Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsed20

Download by: [UQ Library] Date: 01 December 2015, At: 15:45

International Journal of Science Education, Part BCommunication and Public Engagement

ISSN: 2154-8455 (Print) 2154-8463 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsed20

Core Skills for Effective Science Communication:A Teaching Resource for Undergraduate ScienceEducation

Lucy Mercer-Mapstone & Louise Kuchel

To cite this article: Lucy Mercer-Mapstone & Louise Kuchel (2015): Core Skills for EffectiveScience Communication: A Teaching Resource for Undergraduate Science Education,International Journal of Science Education, Part B, DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573

Published online: 30 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Core Skills for Effective Science

Communication: A Teaching Resource

for Undergraduate Science Education

Lucy Mercer-Mapstone∗

and Louise KuchelSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Science communication is a diverse and transdisciplinary field and is taught most effectively when

the skills involved are tailored to specific educational contexts. Few academic resources exist to

guide the teaching of communication with non-scientific audiences for an undergraduate science

context. This mixed methods study aimed to explore what skills for the effective communication

of science with non-scientific audiences should be taught within the Australian Bachelor of

Science. This was done to provide a basis from which to establish a teaching resource for

undergraduate curriculum development. First, an extensive critique of academic literature was

completed to distil the communication ‘skills’ or ‘elements’ commonly cited as being central to

the effective communication of science from across the fields of science, communication,

education, and science communication. A list of ‘key elements’ or ‘core skills’ was hence

produced and systematically critiqued, edited, and validated by experts in the above four fields

using a version of the Delphi method. Each of the skills identified was considered by experts to

be mostly, highly, or absolutely essential, and the resource as a whole was validated as ‘Extremely

applicable’, within the context of teaching undergraduate science students to communicate with

non-scientific audiences. The result of this study is an evidence-based teaching resource: ‘12

Core skills for effective science communication’, which is reflective of current theory and

practice. This resource may be used in teaching or as a guide to the development of

communication skills for undergraduate science students in Australia and elsewhere.

Keywords: Science Communication; Undergraduate Skills; Higher Education; Science

Education; Curriculum

International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573

∗Corresponding author. Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane,

Australia. Email: lucy.mercermapstone@uqconnect.edu.au; lucy.mercermapstone@uq.edu.au

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

Introduction

Science communication is a diverse and transdisciplinary field which has undergone

rapid evolution in recent years. Simultaneously, the expectation of scientists to be pro-

ficient at communicating their science to a range of audiences is increasing (Brownell,

Price, & Steinman, 2013a; Greenwood & Riordan, 2001; Leshner, 2003). Effective

science communication draws on a wide range of disciplines including science, com-

munication, education, psychology, philosophy, and sociology (Mulder, Longnecker,

& Davis, 2008). In the past, the emphasis of science communication revolved around

the transmission or deficit models of communication—a top-down transferal of facts

from scientific to non-scientific audiences (van der Sanden & Meijman, 2008). This

now outdated model assumed that by making the facts of science available we were

fulfilling the role of public education and generating more interest in, and improving

the understanding of, science and technology (Besley & Tanner, 2011). More

recently, this focus has shifted to reflect a more egalitarian two-way discourse, or dia-

logue-based model of science communication (Bray, France, & Gilbert, 2012; Mulder

et al., 2008). It is this engagement or interaction between scientific audiences (with

technical training in science) and non-scientific audiences (with no technical training

in science) that is pivotal in facilitating public engagement with science rather than just

public understanding of science (Besley & Tanner, 2011).

‘Science communication’ will be defined for the purpose of this study as the process

of translating complex science into language and concepts that are engaging and

understandable to non-scientific audiences such as politicians, industry professionals,

journalists, government, educators, business, and the lay public (adapted from Burns,

O’Connor, & Stocklmayer, 2003). The need to provide a definition arises because of

the broad and transdisciplinary nature of the field and the variation that exists in the

literature, which often results in conflicting definitions and standards. These conflicts

raise many questions about how best to teach science communication. The number of

courses teaching science communication is growing worldwide (Mulder et al., 2008)

but there is little evidence to support what content should constitute the core elements

of science communication education (Bray et al., 2012; Mulder et al., 2008).

Tertiary science degrees internationally are placing increasing emphasis on the

inclusion of generic skills to equip science graduates with broadly employable skills.

Communication is one such skillset that is highlighted consistently by educators,

employers, government, and professionals as being highly important for science

graduates (Brownell, Price, & Steinman, 2013b; Gray, Emerson, & MacKay, 2005;

McInnis, Hartley, & Anderson, 2000; West, 2012). Accordingly, communication

has been introduced as a learning outcome for science degrees in many countries,

including Australia, the UK, the US, and Canada (AAAS, 2009; AQF, 2013;

Jones, Yates, & Kelder, 2011; OCGS, 2005; QAA, 2007). For example, in Australia

communication has been recommended as one of five fundamental Threshold Learn-

ing Outcomes (TLOs) of a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree. These five TLOs were

developed by the Australian Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project to

guide curriculum development and to facilitate the standardisation and integration

2 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

of broad learning outcomes into science degrees (ACDS, 2013; Jones et al., 2011).

The communication TLO recommends that, upon completion of a BSc in Australia,

science graduates should ‘be effective communicators of science by communicating

scientific results, information, or arguments, to a range of audiences, for a range of

purposes, and using a variety of modes’ (Jones et al., 2011).

Integrating such a broad learning outcome into existing curricula, however, is a dif-

ficult process and one quality audit for universities in Australia found a lack of teach-

ing or assessment of learning outcomes for graduate attributes, such as

communication (Ewan, 2009). An analysis of assessment practices at five Australian

research-intensive universities found that while 31% of undergraduate science assess-

ment tasks involved communication (Stevens, 2013), the diversity of these tasks did

not align with the diversity of communication recommended by the TLO: 59% of

tasks were for the purpose of presenting scientific results; 69% were in the mode of

traditional scientific written assessment (e.g. laboratory reports); and 96% were tar-

geted at an audience of scientists of the same discipline (Stevens, 2013). These

data suggest that significant implementation barriers exist for the assessment (and

development) of a diverse range of communication skills in undergraduate science

curricula, particularly those skills that teach science communication with non-scien-

tific audiences.

As a likely result of this underdevelopment of communication skills, research shows

that the skills currently possessed by BSc graduates do not align with employer and

workplace requirements (Herok, Chuck, & Millar, 2013; McInnis et al., 2000; Zou,

2014). Analytical, technical, and problem-solving skills along with subject-specific

knowledge apparently are being taught successfully but communication skills are con-

sistently falling short and do not reflect the needs of writing tasks outside academia

(Gray et al., 2005; McInnis et al., 2000). These findings gain further significance in

the light of the fact that only approximately 20% of science graduates progress to

be employed as technical scientists (Graduate Careers Australia, 2011; University

of Sydney, 2008).

One explanation for the shortfall of graduates’ more generic communication skills

could be that the inclusion of communication content in science courses is left mostly

to the discretion of the scientists in charge of lecturing and hence reflects the focus of

their careers on traditional research and conventional communication to other scien-

tists (Barrie, Hughes, Smith, & Thomson, 2009; Dietz, 2013). Science academics

already carry a heavy workload under the current higher education system. One

specific hurdle facing these lecturers in teaching communication skills is that they

are specialised in one specific scientific area and cannot also be expected to be

masters of educating undergraduates on communication, a topic they also may find

challenging (Brownell et al., 2013b). Science academics rarely have the time,

resources, or formal training to communicate their own research to non-scientific

audiences (Metcalfe & Gascoigne, 1995) let alone to develop the skills, resources,

and courses components required to teach such communication thoroughly.

It is here that we need to acknowledge that a fundamental ‘recognisable framework’

is essential for development of science communication curricula (Mulder et al.,

Core skills for effective science communication 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

2008). Previous research has examined current education practices and produced

resources for science communication in postgraduate science or professional com-

munication courses (e.g. Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013; Bray et al., 2012;

Brownell et al., 2013a; Fischhoff, 2013; Miller, Fahy, & Team, 2009; Sevian &

Gonsalves, 2008), but to date literature has rarely investigated undergraduate

science education specifically and the skills that might comprise such a framework

within this context.

Such a framework is certainly possible. For example, Mulder et al. (2008)

demonstrated that common elements are likely to exist in the content of both

undergraduate and postgraduate courses taught in a wide range of science com-

munication programmes across various academic fields and countries. In an

effort to more directly inform teaching practices, Bray et al. (2012) published a

consensus among science communication experts as to what should be taught in

a postgraduate science communication course at a university in New Zealand.

The result of their study was a list of ‘essential elements’ for effective science com-

munication within the postgraduate context. Such resources are useful in aiding

curriculum development but may not always be directly transferrable to different

educational contexts given differences in course content and complexity, program

structure, or student demographics. The requirements for effective teaching of

undergraduate science students, for example, might be expected to differ from

those that would be suited best to postgraduate students of communication.

Colthorpe, Rowland, and Leach (2013) have developed a Good Practice Guide

for the Australian communication TLO to aid Australian academics in integrating

communication skills into BSc courses. The guide provides practical, high-quality

examples of activities and assessment items that target communication skills and

have been successfully implemented in undergraduate science courses. These

examples are, however, individual tasks. As such they provide limited insight into

what specific skills should form the foundation of student activities and assessments

to systematically develop core communication skills within and across courses in a

science degree programme.

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of this study is to provide an evidence-based resource of core skills for

effective communication of science with non-scientific audiences, which is appropri-

ate to a general undergraduate science degree (e.g. BSc). We intend the resource to be

used to inform the design of activities and assessment tasks which scaffold the devel-

opment of communication abilities of science students. Thus our specific research

questions are:

(1) What elements or skills required for effective science communication are com-

monly cited across science, communication, education, and science communi-

cation literature?

4 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

(2) Do expert practitioners across the fields of science, communication, education,

and science communication agree that these commonly cited skills or elements

reflect science communication practice? And how relevant and essential do

experts deem these skills to be within undergraduate science education?

Methods

Ethics approval for this study was granted by the University of Queensland Behavi-

oural & Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee (Approval Number:

2014000655).

Literature Critique

A review was conducted of scholarly articles located using Web of Science, Scopus,

and the Education Resources Reference Centre databases and various combinations

of the search terms: ‘science’, ‘communication’, ‘science communication’, ‘edu-

cation’, ‘core competencies’, ‘key concepts’, ‘essential elements’, ‘communication

skills’, ‘tertiary education’, and ‘undergraduate’. A total of 99 articles from the

fields of science, science communication, communication, and education were ident-

ified as potentially useful to this study, 19 of which contained information that was

deemed specifically relevant given the context of (i) communication with non-scien-

tific audiences and (ii) undergraduate science education. The 19 articles were then

analysed to assess their reliability for inclusion in the literature critique according to

the following factors: research method; sample size and type; type of analysis of

results; and justification of interpretation. A comprehensive list of 17 key elements

was compiled by recording any element (element being defined as a skill, consider-

ation, principle, or competency) cited in one or more scholarly articles as being

important to effective communication of science with non-scientific audiences.

The comprehensive list of 17 elements was distilled into a list of 10 key elements by

relevance against the following criteria:

(1) The number of scholarly citations—elements with five or more citations were

included automatically, elements cited only once were excluded as not represent-

ing common themes in the literature, and elements with two to four citations were

included or excluded using criteria 2 and 3;

(2) Relevance to an undergraduate science education context—based on the Teach-

ing and Learning Outcomes and standards for undergraduate science outlined by

the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (Jones et al., 2011); and

(3) Complexity—judged by what might be expected of undergraduate students

within the modal Australian undergraduate science student demographic

(described below).

Undergraduate demographics of Australian universities are relatively uniform with

the majority of science students being Australian domestic students aged 17–25 years

Core skills for effective science communication 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

with similar educational backgrounds (Australian Government Department of Indus-

try, 2013; Universities Australia, 2014).

Some elements were considered on an individual basis for inclusion or exclusion in

the final list. The elements addressing mode and purpose of communication had only

two and three citations, respectively but were included (despite having low citation

rates) because both elements have been identified previously by the Australian Learn-

ing and Teaching Council (Jones et al., 2011) as integral to the communication skills

taught in Australian science degrees. Likewise, ‘Use the tools of storytelling and nar-

rative’ had only three citations but was included because it is acknowledged widely in

more generic communication textbooks and guides as being an important part of

effective communication (e.g. Fog, Budtz, Munch, & Blanchette, 2010; Ryan, 2004).

The complexity of the skills required to understand or deliver each element also was

considered on an individual basis in refining the list of 17 key elements. For example,

the element ‘Evaluate the adequacy of the communication’ was excluded because this

is a process which requires a highly developed self-evaluative skill set that is largely

specific to people specializing in communication. Specificity to science communi-

cation also was considered and elements such as ‘Use correct grammar, punctuation,

and spelling’ and ‘Communicate organised ideas and concepts using clarity, accuracy,

and logic’ were excluded because they are not specific to science communication,

though they clearly are important to communication in general. ‘Consider aesthetic

components to promote the visual appeal of the communication’ was excluded

because it is a skill specific to particular modes of communication (e.g. web design)

and is not applicable generically.

Survey of Expert Practitioners

A modified version of the Delphi method was used to consult expert practitioners

about the applicability and essentiality of the key elements selected from the literature

critique, within the context of teaching undergraduate science students how to com-

municate with non-scientific audiences. The Delphi method allows researchers to

pose carefully designed questionnaires to a group of (ideally) 10–15 experts in a

series of rounds, interspersed with summarised feedback, that allow a consensus to

be generated (Bray et al., 2012; Murry & Hammons, 1995). The method was used

here in a way that kept participants anonymous from each other so that answers

were not influenced by the status and answers of co-participants (as per Bray et al.,

2012). Two rounds of surveys were used in this study. The first allowed experts to

rate and provide feedback on the initial list of key elements which was then applied

to refine the list. The second was used to ensure a consensus was reached and to

allow experts to rate the revised list of key elements.

The first round of survey involved presenting the list of 10 key elements resulting

from the literature review online to 20 experts across Australia and New Zealand—

five practitioners each from the fields of science, education, communication, and

science communication. Experts were identified based on their practical and theoreti-

cal expertise in one of the above fields, being in the established stage of their career,

6 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

Table 1. Details of experts who participated in the survey round one and/or two as part of the Delphi method used to generate a consensus on the

key elements of effective communication. The indicated fields of expertise are self-reported

Expert

code Gender

Field of expertise Survey Participation

Science Education

Science

communication Communication Other

Round

one

Round

two

1 Female 3 Yes Yes

2 Male 3 3 3 Sociology Yes Yes

3 Male 3 3 Yes Yes

4 Male 3 Yes Yes

5 Female 3 Yes Yes

6 Female 3 3 Yes No

7 Female 3 3 Yes Yes

8 Female 3 3 Yes Yes

9 Male 3 Yes Yes

10 Male 3 3 3 Journalism Yes Yes

11 Female 3 Yes Yes

12 Male 3 3 Yes No

13 Male 3 Yes No

14 Female 3 3 Yes No

15 Female 3 3 History & Philosophy of

Science

Yes No

Core

skills

foreffectiv

escien

cecom

munica

tion7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

and their familiarity with tertiary education. Fifteen out of the 20 invited experts

responded to the survey (Table 1). The survey contained a mix of open answer, mul-

tiple choice, and Likert-scale questions (Appendix 1.1). Experts were asked to

provide their view first (prior to presentation of the list of key elements) on what con-

cepts are central to effective science communication in answer to the question: ‘In

your opinion, what key elements are integral to educating undergraduate science stu-

dents to communicate to non-scientific audiences?’. Experts thereafter were invited

to:

. rate the applicability of the list as a whole (5-point Likert scale: 1—Not at all applicable

to 5—Extremely applicable) within the context of teaching undergraduate science

students to communicate with non-scientific audiences; and

. rate the essentiality of each element individually (7-point Likert scale: 1—Not at all

essential to 7—Absolutely essential) within the same context.

All experts answered all Likert-scale questions. Further feedback from experts was

invited with an open comment response question for both of the above ratings. All

experts wrote responses in open comments in regard to the ‘applicability’ question,

and 11 of the experts commented on the ‘essentiality’ question. Results from this

survey were used to revise the list of key elements by reviewing summary statistics

of the quantitative data and by highlighting the common themes that emerged in

open responses using a simplified version of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,

2006).

The second round of the survey (Appendix 1.2) was issued 10 months after the

first survey and resembled a simplified version of the first survey. Ten experts par-

ticipated in this round (Table 1). All experts answered all Likert-scale questions

and five experts provided comments. Results from this survey were used to

ensure that a consensus had been reached and to rank the list of key elements

from most to least essential within the context of teaching science undergraduates

to communicate with non-scientific audiences. Final rankings discussed below

result from the second round of survey as these are reflective of the final list of

elements. Descriptive statistics for quantitative data were calculated using Micro-

soft Excel 2007.

Results

Developing a List of ‘Key Elements of Effective Science Communication’

The majority of the 99 articles in the literature review discussed the theoretical basis of

science communication. There were no scholarly articles discussing the practicalities

of implementing science communication education in undergraduate science degrees

or other levels of Australian science training. Some did address various educational

contexts in America and Europe, such as for undergraduate or postgraduate or pro-

fessional training courses in science communication in America, Europe, and New

8 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

Zealand (e.g. Bray et al., 2012; Brownell et al., 2013a; Mayhew & Hall, 2012; Miller

et al., 2009; Tuten & Temesvari, 2013; Whittington, Pellock, Cunningham, & Cox,

2014). One noteworthy article has also been published following the completion of

our study which describes assessment in an Australian undergraduate science com-

munication programme (McKinnon, Orthia, Grant, & Lmberts, 2014). Most

methods used in the reviewed articles were qualitative rather than quantitative,

relying primarily on the Delphi method, surveys, or interviews to gauge expert

opinion, or literature reviews and critiques. Seventeen key elements of effective

science communication were identified from the 19 relevant scholarly articles

derived from the literature review. This comprehensive list of 17 elements (Table 2)

Table 2. The comprehensive list of 17 key elements derived from the literature critique in order

from most to least scholarly articles in which each element was cited, with an indication of whether

the element was included in the distilled list of 10 elements presented to experts in the Delphi

method survey

Element of effective science communication

Number of

articles cited

Included in the list of

10 elements

Identify/consider a suitable target audience 13 Yes

Use language that is appropriate for the target

audience—for example, consider what jargon to use or

explain

8 Yes

Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the

communication

7 Yes

Use style elements such as humour, anecdotes,

metaphors, imagery, etc.

7 Yes

Use (factual) content that is appropriate, interesting,

and relevant to the target audience

6 Yes

Promote audience engagement with the scientific

content

5 Yes

Consider the levels of prior knowledge in your target

audience

5 Yes

Communicate organised ideas and concepts using

clarity, accuracy, and logic

4 No

Use the tools of storytelling to create a coherent

narrative

3 Yes

Identify the purpose/goal/objective of the

communication

3 Yes

Consider aesthetic components to promote the visual

appeal of the communication

3 No

Use a suitable mode of communication 2 Yes

Present the information within a relatable context 2 Yes

Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling 1 No

Use a suitable platform for dissemination 1 No

Consideration of potential misconceptions as a result of

the communication

1 No

Evaluate the adequacy of the communication 1 No

Core skills for effective science communication 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

was distilled to a draft list of 10 elements (Table 2) against the stated assessment

criteria.

Survey of Expert Practitioners

Round One. Experts rated the draft list of 10 key elements (as a whole) in the first

survey as ‘Extremely applicable’ (average of 4.8 out of 5 on a 5-point Likert scale:

1—Not at all applicable to 5—Extremely applicable) within the context of teaching

undergraduate science students to communicate with non-scientific audiences. All

individual elements were rated as either highly or absolutely essential within the

same context (averages 5.87–6.80 out of 7 on a 7-point Likert scale: 1—Not at all

essential to 7—Absolutely essential; Table 3). Open responses to the question ‘ . . .

what key elements are integral to educating undergraduate science students to com-

municate to non-scientific audiences?’ (Q4, Appendix 1), asked prior to being pre-

sented with the list of key elements, generally aligned with or reflected the list of 10

key elements. Incorporating feedback from the open responses resulted in the draft

list of elements being edited and expanded from 10 to 12 elements (Table 3). The

addition of two new elements arose because common themes (dialogue and science

communication theory) in open response answers highlighted that these skills or

elements also were essential in effective science communication but were missing

from the draft list. Typical comments included:

The above list, as rightly pointed out, covers all the areas essential to science communi-

cation training.

The elements above are certainly important as part of teaching science students how to

present on science to non-expert audiences. However, the list is not complete as there

is no reference to engaging with the audience, hearing their understandings, responding

to their questions, etc.

It depends for what purpose, but I personally don’t like to teach practical skills without a

deeper exploration of the theory and history of science communication, so that students

know why they’re doing what they’re doing.

Communication includes listening—so it is not ‘communicating to’, when you mean ‘pre-

senting to’. It is ‘communicating with’.

Round two. Ten of the original 15 experts participated in round two. All experts

responding to the second survey rated the list of 12 key elements (as a whole) as

‘Extremely applicable’ (average of 5.0 out of 5 on a 5-point Likert scale: 1—Not

at all applicable to 5—Extremely applicable) within the context of teaching under-

graduate students to communicate with non-scientific audiences. All individual

elements were rated as either mostly, highly, or absolutely essential within the

same context (averages 4.60—6.90 out of 7 on a 7-point Likert scale: 1—Not at

all essential to 7—Absolutely essential; Table 3). The ranking of elements from most

to least essential changed considerably for some elements between rounds one

and two of the surveys. Some changes in rank might be expected because of the

10 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

increased number of elements being ranked from 10 elements in round one to 12 in

round two, but changes in rank of more than two would signal some change beyond

that simply attributable to insertion of an extra two ranks. ‘Audience’ (reference

Table 3. The final list of 12 core skills for effective science communication with rankings and

average ratings of essentiality given by experts (based on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as

‘Not at all essential’ to 7 as ‘Absolutely essential’). Skills are referenced by the listed ‘reference

words’ for brevity in other sections of this paper. Skills without a ranking or rating (NA) were added

following round one of the surveys as a result of expert feedback

Core skills for effective science

communication

Reference

words

Survey results: round

one

survey results: round

two

Rank

Average rating

of essentiality Rank

Average rating

of essentiality

Identify and understand a suitable

target audience

Audience 5/6 6.27 1 6.90

Use language that is appropriate

for your target audience

Language 1 6.80 2 6.80

Identify the purpose and intended

outcome of the communication

Purpose 2 6.53 3 6.70

Consider the levels of prior

knowledge in the target audience

Prior

knowledge

4 6.33 4 6.60

Separate essential from non-

essential factual content in a

context that is relevant to the

target audience

Content 10 5.87 5/6 6.50

Use a suitable mode and platform

to communicate with the target

audience

Mode 5/6 6.27 5/6 6.50

Consider the social, political, and

cultural context of the scientific

information

Context 8 6.07 7/8 6.30

Use/consider style elements

appropriate for the mode of

communication (such as humour,

anecdotes, analogy, metaphors,

rhetoric, images, body language,

eye contact, and diagrams)

Style 9 6.00 7/8 6.30

Understand the underlying

theories leading to the

development of science

communication and why it is

important

Theory NA NA 9 5.70

Promote audience engagement

with the science

Engagement 3 6.47 10 5.50

Use the tools of storytelling and

narrative

Narrative 7 6.13 11 5.30

Encourage a two-way dialogue

with the audience

Dialogue NA NA 12 4.60

Core skills for effective science communication 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

words in Table 3), for example, was ranked fifth in round one but first (most essen-

tial) in round two. Elements addressing ‘Language’ and ‘Purpose’ remained in the

top three most essential elements. Other changes included ‘Content’ moving from

10th in round one to 5th in round two, ‘Engagement’ dropping from 3rd to 10th,

and ‘Narrative’ dropping from 7th to 11th. All rankings (with mean ratings) are

shown in Table 3.

Discussion

The literature critique revealed that there are communication skills or elements cited

commonly that align across the fields of science, communication, education, and

science communication. There has been thorough discussion and research across the

literature on the theoretical basis for ‘best practice’ in modern science communication.

A predominant theme among this discussion focussed on the redefinition of science

communication as an ‘exchange (negotiation) of knowledge between scientists and

the lay public in order to achieve a reciprocal understanding’ (van der Sanden &

Meijman, 2008, p. 90). There are few studies, however, that articulate clear recommen-

dations for, or examples of, how to apply this theory to train people in best practice

science communication, especially during undergraduate science education. Miller

et al. (2009) outlined and tested a curriculum for training professional scientists in

reflexive public engagement (which comprised many generic communication skills)

and Bray et al. (2012) conducted a study which negotiated a consensus among

experts as to which essential elements should be taught in a postgraduate science com-

munication course in New Zealand. There also are many optional science communi-

cation courses which provide useful examples of training targeted at professional

scientists, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS,

2014) online module on communicating with the public or the European Commis-

sion’s survival kit for science communication (Carrada, 2006). These optional

courses tend to be self-selecting in attracting scientists who actively seek out communi-

cation opportunities (Brownell et al., 2013a), rather than providing fundamental edu-

cation to the broad range of scientists in the context of their tertiary studies.

The decision to present the final list as ‘Core Skills for Effective Science Communi-

cation’ rather than as ‘Key Elements’ (as they were presented to experts) was made in

an effort to increase the practicality and accessibility of the list as a teaching resource for

higher education. Framing the list as ‘skills’ rather than ‘elements’ aligns more closely

with the movement in higher education towards teaching generic skills, and may be

more relatable to science teaching academics than the previous (more abstract)

framing as elements. It is important to note that ‘Elements’ and ‘Skills’ are terms

used interchangeably within the literature reviewed and so the change in title does

not misrepresent the contents of the final list. It is worthwhile noting here that many

of these skills reflect or underpin the skills required for communication of science

with scientific audiences as well as non-scientific audiences. As such, the list of core

skills may resonate with science academics teaching scientific communication skills also.

12 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

There is strong alignment of the core skills presented in this study with comparable

resources for international, postgraduate, and professional science communicators.

This alignment suggests that this resource is likely to be applicable outside of an Aus-

tralian undergraduate context, though further research would be required to explore

the relevance and transferability of an Australian resource for application in other con-

texts. The emphasis on audience highlighted in the study by Bray et al. (2012) found

that ‘the audience comes first in any interaction and this focus is non-negotiable’

which aligns with the findings of this study: the ability to identify and understand a

target audience was ranked as the most essential science communication skill by

experts (in round two) and was cited as important most commonly in the academic lit-

erature. Other similarities include acknowledgement of audience engagement; aware-

ness of the social, political, and cultural context; the tools of storytelling; purpose of

communication; and knowledge of science communication theories. What distin-

guished the two lists was the level of sophistication in the skills taught. Bray et al.

(2012) took into account respect of the audience, fostering of trust between audience

and communicator, and highly specific outcomes of communication, all of which are

important in professional application but require a much more developed communica-

tive skillset than can be expected within an undergraduate context. The high degree of

agreement between our results and those of Bray et al. (2012), however, does suggests

that adopting common recommendations across multiple levels of tertiary science edu-

cation and certain international contexts may be possible.

The difference in the rankings of skills by experts between survey rounds is a point

worthy of discussion. The jump of ‘Audience’ from fifth in round one to first in round

two may be a result of the change in wording of that skill. The skill was presented in the

first surveyas ‘Identifya suitable targetaudience’ (Table2)butwaschanged in the second

survey, as a result of expert feedback, to ‘Identify and understand a suitable target audi-

ence’ (Table 3). The change in essentiality rating here may indicate that experts see the

understanding of audience (rather than simply the identification) as key to the science

communication process. The ranking of this skill as most essential aligns more closely

with the results from the literature review as audience was cited most frequently in scho-

larly articles as important for effective science communication (Table 2). These findings

also lend support to the idea that the ability to identify and understand an audience is a

threshold concept in science communication (Pope-Ruark, 2011).

The ability to ‘Use language that is appropriate for your target audience’ was

ranked consistently in the top two most essential skills in both surveys which is con-

sistent with the literature in that it was the second most frequently cited skill in scho-

larly articles. The fact that these two core skills have stood out as being the most

central to effective science communication as well as being most relevant to teaching

science students how to communicate with non-scientific audiences holds important

implications for curriculum development. It will be likely that lecturers of under-

graduate science will not have the time or resources to teach all 12 skills in the

context of a course with primary focus on science per se and so a prioritisation of

skills must occur. Academics therefore can be confident that by teaching the two

skills addressing audience and language, at a minimum, they are introducing the

Core skills for effective science communication 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

most essential aspects of science communication skills to students. Examples of

science tasks which focus on these skills can be found among (but are not restricted

to) the following scholarly teaching articles: McKinnon et al. (2014); Sharpe and

Blanchfield (2014); Kuchel, Stevens, Wilson, and Cokley (2014); and Mercer-Map-

stone and Kuchel (accepted). The essentiality rankings (Table 3) also may be used

more generally to guide prioritisation of skills during curriculum development.

It was perhaps surprising that the skill addressing audience ‘Engagement’ dropped

from 3rd to 10th and the skill addressing ‘Dialogue’ was last in essentiality ratings in

round two. These skills both directly contribute to the modern aspirational notion of

science communication as a two-way interaction in the process of sharing information

and perspectives, and represent the recent shift in science communication theory from

focussing on public understanding of science to public engagement with science

(Besley & Tanner, 2011). The most likely explanation for this change of rank is the

ambiguity around the word ‘engagement’ and an unintentionally implied deficit

model of communication in the initial phrasing of this skill; ‘Present scientific infor-

mation in an engaging context’ (Table 2). In a deficit model of science communication

the term ‘engagement’ tends to imply transfer of information in a way that encourages

people to like science, whereas a more modern approach encourages promotion of the

‘act of communication’ and involves the sharing of information and the possibility to

question science. The modern approach is better reflected in the revised wording of

the skill ‘promote audience engagement with the science’ (Table 3). The literature

on audience engagement is complex and the change in wording also might have

resulted in the drop in rankings because it was then seen as too complex for the

context of undergraduate science education. The lower ratings for ‘Dialogue’ also

could be a reflection of some experts’ comments questioning the difficulties of teach-

ing such a skill in a science course at an undergraduate level. It is most likely that upon

graduation, science undergraduates would be involved in one-way or asymmetrical

two-way communication rather than true dialogue about science, and that during

their undergraduate education they are still developing their own views of science.

As such it may be that dialogue is more appropriately embedded in a postgraduate

science education, advanced undergraduate courses or activities, or in programmes

aimed at educating professional communicators—the graduates of which are more

likely to engage in true dialogue approaches and need to consider differing values

and views of science. Engaging audiences in a dialogue about the nature or process

of science is a specialist skill to teach and learn which may be better placed beyond

the undergraduate curriculum.

Some experts also raised questions around the efficacy of teaching these skills in

science courses over ‘arts-type subjects for science students’, as well as questions

about the ability of science academics to teach such skills. Much debate exists over

where to teach communication skills in sciences degrees: whether it should be with

the addition of a dedicated course, or integrated into existing courses. There are

advantages and disadvantages for both approaches. A whole course (or unit) approach

has been taken in some Australian universities with great success (e.g. Monash Uni-

versity and the Australian National University). Concerns are raised often, however,

14 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

that such ‘non-science’ courses detract from the time available to teach core disci-

pline-specific science courses in already over-crowded science degree programmes.

In contrast, integrating communication skills into existing courses can mean com-

munication is taught in a discipline-specific context that is relevant to the student.

Integration into multiple courses across a programme can also allow for multiple

opportunities to practice and develop skills over time which has been shown to be

key in developing complex learning outcomes such as communication (Divan &

Mason, 2015; Knight, 2001; Lauer & Hendrix, 2009). This ‘integration’ approach,

however, can lead to the under-emphasis of communication skills given the amount

of other content already existing in the course. This does appear to be the case cur-

rently, given research that shows inclusion of these core communication skills in

undergraduate science courses is rare at best, and in general, the skills are not

taught explicitly or in a scaffolded manner (Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2015).

Further research to explore which approach might best facilitate the development

of communication skills in the BSc would benefit this discussion.

Educators interested in examples of good practice for implementing tasks and

assessments that scaffold the development of skills identified in this study may

find the following resources useful: the special edition of the International Journal

for Innovation in Science Education focussed on communication (Volume 22, issues

4 and 5) including scholarly examples of learning activities and teaching design

implemented predominantly by science practitioners; the good practice guide for

the Australian TLOs of communication (TLO4) by Colthorpe et al. (2013); and

exemplars associated with the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC, e.g. http://

wac.colostate.edu/intro/) and Writing In the Disciplines (WID, e.g. http://

writingcenter.utk.edu/for-students/writinginthedisciplines/) movements which are

popular in the USA and UK. A particularly practical resource for instructors is

the book ‘Learning Together: Keeping Teachers and students actively involved in

learning by writing across the discipline. A sourcebook of ideas and writing exer-

cises’ by Theodore Panitz (2001).

Conclusion and Future Research

One limitation of this study that warrants further research was that the literature cri-

tique was comprehensive across science communication, communication, and science

but could have been improved by including more articles from education research in

order to access some of the pedagogical nuances relevant to undergraduate education

more broadly. Similarly, future inclusion of non-scholarly resources would be ben-

eficial because science communication teaching practices often are established

better in professional training courses outside of scholarly institutions and may offer

more practical examples of effective education techniques.

This research found that there are common theoretically derived elements for effec-

tive science communication across the fields of science, communication, education,

and science communication. These elements aligned closely with the skills highlighted

by expert practitioners from each of those fields as important for successful science

Core skills for effective science communication 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

communication. The list of skills we have presented here was validated by experts as

extremely applicable and essential within the practical context of teaching communi-

cation with non-scientific audiences within undergraduate science degrees. This evi-

dence-based resource, reflecting theory and practice, provides a useful teaching

resource for curriculum development. The alignment of the skills in this resource

with other science communication education resources designed for international

postgraduate and professional contexts further supports its relevance and indicates

that such resources do have a degree of transferability. It might be inferred, therefore,

that this resource may be applicable to other international and educational contexts. It

would be worthwhile for future research to expand this list into a framework that con-

sidered scientific audiences as well. Focus might also be given to developing teaching

and learning activities and assessment tasks that specifically scaffold the integration of

these skills into existing science curricula. Effective dissemination of such resources is

key to adoption and emphasis should be given to research that addresses this to facili-

tate uptake of such evidence-based resources in science higher education.

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to the experts who participated in one or both rounds of the survey. Their

time and considered feedback were invaluable. Thanks also to Bruce Mapstone and

Gina Mercer for their tireless support and feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Louise Kuchel http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-0203

References

Academic Council of Deans of Science (ACDS). (2013). Background: Science threshold learning out-

comes. Retrieved from http://www.acds.edu.au/tlcentre/centreprojects/current/

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2009). Cultivating biological lit-

eracy. In C. A. Brewer & Smith, D. (Eds.), Vision and change in undergraduate biology: A call

to action (pp. 10–19). Author: Washington, DC.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 2014. Communicating science: Tools

for scientists and engineers. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/communicatingscience

Australian Government Department of Industry. (2013). Higher education statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/HigherEducationStatistics/Pages/default.aspx

Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). (2013). AQF specification for the masters degree.

Retrieved from http://www.aqf.edu.au/

Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills

in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35(1), 56–85. doi:10.1177/

1075547012440634

16 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

Barrie, S., Hughes, C., Smith, C., & Thomson, K. (2009). Key issues to consider in the renewal of

learning and teaching experiences to foster Graduate Attributes. Retrieved from http://www.itl.

usyd.edu.au/projects/nationalgap/resources/GAPpdfs/NationalGAP_issues_Papers.pdf

Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training

scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239–263. doi:10.1177/

1075547010386972

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psy-

chology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012). Identifying the essential elements of effective science

communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B,

2(1), 23–41. doi:10.1080/21548455.2011.611627

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013a). A writing-intensive course improves biology

undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and com-

municate science. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 70–79. doi:10.1152/advan.00138.2012

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013b). Science communication to the general public:

Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal

scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6–E10.

Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contempor-

ary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. doi:10.1177/09636625030122004

Carrada, G. (2006). A scientist’s survival kit: Communicating science. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.

eu/research/science-society/pdf/communicating-science_en.pdf

Colthorpe, K., Rowland, S., & Leach, J. (2013). Good practice guide (Science): Threshold learning

outcome 4: Communication. Retrieved from ACDS http://www.acds.edu.au/tlcentre/wp-

content/uploads/2013/12/Science-Good-Practice-Guide-2013-TLO4.pdf

Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212740110

Divan, A., & Mason, S. (2015). A programme-wide training framework to facilitate scientific com-

munication skills development amongst biological sciences Masters students. Journal of Further

and Higher Education, 1–25. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2014.1000276

Ewan, C. (2009). Learning and teaching in Australian universities: A thematic analysis of cycle 1 AUQA

Audits. Retrieved from VOCEDplus http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/238815

Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 110, 14033–14039. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110

Fog, K., Budtz, C., Munch, P., & Blanchette, S. (2010). Storytelling: Branding in practice. Frederiks-

berg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Graduate Careers Australia. (2011). Graduate destinations 2011: A report on the work and study out-

comes of recent higher education graduates. Retrieved from www.graduatecareers.com.au

Gray, F. E., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2005). Meeting the demands of the workplace: Science

students and written skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(4), 425–435.

doi:10.1007/s10956-005-8087-y

Greenwood, M., & Riordan, D. (2001). Civic scientist/civic duty. Science Communication, 23, 28–

40. doi:10.1177/1075547001023001003

Herok, G., Chuck, J., & Millar, T. (2013). Teaching and evaluating graduate attributes in science

based disciplines. Creative Education, 4(7), 42–49. Retrieved from http://researchdirect.uws.

edu.au/islandora/object/uws:16641

Jones, S., Yates, B., & Kelder, J. A. (2011). Learning and teaching academic standards project: Science

learning and teaching academic standards statement. Retrieved from ABDC: http://www.abdc.edu.

au/data/Accounting_LS/Accounting_Learning_Standards_-_February_2011.pdf

Knight, P. T. (2001). Complexity and curriculum: A process approach to curriculum-making.

Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 369–381. doi:10.1080/13562510120061223

Core skills for effective science communication 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

Kuchel, L., Stevens, S. K., Wilson, R., & Cokley, J. (2014). A documentary video assignment to

enhance learning in large first-year science classes. International Journal of Innovation in

Science and Mathematics Education, 22(4), 48–64.

Lauer, T., & Hendrix, J. (2009). A Model for quantifying student learning via repeated writing

assignments and discussions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,

20(3), 425–437. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ869327

Leshner, A. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299, 977. Retrieved from http://www.

jstor.org/stable/3833513

Mayhew, M. A., & Hall, M. K. (2012). Science communication in a cafe scientifique for high school

teens. Science Communication, 34(4), 546–554. doi:10.1177/1075547012444790

McInnis, C., Hartley, R., & Anderson, M. (2000). What did you do with your science degree? A national

study of employment outcomes for science degree holders 1990–2000. Retrieved from the University

of Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education https://cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/

disciplines/docs/ScienceR.pdfMcKinnon, M., Orthia, L. A., Grant, W. J., & Lmberts, R. (2014). Real-world assessment as an

integral component of an undergraduate science communication program. International

Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(5), 1–13.

Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2015). Integrating communication skills into undergraduate

science degrees: A practical and evidence-based approach. Teaching and Learning Inquiry.

Unpublished manuscript.

Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2015). Teaching scientists to communicate: Evidence-based

assessment for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education,

37(10), 1613–1638. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1045959

Metcalfe, J., & Gascoigne, T. (1995). Science journalism in Australia. Public Understanding of

Science, 4(4), 411–428. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/4/4/005

Miller, S., Fahy, D., & Team, T. E. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists

for reflexive public engagement?: The ESConet Experience. Science Communication, 31(1),

116–126. doi:10.1177/1075547009339048

Mulder, H. A. J., Longnecker, N., & Davis, L. S. (2008). The state of science communication pro-

grams at Universities around the world. Science Communication, 30(2), 277–287. doi:10.1177/

1075547008324878

Murry, J. W., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi—a versatile methodology for conducting qualitative

research. Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 423–436. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=

EJ508592

Ontario Council of Graduate Studies (OCGS). (2005). Graduate degree level expectations. Retrieved

from http://cou.on.ca/

Panitz, T. (2001). Learning together: Keeping teachers and students actively involved in learning by writing

across the curriculum. A sourcebook of ideas and exercises. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.

Pope-Ruark, R. (2011). Know thy audience: Helping students engage a threshold concept using

audience-based pedagogy. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,

5(1), 6. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol5/iss1/6

Quality Assurance Agency UK (QAA). (2007). Subject benchmark statement: Biosciences. Retrieved

from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/

Ryan, M. (2004). Narrative across media: The languages of storytelling. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Meijman, F. J. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding

of science: An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication

approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 89–103. doi:10.1177/0963662506067376

Sevian, H., & Gonsalves, L. (2008). Analysing how scientists explain their research: A rubric for

measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations. International Journal of Science Education,

30(11), 1441–1467. doi:10.1080/09500690802267579

18 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

Sharpe, P., & Blanchfield, J. (2014). Chemistry for the masses. International Journal of Innovation in

Science and Mathematics Education, 22(4), 33–47.

Stevens, S. (2013). What communication skills are taught in Australian science degrees and what else do

students learn from “communication to non-scientists” tasks? (Unpublished honours thesis). Uni-

versity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Tuten, H., & Temesvari, L. (2013). Popular science journalism: Facilitating learning through peer

review and communication of science news. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(4), 46–49.

Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1011748

Universities Australia. (2014). Student numbers and characteristics. Retrieved from https://www.

universitiesaustralia.edu.au/australias-universities/key-facts-and-data/Student-Numbers—

Characteristics#.Ux_aioaQbz0

University of Sydney (2008). Graduate destination report 2008. Retrieved from http://sydney.edu.au/

careers/

West, M. (2012). STEM education and the workplace. Office of the Chief Scientist, Australian Gov-

ernment. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS4-

STEMEducationAndTheWorkplace-web.pdf

Whittington, C. P., Pellock, S. J., Cunningham, R. L., & Cox, J. R. (2014). Combining content and

elements of communication into an upper-level biochemistry course. Biochemistry and Molecu-

lar Biology Education, 42(2), 136–141. doi:10.1002/bmb.20770

Zou, B. (2014). Teaching communication for science engagement with non-scientists in tertiary science edu-

cation: Student, lecturer and employer beliefs (Unpublished honours thesis). University of Queens-

land, Brisbane, Australia.

Appendix 1

1.1 Survey for experts: Delphi method round 1

Questions for survey of experts, distributed using the online survey tool ‘Survey

Monkey’ (https://www.surveymonkey.com)

(1) Please state your name.

(2) Please indicate if you give consent to your name being included in a list of people/

experts consulted in any publications arising from this study. (Multiple Choice

Question)

. I am happy to be acknowledged.

. Please keep my identity anonymous.

(3) Which of the following do you consider your primary field of expertise? (You can

select more than one) (Multiple Choice Question)

. Science

. Communication

. Science communication

. Education

. Other (please comment)

(4) In your opinion, what key elements are integral to educating undergraduate

science students to communicate to non-scientific audiences?

(5) Please consider the following list of key elements of effective science communi-

cation. This suggested list was designed as a possible guide in teaching under-

graduate science students to communicate to non-scientific audiences:

Core skills for effective science communication 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

Key elements of effective science communication

. Identify a suitable target audience

. Use language that is appropriate for your target audience

. Include factual content that is relevant to the target audience’s understanding of the

science

. Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the science being communicated

. Present the scientific information in an engaging context

. Use style elements such as humour, anecdotes, metaphors, and imagery

. Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience

. Use the tools of storytelling and narrative

. Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication

. Use a suitable mode and platform to communicate

How applicable do you think this list is for teaching undergraduate science students to

communicate to non-scientific audiences? (Likert Scale)

1—Not at all applicable

2—Rarely applicable

3—Neutral

4—Somewhat applicable

5—Extremely applicable

(6) Please provide reasons for your above answer if you wish.

(7) Please rate how essential each element from the above list is within the context of

educating undergraduate science students to communicate to non-scientific audi-

ences. (Likert scale)

Each element rated on the following Likert scale:

1—Not at all essential

2—Rarely essential

3—Sometimes essential

4—Neutral

5—Mostly essential

6—Highly essential

7—Absolutely essential

(8) Please provide reasons for your above answer if you wish

(9) To help inform the teaching of undergraduate science students, what changes

would you recommend to be made to the list of key elements?

1.2 Survey for experts: Delphi method round 2

Questions for survey of experts, distributed using the online survey tool ‘Survey

Monkey’ (https://www.surveymonkey.com)

(1) Please state your name.

(2) Please indicate if you give consent to your name being included in a list of people/

experts consulted in any publications arising from this study. (Multiple Choice

Question)

20 L. Mercer-Mapstone and L. Kuchel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015

. I am happy to be acknowledged.

. Please keep my identity anonymous.

(3) Please consider the following list of key elements of effective science communi-

cation. This suggested list was designed as a possible guide in teaching under-

graduate science students to communicate to non-scientific audiences:

Key Elements of Effective Science Communication

. Identify and understand a suitable target audience

. Consider the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience

. Promote audience engagement with the science

. Encourage a two-way dialogue with the audience

. Use language that is appropriate for your target audience

. Use a suitable mode and platform to communicate with the target audience

. Use the tools of storytelling and narrative

. Separate essential from non-essential factual content in a context that is relevant to

the target audience

. Use/consider style elements appropriate for the mode of communication (such as

humour, anecdotes, analogy, metaphors, rhetoric, images, body language, eye

contact, and diagrams)

. Identify the purpose and intended outcome of the communication

. Consider the social, political, and cultural context of the scientific information

. Understand the underlying theories leading to the development of science com-

munication and why it is important

How applicable do you think this list is for teaching undergraduate science students to

communicate to non-scientific audiences? (Likert scale)

1—Not at all applicable

2—Rarely applicable

3—Neutral

4—Somewhat applicable

5—Extremely applicable

(4) Please rate how essential each element from the above list is within the context of

educating undergraduate science students to communicate to non-scientific

audiences.

Each element rated on the following Likert scale:

1—Not at all essential

2—Rarely essential

3—Sometimes essential

4—Neutral

5—Mostly essential

6—Highly essential

7—Absolutely essential

Core skills for effective science communication 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

45 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2015