1887

Annotated Primary Literature: A Professional Development Opportunity in Science Communication for Graduate Students and Postdocs

    Authors: Melissa McCartney1,2,3,*, Chazman Childers1, Rachael R. Baiduc4,5, Kitch Barnicle6
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: STEM Transformation Institute, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199; 2: Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199; 3: Department of Education and Human Resources, AAAS, Washington, DC 20005; 4: Northwestern University Searle Center for Advancing Learning and Teaching, Evanston, IL 60208; 5: Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80305; 6: CIRTL/Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison, WI 53706
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 07 August 2017 Accepted 02 December 2017 Published 30 March 2018
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Florida International University, Department of Biological Sciences, 11200 SW 8th St., Miami, FL 33199. Phone: 305-348-7165. E-mail: [email protected].
    • ©2018 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    78.38 Kb
  • PDF
    1.04 MB
  • HTML
    69.23 Kb

    Abstract:

    Formal training in communicating science to a general audience is not traditionally included in graduate and postdoctoral-level training programs. However, the ability to effectively communicate science is increasingly recognized as a responsibility of professional scientists. We describe a science communication professional development opportunity in which scientists at the graduate-level and above annotate primary scientific literature, effectively translating complex research into an accessible educational tool for undergraduate students. We examined different types of annotator training, each with its own populations and evaluation methods, and surveyed participants about why they participated, the confidence they have in their self-reported science communication skills, and how they plan to leverage this experience to advance their science careers. Additionally, to confirm that annotators were successful in their goal of making the original research article easier to read, we performed a readability analysis on written annotations and compared that with the original text of the published paper. We found that both types of annotator training led to a gain in participants’ self-reported confidence in their science communication skills. Also, the annotations were significantly more readable than the original paper, indicating that the training was effective. The results of this work highlight the potential of annotator training to serve as a value-added component of scientific training at and above the graduate level.

References & Citations

1. Cameron C, Lee HY, Anderson C, Byars-Winston A, Baldwin CD, Chang S 2015 The role of scientific communication skills in trainees’ intention to pursue biomedical research careers: a social cognitive analysis CBE Life Sci Educ 14 ar46 10.1187/cbe.14-09-0152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0152
2. Kuehne LM, Twardochleb LA, Fritschie KJ, Mims MC, Lawrence DJ, Gibson PP, Stewart-Koster B, Olden JD 2014 Practical science communication strategies for graduate students Conserv Biol 28 1225 1235 10.1111/cobi.12305 24762116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12305
3. Leshner AI 2003 Public engagement with science Science 299 5609 10.1126/science.299.5609.977 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5609.977
4. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H 2014 Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws PNAS 16 5773 5777 10.1073/pnas.1404402111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404402111
5. Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L 2013 Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training JUNE 12 E6 E10 24319399 3852879
6. McNutt M 2015 It starts with a poster Science 347 6226 10.1126/science.aab0014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0014
7. Saffran M 1987 The poster and other forms of scientific communication Biochem Educ 15 28 30 10.1016/0307-4412(87)90143-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0307-4412(87)90143-9
8. Plavén-Sigray P, Matheson GJ, Schiffler BC, Thompson WH 2017 The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time Elife 6 e27725 10.7554/eLife.27725 28873054 5584989 http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725
9. Snow CE 2010 Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science Science 328 5977 10.1126/science.1182597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597
10. Hoskins SG, Stevens LM, Nehm RH 2007 Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory Genetics 176 3 1381 1389 10.1534/genetics.107.071183 17483426 1931557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.071183
11. Murray TA 2014 Teaching students to read the primary literature using POGIL activities Biochem Mol Biol Educ 42 2 165 173 10.1002/bmb.20765 24376102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20765
12. Round JE, Campbell AM 2013 Figure facts: encouraging undergraduates to take a data-centered approach to reading primary literature CBE Life Sci Educ 12 1 39 46 10.1187/cbe.11-07-0057 23463227 3587854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0057
13. Hoskins SG, Lopatto D, Stevens LM 2011 The C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates’ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefs CBE Life Sci Educ 10 4 368 378 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027 22135371 3228655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027
14. Kenyon KL, Onorato ME, Gottesman AJ, Hoque J, Hoskins SG 2016 Testing CREATE at community colleges: an examination of faculty perspectives and diverse student gains CBE Life Sci Educ 15 1 ar8 10.1187/cbe.15-07-0146 26931399 4803097 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0146
15. Rees C, Sheard C, Davies S 2002 The development of a scale to measure medical students’ attitudes towards communication skills learning: the Communication Skills Attitude Scale (CSAS) Med Educ 36 2 141 147 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01072.x 11869441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01072.x
16. Seymour E, Wiese DJ, Hunter AB, Daffinrud SM 2000 Creating a better mousetrap: on-line student assessment of their learning gains Paper presented to the National Meetings of the American Chemical Society Symposium, “Using Real-World Questions to Promote Active Learning,” San Francisco March 27, 2000 www.salgsite.org/docs/SALGPaperPresentationAtACS.pdf
17. Sharon AJ, Baram-Tsabari A 2014 Measuring mumbo jumbo: a preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication Public Underst Sci 23 5 528 546 10.1177/0963662512469916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512469916
18. R Core Team 2016 R: A language and environment for statistical computing Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing Available from www.R-project.org
19. Aleksova J, Kuczynska-Burggraf M, Ranasinha S, Vincent A 2017 Information on early menopause: is the Internet the place to search? Climacteric 20 3 248 255 10.1080/13697137.2017.1301920 28333562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2017.1301920
20. Cash A, Tsai H 2017 Readability of the credit card agreements and financial charges Finance Research Letters in press. doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.08.003
21. Baram-Tsabari A, Lewenstein BV 2012 An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science Science Commun 35 1 56 85 10.1177/1075547012440634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547012440634
22. Fuhrmann CN, Halme DG, O’Sullivan PS, Lindstaedt B 2011 Improving graduate education to support a branching career pipeline: recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences CBE Life Sci Educ 10 3 239 249 10.1187/cbe.11-02-0013 21885820 3164563 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-02-0013
23. Gibbs KD, McGready J, Griffin K 2015 Career development among American biomedical postdocs CBE Life Sci Educ 14 4 ar44 10.1187/cbe.15-03-0075 26582238 4710405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-03-0075
24. Sauermann H, Roach M, Martin J, Madrian B, Solomon F 2012 Science PhD career preferences: levels, changes, and advisor encouragement PLOS One 7 5 e36307 10.1371/journal.pone.0036307 22567149 3342243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036307

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439
2018-03-30
2019-10-23

Abstract:

Formal training in communicating science to a general audience is not traditionally included in graduate and postdoctoral-level training programs. However, the ability to effectively communicate science is increasingly recognized as a responsibility of professional scientists. We describe a science communication professional development opportunity in which scientists at the graduate-level and above annotate primary scientific literature, effectively translating complex research into an accessible educational tool for undergraduate students. We examined different types of annotator training, each with its own populations and evaluation methods, and surveyed participants about why they participated, the confidence they have in their self-reported science communication skills, and how they plan to leverage this experience to advance their science careers. Additionally, to confirm that annotators were successful in their goal of making the original research article easier to read, we performed a readability analysis on written annotations and compared that with the original text of the published paper. We found that both types of annotator training led to a gain in participants’ self-reported confidence in their science communication skills. Also, the annotations were significantly more readable than the original paper, indicating that the training was effective. The results of this work highlight the potential of annotator training to serve as a value-added component of scientific training at and above the graduate level.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/19/1/jmbe-19-24.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

SitC presents the original text of research articles along with a “learning lens” that highlights the parts of the text for which there are annotations. Clicking on the highlighted text reveals the annotation. For example, clicking on an annotated glossary term produces a pop-up box containing the definition of the term. Annotations are color-coded by category (see Table 1 for a description of the categories).

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

CIRTL course survey-response data for selected prompts. Pre- and post-course responses are matched ( = 8; = 7 for panel C) in order to graph how individual scores changed over the course of the training. The -axis is the corresponding Likert scale to these prompts as follows: (A) 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, 4 = much experience, 5 = extensive experience; (B–F) 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The number of students whose responses were identical pre- and post-course (horizontal line) is indicated by the ( = x) notation when it is greater than 1.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

CIRTL course survey-response data for selected prompts. Pre- and post-course responses are matched ( = 8 for A and B, = 7 for C) in order to graph how individual scores changed over the course of the training. The -axis is the corresponding Likert scale as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The number of students whose responses were identical pre- and post-course survey (horizontal line) is indicated by the ( = x) notation when it is greater than 1.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1439
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error