Impact and Effectiveness of Science Communication Training in the Honours Life Sciences Program at McMaster University
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper training in science communication (scicomm) skills are consistently falling short of requirements in higher education. This highlights the need to examine a curriculum as a whole as opposed to a course level view. This study investigates whether or not students in their current undergraduate level are comfortable with performing various scicomm skills, in addition to exploring if the dedicated scicomm courses are effectively teaching students the necessary skills. We administered a survey to students on topics regarding scicomm, and asked them to rate their level of comfort, agreement, ranking of importance, and open-ended questions. Four scicomm skills that had the greatest increase in comfort; Argumentative Writing (12%), Literature Review (15%), Public Lecture- Style Presentation (19%), and Oral Presentation (30%). Alternatively, four scicomm skills had the greatest increase in discomfort; Debate (15%), Audio (18%), Policy Communication (19%), and Public Debate (22%). Upon completion of the scicomm courses, there was an increase in comfort for; oral science communication (22%); selecting and using the appropriate written, oral, and multimedia tools (24%); communicating science in written forms (26%); and personal knowledge of written, oral, and multimedia tools (50%). A small sample size, missing data (voluntary questions), omittance of Life Sciences research seminar courses, and uncertainty if academic level implied one took the course(s) in the same year, were limitations . These findings can inform changes to the existing curriculum in order to facilitate the development of scicomm skills for science students as they progress through their undergraduate degrees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it