Science communication training: what are we trying to teach?

ABSTRACT

Rapid growth in public communication of science and technology has led to many diverse training programs. We ask: What are learning goals of science communication training? A comprehensive set of learning goals for future trainings will draw fully from the range of fields that contribute to science communication. Learning goals help decide what to count as success and how to gather evidence of learning. Based on the strands of learning developed for 'learning science in informal environments', we built a conceptually coherent definition of science communication learning that addresses affective issues, content knowledge, methods, reflection, participation, and identity. We reviewed dozens of articles describing science communication training, identifying explicit and implicit learning goals. We identified gaps in outcomes commonly used for training programs; these gaps appeared especially in the areas of affective learning and identity formation. No one program can achieve all learning goals. Different courses might be tailored for scientists who remain in science, wish to become journalists, wish to work for museums, etc. But we believe conceptual coherence can help course designers identify important goals. Creating a common language will increase the ability to compare outcomes across courses and programs.

KEYWORDS:

• Media training
• science communication training
• science communication
• scientists as science communicators

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Ayelet Baram-Tsabari http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8123-5519

Bruce Lewenstein http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1272-372X

Notes

1. Stating educational standards in terms of student outcomes is a relatively new experience for many countries, especially European ones, who had previously focused on the quality of educational inputs (e.g., the curriculum, instructional materials, and pedagogical strategies). The United States, on the other hand, has focused on outcome measures in education since the early 20th century when large-scale standardized testing became popular; those goals now appear in its (voluntary) national standards (DeBoer, 2011).

2. A brief note on the terminology of ‘goals' and ‘objectives': Different disciplines use different jargon. For example, many professional fields, such as dentistry, nursing and social work, use the language of ‘competencies’. A competency is a general statement detailing the desired knowledge, skills, and behaviors of a graduating student (similar to learning goals). But in science education, ‘competence’ is a broad concept that involves the application of science knowledge to real-world problems involving science and technology, including the capacity and disposition to use that knowledge. It can be a difficult concept to operationalize, and, as an outcome goal it can be difficult to measure (DeBoer, 2011), because ‘outcomes’ or ‘learning outcomes’ are specific statements that describe what a student will be able to do in some measurable way. In place of ‘outcomes’, the Next Generation Science Standards recently developed in the United States uses ‘performance expectations’ – performances that can be assessed in multiple ways to determine whether or not students have met the standard.

3. If we had chosen, for example, the ‘communication’ approach, the same educational strands might be organized differently:

Knowledge: Content [Strand 2]Attitude: Affect [Strand 1] Reflection [Strand 4]Identity [Strand 6]Skills: Methods [Strand 3]Behavior: Participation [Strand 5]

4. We thank an anonymous reviewer of this paper for reminding us that many medical schools have created communication courses directed at future doctors. These projects are typically focused on training medical personnel on how to convey medical information clearly and with emotional sensitivity, rather than on broader science information or science literacy goals (see, for example, Skye, Wagenschutz, Steiger, & Kumagai, 2014). Some science communication trainings specifically draw on theatrical techniques, such as improvization (Bernstein, 2014; Olson, 2015); goals from these training programs appeared in some of the articles we reviewed. We have not systematically reviewed articles coming specifically from the medical or theatrical traditions.

5. Following Deci and Ryan's (2000) taxonomy of human motivation we do not view intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as entirely separate, but rather as two ends of a continuum. A scientist may agree to be interviewed because she enjoys it (intrinsic motivation), or because her department director has told her she must be interviewed (extrinsic motivation). But many cases are more complex, for an individual might agree to be interviewed (even though she distinctly does not enjoy appearing on television) because she wants to advance a purpose she values, such as advancing public understanding of science (an extrinsic motivation, which is internally regulated). For the purposes of this paper we highlight the ends of the continuum, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

6. By ‘generate,’ we mean that students use processes of inquiry to create new knowledge for themselves. The knowledge might be well known by experts, but our understanding of the value of inquiry-based learning is that learning is most effective when individuals regenerate knowledge for themselves.

 

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Cornell-Technion Faculty Exchange Program, administered by the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute. Ayelet Baram-Tsabari was also supported by a grant from the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and the Israel Science Foundation (No. 1716/12).