Impact of Student Produced Audio Narrative (SPAN) assignments on students’ perceptions and attitudes toward science in introductory geoscience courses

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of SPAN assignments developed by partner faculty used in the pilot study. All courses were introductory level, non-STEM major courses. This table does not include PI’s course information from coauthors Kraal and Guertin (see link in text for an example of a full SPAN assignment).

Subject area	Earth science	Physical geology	Environmental science	Space science	Environmental science	Planetary science
Class type, Size	Lecture, ∼25 students	Lecture with lab, <20 students	Lecture, 50–100 students	Lecture with lab, ∼25 students	Lecture, ∼30 students	Lecture, ∼40 students
% of Total course grade	20%	35% (audio + paper)	25%	25% (audio + lab report + pre-lab + tutorial assignments)	30%	25% (two audio productions)
Student team size	Group	Individual	Variable	Variable	Individual, supported by small peer group	Individual or pairs
Assignment summary	Two-minute audio with bibliography/sources. Students’ choice of format (e.g., voicemail message, newscast, story from point of view of natural phenomenon, etc.), students’ choice of topic	Three-minute audio and 1200-word research paper. Students’ choice of format (e.g., journal, poetry, rap, radio play, interview, etc.), students’ choice of topic	Simulated call-in radio show. Topic chosen by instructor (same for whole class)	Two- to three-minute audio drama accompanying one-page lab report (audio simulates narrative from fictitious commercial lab). Topic chosen by instructor (same for whole class)	Audio piece based on news article. Format open (e.g., commentary, audio postcard, etc.). Students’ choice of topic	Two 4–6-minute pieces. Open format, emphasizing creativity (e.g., song, radio drama, travel narrative, voicemail message, etc.). Audio effects/background sound/etc. required; specified scientific information required. First project: meteorites. Second project: camping trip to Mars
Project stages	Topic proposal; outline; two script drafts; final production	Topic; research paper; script; final production	Scaffolded assignments building toward final product	Pre-lab activities; audio-tutorial assignments; lab report; final production	Library research; topic definition and presentation; raw audio + transcript; script; final production	Description of topic and audio format; script and sample of sound; final production
Scaffolding/Support provided	Audio narratives played and discussed in class; Audacity-introduction lab; Audacity-practice lab; Audacity handouts. Detailed grading rubric	Scaffolded assignments early in semester (narrative-writing, recording, listening, topics, sources, sound-layering); writing-center tutors; production lab session. Detailed grading rubric	Scaffolded assignments throughout semester (scientific concepts, development of viewpoint, facts/sources, collaboration, scripts). Detailed grading rubric	Staffed academic computing center; links to video tutorials on audio-editing software; short assignments (narration with music, interview, script) on different topic as part of pre-lab activities. Detailed grading rubric	Library/source instruction; audio practice sessions; technology classroom; peer evaluation. Detailed grading rubric	“Practice with technology” mini-assignment; “practice editing” mini-assignment; links to scientific papers and other sources; lectures on topics. Step-by-step instructions for common audio-editing tasks; Audacity documentation and links to tutorials. Detailed grading rubric

Table 2. Distribution of student population characteristics. Total number of completed student post-surveys (547) across three semesters. College credits was used as an approximation for year in college.

Category	Distinction	% of students
Major	STEM Major	12.8
	Non-STEM	87.2
Gender	Female	44.6
	Male	54.9
	Other/Prefer not to identify	0.5
Race/Ethnicity	Non-Hispanic white	58.1
	Hispanic or Latino	14.5
	Asian or Asian American	12.4
	Black or African American	11.9
	Mixed Race	1.4
	American Indian, Alaskan Native, Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, or n/a – each comprising less than 1%	1.7
College credits	0–30 (First year)	30.6
	30–16 (Sophomore)	35.9
	60–90 (Junior)	17.7
	More than 90 (Senior)	15.0
	n/a	0.7

Table 3. Structure of the questionnaire assessing connections to science (QuACS).

Scale	Description	Sample item	Number of items
Personal relevance	The extent to which school science connects with students’ out-of-school experiences	This course provides me with a better understanding of the world outside school.	7
Innovation	The extent to which the instructor utilizes a variety of new activities, teaching techniques and assignments.	New and different ways of teaching are used in this class.	7
Future intentions to study science	The extent to which students indicate their intentions to study science in the future or pursue a science-related career	I intend to study science in the future.	7
Science self-efficacy	The extent to which students believe that they can be successful in science and scientific communication	I am confident I can do well in this science course.	14
Scientific storytelling	The extent to which students believe that scientific storytelling assists them in making connections to science	Combining scientific information from several sources into a story is an interesting way to learn science.	7
Place-based learning	The extent to which students believe that the local community is a good source of science learning	The local community is a useful resource for learning science.	5

Table 4. Factor analysis results for QuACS for pretest and posttest for combined sample.

	Factor loadings
	Personal relevance		Innovation		Future intentions to study science		Self-efficacy		Scientific storytelling		Place-based learning
Item	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
PR1	0.43	0.45
PR8	0.52	0.65
PR14	0.50	0.50
PR21	0.40	0.58
PR28	0.40	0.54
PR34	0.48	0.57
PR41	0.44	0.46
INN2			0.70	0.79
INN9			0.82	0.81
INN15			0.74	0.74
INN22			0.71	0.86
INN29			0.78	0.86
INN35			0.61	0.63
INN42			0.84	0.94
INTEN3					0.85	0.84
INTEN10					0.58	0.70
INTEN16					0.86	0.79
INTEN23					0.73	0.73
INTEN30					0.83	0.78
INTEN36					0.91	0.88
INTEN43					0.75	0.81
EFF4							0.63	–
EFF5							0.70	0.60
EFF11							0.71	0.78
EFF12							0.77	0.88
EFF17							0.74	–
EFF18							0.72	0.76
EFF24							0.58	0.63
EFF25							0.77	0.89
EFF31							0.75	0.60
EFF32							0.75	0.83
EFF37							0.73	–
EFF38							0.71	0.78
EFF44							0.63	0.54
EFF45							0.72	0.72
STORY6									0.60	0.56
STORY13									0.61	0.61
STORY19									0.66	0.62
STORY26									0.71	0.77
STORY33									0.91	0.81
STORY39									0.73	0.74
STORY46									0.75	0.65
PLACE7	–	0.60									0.63	–
PLACE20	–	0.55									0.76	–
PLACE27	–	0.45									0.71	–
PLACE40	–	0.55									0.62	–
PLACE47	–	0.55									0.61	–
% Variance	3.95	50.16	4.77	8.69	5.01	4.68	37.58	3.98	10.36	2.65	2.87	–
Eigenvalue	1.86	23.58	2.24	4.08	2.36	2.20	17.66	1.87	4.87	1.25	1.35	–
Alpha Rel.	0.87	0.97	0.94	0.94	0.94	0.94	0.95	0.96	0.86	0.94	0.86	–

Principal axis factoring with Oblimin rotation and Kaiser normalization.

N = 693.

Factor loadings smaller than 0.4 omitted from table.

Table 5. Pretest–posttest changes (ANOVA results and effect size) and ANCOVA results for comparison of experimental and control groups on posttest while controlling for pretest for QuACS scales.

			Mean		SD		Pre–post change		ANCOVA
Area	Scale	Group	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	F	Cohen’s d	F
Learning environment	Personal relevance	Fall 2017 Control	3.76	3.74	0.79	0.85	0.16	−0.03	–
		Spring 2018 Exptl	3.53	3.69	0.77	0.91	7.62**	0.20	2.64
		Fall 2018 Exptl	3.62	3.80	0.70	0.80	15.68**	0.24	2.81
		Spring 2019 Exptl	3.62	3.81	0.75	0.83	14.67**	0.24	2.75
	Innovation	Fall 2017 Control	4.00	4.14	0.67	0.69	5.15 *	0.21	–
		Spring 2018 Exptl	3.56	3.74	0.77	1.04	6.55*	0.20	0.21
		Fall 2018 Exptl	3.75	3.94	0.69	0.76	16.48**	0.26	1.23
		Spring 2019 Exptl	3.76	4.05	0.65	0.79	29.38**	0.55	4.82*
Attitudes toward science	Future intentions to study science	Fall 2017 Control	3.07	3.15	1.16	1.17	1.51	0.07	–
		Spring 2018 Exptl	2.62	2.84	1.15	1.15	9.00**	0.20	1.34
		Fall 2018 Exptl	2.96	3.11	1.14	1.13	7.29**	0.13	1.12
		Spring 2019 Exptl	2.77	3.06	1.02	1.06	20.34**	0.27	2.55
	Science self-efficacy	Fall 2017 Control	3.82	3.87	0.73	0.79	1.08	0.06	–
		Spring 2018 Exptl	3.55	3.66	0.77	0.87	3.80	0.13	1.97
		Fall 2018 Exptl	3.70	3.76	0.75	0.83	2.16	0.08	0.22
		Spring 2019 Exptl	3.66	3.72	0.69	0.77	1.54	0.11	1.31
	Scientific storytelling	Fall 2017 Control	3.96	4.09	0.70	0.73	4.80 *	0.18	–
		Spring 2018 Exptl	3.69	3.83	0.78	0.94	4.16*	0.16	0.27
		Fall 2018 Exptl	3.87	3.95	0.63	0.77	3.03	0.11	1.38
		Spring 2019 Exptl	3.94	4.07	0.67	0.81	6.10*	0.24	1.32
	Place-based learning	Fall 2017 Control	3.70	3.84	0.70	0.81	4.49 *	0.19	–
		Spring 2018 Exptl	3.53	3.63	0.76	0.88	2.16	0.12	1.74
		Fall 2018 Exptl	3.66	3.73	0.69	0.77	1.74	0.10	1.14
		Spring 2019 Exptl	3.72	3.86	0.67	0.75	6.66*	0.28	1.24

n = 146 (Fall 2017), 141 (Spring 2018), 204 (Fall 2018), 202 (Spring 2019) *p < 0.05, **p < 0.0.