No abstract

This study investigates six university professors' reflections on the shift to remote instruction during the Spring 2020 semester in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. The rapid shift in instructional platform presents an opportunity to learn from unresolved challenges that persisted through the semester.Here we present a qualitative study of how experienced (i.e., associate or full) chemistry professors report their teaching practices in light of the COVID-19 disruptions. We observed four major themes: personal factors, contextual factors of the structure and culture, teacher thinking, and teachers' practice. These themes revealed that the professors in this study adapted quickly using institutionally offered platforms, modified their courses as minimally as possible, struggled with assessment, and held diverging beliefs about teaching and students. The outcomes of this study have implications for ongoing efforts to reform instructional practices at the institutional and departmental level. Specifically, we recommend similar studies to ascertain current faculty beliefs and instructional practices in other departments in order to identify shared visions for change and effective supports for enacting that change.

No abstract

Background Seminal reports, based on recommendations by educators, scientists, and in collaboration with students, have called for undergraduate curricula to engage students in some of the same practices as scientists—one of which is communicating science with a general, non-scientific audience (SciComm). Unfortunately, very little research has focused on helping students develop these skills. An important early step in creating effective and efficient curricula is understanding what baseline skills students have prior to instruction. Here, we used the Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework to survey the SciComm skills of students in an environmental science course in which they had little SciComm training. Results Our analyses revealed that, despite not being given the framework, students included several of the 13 elements, especially those which were explicitly asked for in the assignment instructions. Students commonly targeted broad audiences composed of interested adults, aimed to increase the knowledge and awareness of their audience, and planned and executed remote projects using print on social media. Additionally, students demonstrated flexibility in their skills by slightly differing their choices depending on the context of the assignment, such as creating more engaging content than they had planned for. Conclusions The students exhibited several key baseline skills, even though they had minimal training on the best practices of SciComm; however, more support is required to help students become better communicators, and more work in different contexts may be beneficial to acquire additional perspectives on SciComm skills among a variety of science students. The few elements that were not well highlighted in the students’ projects may not have been as intuitive to novice communicators. Thus, we provide recommendations for how educators can help their undergraduate science students develop valuable, prescribed SciComm skills. Some of these recommendations include helping students determine the right audience for their communication project, providing opportunities for students to try multiple media types, determining the type of language that is appropriate for the audience, and encouraging students to aim for a mix of communication objectives. With this guidance, educators can better prepare their students to become a more open and communicative generation of scientists and citizens.

Communicating science with nonexperts (SciComm) is an important scientific practice. SciComm can inform decision making and public policies. Recently, seminal reports have indicated that SciComm is a practice in which students should engage. Unfortunately, students have few opportunities to engage in SciComm, partially due to the absence of a framework that can help instructors facilitate such activities. We present a framework of the essential elements of effective SciComm that synthesizes previous work to describe the who, why, what, and how of effectively communicating science with nonexperts. We applied the framework to a lesson for undergraduate biology students and assessed student outcomes. The lesson uses an introduction, assignment sheet, and worksheet to guide students through planning, producing, and describing their SciComm assignment. We assessed the outcomes of the lesson by quizzing students on their knowledge of SciComm and asking about their perceptions of SciComm and the lesson. Students performed well but focused some of their responses on what they were assigned in the lesson instead of what was best for effective SciComm. Moreover, students perceived the lesson positively. This work can be used by practitioners and researchers to understand how to engage students in the important scientific practice of SciComm.