then form groups

to analyse: the main messages; the potential interested audiences; the main invested stakeholders in the issue with regards to culture,

economy, politics, and social groups; the opposing arguments in the segment; and the purpose and outcome of the segment. These

were then summarised in groups and presented to the class for discussion.

49

Activity Name: Target Audience Analysis: Video

Duration (minutes): 20

Key Elements Taught: Identify and understand a suitable target audience (Element One)

Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the scientific information (Element Four)

Consider levels of prior scientific knowledge in the target audience (Element Seven)

Course: CHEM2052, PHYS3900

Teaching Documents: Teaching notes for delivery, Student handout

Format: Multimedia, written

Description: Students were asked to watch a three-minute science video and then as a class to discuss what some of the main

considerations which might have influenced the authors in making the video. They then worked in pairs on a worksheet that guided

them through the process of audience analysis for who they considered to be the target audience of the video. This activity gets

students to actively engage in the process of audience analysis rather than just being told outright, and introduces them to some of the

central considerations of communication as well as the mode of communication on which they are being assessed (video – for

CHEM2052).

50

FIGURES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Per

cen

t (%

)

Key elements of effective science communication

Absent

Implicit

Explict

Figure 1. The percentage of each key element of effective science communication that was

explicit, implicit, or absent in core written teaching documents for all 35 assessment tasks across

the Australian Go8 universities: ANU, UQ, UWA, and UniMelb (see Table 6 for descriptions of

elements).

51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Per

cen

t A

bse

nt

(%)

Key elements of effective science communication

C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Per

cen

t Im

plic

it (

%)

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Per

cen

t Ex

plic

it (

%)

A Non-scientific

Scientific

Audience

Figure 2. A comparison of the presence of each key element of science communication (Table 6)

in assessment tasks that target scientific versus non-scientific audiences. A) Percentages for each

element that was taught explicitly. B) Percentages for each element that was taught implicitly. C)

Percentages for each element that was absent. Data were collected from supporting teaching

materials for 35 communication-style assessment tasks across the Australian Go8 universities:

ANU, UQ, UWA, and UniMelb).

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Biology Chemistry Geography Physics

Per

cen

t (%

)

Discipline

Explicit

Implicit

Absent

Figure 4. Percentages of how explicitly the key elements of effective science communication

(Table 6) were taught in 4 science disciplines.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60P

erc

en

t Ex

plic

it (

%)

Undergraduate Science Major

Figure 3. The proportion (%) of key elements (Table 6) that were taught explicitly

within assessment tasks for each undergraduate science major examined (Table 2).

53

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00A

vera

ge L

iker

t-Sc

ale

Re

spo

nse

Science Communication Skill

Biology

Physics

Chemistry

Figure 5. Self-reported student learning gains (averaged across three science courses for 232

students) in response to the question “How much has your ability to do the following skills

improved as a result of the workshop activities?” on a Likert scale of 0 = Not at all to 3 =

somewhat to 5 = Very Much. Abbreviated science communication skills on the X axis align

with the key elements shown in Table 6 as follows: Audience - Element One, Language –

Element Two, Prior Knowledge – Element Seven, Context – Element Four, Content –

Element Three, Style and Data Visualization – Element Six, Purpose – Element Nine. Data

bars not shown where those skills were not taught in those courses.

54

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Enjoyment Relevance Value Confidence

Ave

rage

Lik

ert

-Sca

le R

ep

on

se

Question Topic

Biology

Physics

Chemistry

Figure 6. Student perceptions (averaged across three science courses for 232 students) on a

Likert scale of 0 = Not at all to 3 = somewhat to 5 = Very Much. The abbreviated question

topics align with the following questions: Enjoyment - Did you enjoy these communication

activities?; Relevance - How relevant do you feel these class activities are to your

assignment?; Value - How valuable do you believe these communication skills will be to

your career in science?; and Confidence - Do you feel more confident in effectively

communicating science to a non-scientific audience as a result of these activities?

55

APPENDIX 1: Research methods

1.1 Survey for experts used in Aim 1B

Aim 1B: Questions for survey of experts, distributed using the online survey tool ‘Survey

Monkey’ (https://www.surveymonkey.com)

1. Please state your name.

2. Please indicate if you give consent to your name being included in a list of people/experts

consulted in any publications arising from this study. (Multiple Choice Question)

I am happy to be acknowledged.

Please keep my identity anonymous.

3. Which of the following do you consider your primary field of expertise? (Can select more

than one) (Multiple Choice Question)

Science

Communication

Science communication

Education

Other (please comment)

4. In your opinion, what key elements are integral to educating undergraduate science

students to communicate to non-scientific audiences?

5. Please consider the following list of key elements of effective science communication.

This suggested list was designed as a possible guide in teaching undergraduate science

students to communicate to non-scientific audiences:

Key elements of effective science communication

Identify a suitable target audience

Use language that is appropriate for your target audience

Include factual content that is relevant to the target audience

Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the science being communicated

56

Promote audience engagement with the scientific content

Use style elements such as humour, anecdotes, metaphors, and imagery

Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience

Use the tools of storytelling and narrative

Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication

Use a suitable mode and platform to communicate

Present the scientific information within a relatable and engaging context

How applicable do you think this list is for teaching undergraduate science students to

communicate to non-scientific audiences? (Likert Scale)

1 - Not at all applicable

2 - Rarely applicable

3 - Neutral

4 - Somewhat applicable

5 - Extremely applicable

6. Please provide reasons for your above answer if you wish.

7. Please rate how essential each element from the below list is within the context of

educating undergraduate science students to communicate to non-scientific audiences.

(Likert scale)

Key elements of effective science communication

Identify a suitable target audience

Use language that is appropriate for your target audience

Include factual content that is relevant to the target audience

Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the science being communicated

Promote audience engagement with the scientific content

Use style elements such as humour, anecdotes, metaphors, and imagery

57

Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience

Use the tools of storytelling and narrative

Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication

Use a suitable mode and platform to communicate

Present the scientific information within a relatable and engaging context

Each element rated on the following Likert scale:

1 – Not at all essential

2 – Rarely essential

3 – Sometimes essential

4 – Neutral

5 – Mostly essential

6 – Highly essential

7 – Absolutely essential

8. Please provide reasons for your above answer if you wish

9. To help inform the teaching of undergraduate science students, what changes would you

recommend be made to the list of key elements?

58

1.2 Decision making flow-chart in Aim 2A

Essential element directly

explained or referenced in core

documents

Essential element vaguely

referenced in core documents

Essential element referenced in

marking criteria not given to

students

EXPLICIT

ABSENT

IMPLICIT

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

YES

Decision-making flow chart used as an aid for the analyses of documents used to teach and assess

communication tasks in regard to the presence of key elements of effective science communication.

59

1.3 Science communication survey to assess self-reported student learning gains in Aim 3B

Student Science Communication Survey

Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions on the activities you have

completed in the communication activities.

Please take a minute to write down what you felt were the main skills you learnt in the

communication activities.

For the questions below please tick the most appropriate box.

Not at

all

A little Some

what

Quite a

lot

Very

much

Did you enjoy these communication activities?

How relevant do you feel these class activities

are to your assignment?

How valuable do you believe these

communication skills will be to your career in

science?

60

As a result of these activities, how much do you think your ability to do the following things

has improved?

Not

at all

A little Some

what

Quite

a lot

Very

much

…ability to identify and analyse a target audience

…ability to use appropriate language to

communicate science

…ability to consider prior knowledge in an audience

…ability to separate essential from non-essential

content

…ability to consider the social/political/cultural

context of a scientific issue

…ability to identify the purpose and outcome of a

communication

…ability to use style elements such as analogy,

metaphor, and simile

…ability to visualize data effectively

Not

at all

A

little

Some

what

Quite

a lot

Very

much

Do you feel more confident in effectively communicating

science to a non-scientific audience as a result of these

activities?

61

1.4 Semi-structured interview with academics to assess learning gains in Aim 3B

1. Tell me about your overall impressions about the learning activity.

2. In your opinion, how clear or explicit was the teaching of these communication skills?

3. Do you see the skills taught as being useful and relevant in helping students to complete

the assignment to a high standard?

4. What were your impressions about how the students dealt with the communication

content being taught?

5. If provided with all the written resources, would you feel comfortable teaching this

activity in subsequent years on your own?

6. Would you feel comfortable encouraging or mentoring other teaching academics to

implement similar activities in their courses?

7. Are there any changes you would recommend to improve the teaching of these skills?

8. Did you notice any tangible differences in the quality of the communication component

of the assessment pieces from this year compared to previous years?

62

1.5 Categories used for thematic analysis of the open response student survey question in Aim 3B

Category Subcategory Details

1 Target audience

1.1 Recognise/identify the existence and/or the importance of different/suitable target audiences

1.2 Mentioned the need to analyse or define the audience and/or the specific details of audience analysis

2 Translate complex science language into simple language for different audiences

3 Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience

4 Considering the different values of social, political or cultural groups (stakeholders) which may be interested or

invested in your message/content

5 Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is relevant to the target audience

6 Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication – why we are communicating and what outcome

we want to achieve

6.1 Identify the main points of an issue and/or what message you want to communicate

7 Use/consider style elements appropriate for the mode of communication

7.1 Data visualization / presentation / infographics that are informative, clear

7.2 Metaphor

7.3 Analogy

7.4 Simile

7.5 Images

8 Simplification of concepts – clarity, conciseness, focus

9 General statements about communication / science communication e.g. conveying scientific information to a general

audience

9.1 The effectiveness of science communication

63

Category Subcategory Details

9.2 The importance of science communication

10 Other

10.1 Make content / communication engaging / interesting

10.2 Need for more time / depth for the tutorial content

10.3 Problem solving / creativity

10.4 Group/team work

10.5 The need to communicate without bias / recognizing bias

10.6 Content was too simple or has been covered in earlier courses

10.7 Enjoyed the tutorial(s), comments on them being good/useful etc.

10.8 Understanding/explaining concepts quickly

64

1.6: Science communication marking criteria used to mark assignments pre- and post-implementation of novel communication

activities as part of data collection for aim 3B.

Criterion / Grade Subcategory 7 – Outstanding (no

faults)

6 – Excellent (minor

faults that are easily

fixed)

5 – Good (minor faults

that need some work)

4 – Poor (many faults that

need extensive work)

3-1 – Fail (all

skills absent)

1) Identify a suitable

target audience

NA Audience is clearly

identified and highly

suitable and relevant.

Audience is clearly

identified and suitable but

could have been more

relevant.

Audience is identified but

this could have been done

more clearly. Audience

could have been more

suitable and relevant.

Consideration has been

given to audience but this is

not clearly identified.

Audience could have been

much more suitable and is

not particularly relevant.

No consideration

given to audience.

2) Use language that

is appropriate for

the target audience

NA All language is suitable

for the target audience.

5% of the language is

unsuitable for audience.

5-20% of the language is

unsuitable for audience.

20-50% of the language is

unsuitable for audience.

More than 50 % of

the language is

unsuitable for

audience.

3) Purpose and

outcome

3A) Purpose of the

communication

is clear

The purpose of the

communication is made

exceptionally clear.

The purpose of the

communication is made

clear.

The purpose of the

communication is present

but needs clarity.

The purpose of the

communication is not clear.

No clear purpose.

3B) The outcome

is achieved

effectively

Student achieves a

highly effective

outcome which aligns

directly with the

purpose.

Student achieves an

effective outcome which

aligns with the purpose.

The outcome could have

been more effectively

achieved and only

indirectly aligns with the

purpose.

The outcome is ineffective

and does not align with the

purpose.

No clear outcome.

4) Consider the

levels of prior

knowledge in the

target audience

NA All concepts used are

appropriate for and can

be understood by

audience.

Most concepts used are

appropriate for and can be

understood by audience.

Some concepts used are

appropriate for and can be

understood by audience.

Few concepts used can be

understood by audience.

None of the

concepts can be

understood by

audience.

5) Consider the 5A) Stakeholder The stakeholders are The stakeholders are The stakeholders are The stakeholders are No relevant

65

social, political,

and cultural

context of the

scientific

information

identification

and relevance clearly identified,

highly relevant to the

scientific issue.

identified,

relevant to the scientific

issue.

identified but could

have been more relevant

to the scientific issue.

not clearly identified

and could have been

more relevant to the

scientific issue.

stakeholders

identified.

5B)

Representative

of the main

social, political

or cultural

issues

Highly representative of

the all main social,

political, or cultural

issues.

Representative of most of

the main social, political, or

cultural issues.

Representative of some of

the main social, political, or

cultural issues.

Representative of a few of

the main social, political, or

cultural issues.

Stakeholders do not

represent the main

social, political, or

cultural issues.

6) Use appropriate

stylistic element

that is relevant to

the audience

6A) Infographic or

diagram

Diagram used is

relevant to format of

publication,

content and message

is very clear,

has high aesthetic

impact,

all elements of the

diagram are relevant,

clear, and appealing

to the audience.

Diagram used is

relevant to format of

publication,

content and message is

clear,

has aesthetic impact,

the majority of the

elements of the diagram

are relevant, clear, and

appealing to the

audience.

Diagram used is

somewhat relevant to

format of publication

but could have been

better chosen,

content and message

require more clarity,

has some aesthetic

impact,

the majority of the

elements of the diagram

are relevant, clear, and

appealing to the

audience but this could

be improved.

Diagram used is

not really relevant to

format of publication,

content and message

require a lot more

clarity,

has little aesthetic

impact,

the majority of the

elements of the diagram

are not relevant, clear,

and appealing to the

audience.

Diagram used is not

relevant to format

of publication and

no thought has been

given to impact,

clarity, or appeal.

6B) Analogy,

simile, or

metaphor

The element chosen is

suitable for the

content,

relevant to the

audience,

The element chosen is

suitable for the content,

mostly relevant to the

audience,

conveys the information

The element chosen

could have been more

suitable for the content,

is mostly relevant to

the audience,

The element chosen

could have been more

suitable for the content,

was not relevant to the

audience,

The element chosen

was not suitable,

clear, or relevant,

and creates

confusion.

66

conveys the

information clearly

greatly enhances the

explanation by

making the science

simple and easy to

understand and relate

to,

no excess

information/confusio

n.

clearly

enhances the

explanation by making

the science simple and

easy to understand and

relate to,

only minor excess

information/confusion.

conveys the

information but could

have been clearer,

is only partially relevant

to audience.,

displayed some excess

information/confusion.

conveys the information

but does not simplify

the concept due to

excess

information/confusion.

7) Separate essential

from non-essential

factual content in a

context that is

relevant to the

target audience

Communication only

contains essential

content and effectively

enhances the audiences’

understanding of the

science.

Communication contains

mostly essential content

and enhances the

audience’s understanding

of the science.

Communication contains

some essential content and

but also includes content

that is irrelevant which may

confuse audience.

Communication is

dominated by non-essential

content which is confusing

for the audience.

All essential

content is missing.

67

APPENDIX 2: Results

2.1: A detailed outline of the decisions made in the distillation of key elements from 17 to 10

as part of Aim 1A.

Some elements were considered on an individual basis for inclusion or exclusion in the final list.

The elements addressing mode and purpose of communication had only two and three citations

respectively (Table 3) but were included (despite having low citation rates) because both

elements have been identified previously by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council

(2011) as integral to the communication skills taught in Australian science degrees. Likewise,

‘Use the tools of storytelling and narrative’ had only three citations but was included because it

is acknowledged widely in more generic communication textbooks and guides as being an

important part of effective communication (Ryan, 2004; Page & Thomas, 2011; Fog et al.,

2010).

The complexity of the skills required to understand or deliver each essential element also was

considered on an individual basis in refining the list of 17 key elements. For example, the

element ‘Evaluate the adequacy of the communication’ was excluded because this is a process

which requires a highly developed self-evaluative skill set that is largely specific to people

specializing in communication. Specificity to science communication was also considered and

elements such as ‘Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling’ and ‘Communicate

organised ideas and concepts using clarity, accuracy, and logic’ were excluded because they are

not specific to science communication, though they clearly are important to communication in

general. ‘Consider aesthetic components to promote the visual appeal of the communication’

was excluded because it is a skill specific to particular modes of communication (e.g. web

design) and is not generically applicable.

68

2.2 Examples of teaching documents for the implementation of novel science

communication activities as part of Aim 3A

2.2A Student handout used to guide students through audience analysis of a science video

Target Audience Analysis

This activity will help you develop the following science communication skills:

Identify and understand a suitable target audience

Consider levels of prior scientific knowledge in the target audience

Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the scientific information.

It’s really important that whenever you communicate science you have a very clear idea of who

you are communicating with. Without knowing this, you won’t be able to adapt the way you

communicate in order to present your message effectively.

WHAT YOU WILL DO

You will view a science video. Watch it carefully. Who do you think was the intended target

audience of this video? Who might be most interested in this video?

We will brainstorm the answers to these questions as a class, so think about some of the

following communication concepts and what audience they might be appropriate for:

The language the presenter used

The complexity of the scientific content included in the explanations

The types of images, video, and music used

The style elements included such as humour.

As a class we’re going to define who we think is likely to be the intended target audience.

Group Instructions:

In pairs, please take 5 minutes to work through the following audience analysis activity on the

worksheet. Use the audience we defined as a class.

69

TARGET AUDIENCE ANALYSIS

Now that you have a specific audience lets break down and analyse the specific details of that

audience.

What demographic might the majority of your audience be within the following categories?

There are no definite answers to these questions but this process will get you thinking about who

exactly you are communicating with.

Age bracket: 10-15 / 15-20 / 20-30 / 30-45 / 45-60 / 60+

Gender: Mainly female / mainly male / both

Potential political agenda/beliefs

For example, what political party is this audience most likely to agree with?

Cultural or religious background:

For example, will your target audience have strong Christian beliefs?

Prior training in science:

Primary school / High school / University Undergraduate / University Post-Graduate

Stage of career or education

Geographical location

70

2.2B Student handout used to guide students through language and jargon translation

CHEM2052: Concept and Language tutorial activity

The following activity will help you to:

Use language that is appropriate for your target audience

Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience

Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is relevant to the

target audience.

As you begin to communicate science, keep in mind a specific target audience. Adapt the

language you use and the content you include to ensure that audience can understand everything

you say. Here are some examples of questions you should consider:

o How much jargon should you use?

Lacrimation or crying? Herbivore or planting eating? Sessile or not

moving?

o Will you use acronyms?

Carbon dioxide vs CO2?

o What prior knowledge in science will your audience already have?

o What scientific content will you need to explain? What scientific content can you

assume your audience will understand?

The following activity is designed to help you get started on the process of jargon translation. In

the first column are scientific concepts that a second year chemistry or biology student can be

expected to understand. Your job is to work in pairs to explain each concept to two audiences:

1. A scientist of a different discipline.

2. A non-scientific audience of a grade 10 high school student.

Consider the above questions as you explain and translate these concepts. The first row is filled

out for you as an example. Here are some tips to get you started:

71

Keep sentences short and your word count to an absolute minimum.

After defining the concept for the first audience, go through and underline any words that

your non-scientific audience might not understand. Make a list of these and then translate

each word into clear and simple language which you can then use when you write the

second explanation for your non-scientific audience.

Separate essential content from non-essential content. What prior knowledge will your

audience already have? What information does your audience absolutely need to know to

understand the concept? What information isn’t relevant and could be removed?

Scientific concept Explanation for a scientist Explanation for a grade 10 high

school student

Greenhouse effect

(Worked example)

The greenhouse effect is the

phenomenon whereby the earth’s

temperature rises which is caused by the

presence of chemical compounds in the

earth’s atmosphere called greenhouse

gases, such as water vapor, carbon

dioxide, and methane, which trap short-

wave infrared solar radiation.

The greenhouse effect keeps the earth

warm. This effect is caused by

chemicals in the air that surrounds the

planet which trap heat from the sun.