An Instrument for Assessing Scientists’ Written Skills in Public Communication of Science

This article describes the development of the first tool for measuring scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. It includes the rationale for establishing learning goals in seven areas: clarity and language, content, knowledge organization, style, analogy, narrative, and dialogue, as well as the questions designed to assess these goals. The skills testing is primarily designed for assessing written communication skills and can be used in many science communication training contexts. It can serve as a baseline survey, as a formative assessment, or in summative pretest/posttest evaluations. The article provides detailed criteria for analyzing the results of the instrument as well as findings from baseline data collected from science graduate and undergraduate students.

[1]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[2]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Some grammatical problems in scientific English , 1989 .

[3]  Ken Heller,et al.  Grading student problem solutions: The challenge of sending a consistent message , 2004 .

[4]  Steven Miller,et al.  Can Science Communication Workshops Train Scientists for Reflexive Public Engagement? , 2009 .

[5]  Norman G. Lederman Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future , 2013 .

[6]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[7]  H. Sevian,et al.  Analysing how Scientists Explain their Research: A rubric for measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations , 2008 .

[8]  Pablo Jensen,et al.  A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France , 2011 .

[9]  Cornelia Dean Am I Making Myself Clear?: A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public , 2009 .

[10]  A. Ryan,et al.  The Development of a New Instrument: "Views on Science- Technology-Society" (VOSTS) , 1992 .

[11]  D. Grossman,et al.  A Scientist's Guide To Talking With The Media: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists , 2006 .

[12]  J. Osborne,et al.  Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education , 2002 .

[13]  Stephen P. Norris,et al.  A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science , 2005 .

[14]  R. Flesch A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Scientific Barriers to the Popularization of Science in the Mass Media. , 1985 .

[16]  H.B. Michaelson,et al.  How to write and publish a scientific paper , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[17]  A. Baram‐Tsabari,et al.  Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science , 2011 .

[18]  W. McComas Benchmarks for Science Literacy , 2014 .

[19]  Jack Selzer,et al.  Understanding scientific prose , 1993 .

[20]  J. Ziman,et al.  Public knowledge. An essay concerning the social dimension of science , 1970, Medical History.

[21]  R. Whitley,et al.  Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation , 1985 .

[22]  Stuart A. Karabenick,et al.  Cognitive Processing of Self-Report Items in Educational Research: Do They Think What We Mean? , 2007 .

[23]  Yair Neuman,et al.  Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity , 2003 .

[24]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[25]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Science-Media Interface , 2008 .

[26]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  When science meets the public : proceedings of a workshop organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Committee on Public Understanding of Science and Technology, February 17, 1991, Washington, DC , 1992 .

[27]  AC Grayling,et al.  Laboratory life Rebecca Lemov World as Laboratory: Exper , 2006, The Lancet.

[28]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. , 2009, American journal of botany.

[29]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science , 2002 .

[30]  Debbie Treise,et al.  Advancing Science Communication , 2002 .

[31]  Jesús Rey-Rocha,et al.  Scientists' motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair , 2008 .

[32]  R Schofield,et al.  Reliable Knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science , 1979 .

[33]  Sarah R. Davies,et al.  Constructing Communication , 2008 .

[34]  D. P. Hayes,et al.  The growing inaccessibility of science , 1992, Nature.

[35]  J. Besley,et al.  What Science Communication Scholars Think About Training Scientists to Communicate , 2011 .

[36]  J. Lemke Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[37]  Dietmar Janetzko,et al.  NET Objectivity , Reliability , and Validity of Search Engine Count Estimates , 2008 .

[38]  E. Salas,et al.  Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. , 1993 .

[39]  Patrick Sturgis,et al.  Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis , 2008 .

[40]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[41]  Julian Cribb,et al.  Sharing Knowledge: A Guide to Effective Science Communication , 2002 .

[42]  Nancy Baron,et al.  Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter , 2010 .

[43]  B. Eylon,et al.  Explaining the Unexplainable: Translated Scientific Explanations (TSE) in public physics lectures , 2010 .

[44]  A. Baram‐Tsabari,et al.  Seeking science information online: Data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system , 2012, Public Understanding of Science.

[45]  B. Eylon,et al.  Goals and design of public physics lectures: perspectives of high-school students, physics teachers and lecturers , 2009 .

[46]  Antoinette M. Wilkenson The scientist's handbook for writing papers and dissertations , 1991 .