R E S E A RCH ART I C L E

Experientially learning how to communicate scienceeffectively: A case study on decoding science

Monique L. R. Luisi1 | Shelly Rodgers1 | Jack C. Schultz2

1Strategic Communication, School ofJournalism, University of Missouri,Columbia, Missouri2Office of Research and SponsoredPrograms, University of Toledo,Toledo, Ohio

CorrespondenceMonique L. R. Luisi, StrategicCommunication, School of Journalism,University of Missouri, 178 Gannett Hall,Columbia, MO 65211.Email: luisim@missouri.edu

AbstractThe need for science communication programs ismatchedwith

the need for program evaluation. This case study is an evalua-

tion of the “Decoding Science” program (DSP) [Rodgers et al.

(2018). Science Communication, 40(1), 3–32], a science com-munication training program, and examines key experiential-

learning themes [Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning:

Experience as the source of learning and development. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall]. Specifically, we discuss the

program's emphasis on learning that science communication is

a process that (a) is continual, (b) involves conflict resolution,

(c) requires adaptation to the world, (d) requires environmental

interaction, and leads to (e) knowledge creation. Additionally,

we discuss our analysis of student feedback. Results suggest

that the DSP successfully utilizes experiential learning to facili-

tate the learning of science communication techniques and that

future evaluations can lead to the development and improve-

ment of science communication training programs.

KEYWORD S

experiential learning, program evaluation, qualitative research, science

communication training

It would be possible to describe everything scientifically,but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning,as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.– Albert Einstein1

Received: 1 September 2018 Revised: 12 March 2019 Accepted: 18 March 2019

DOI: 10.1002/tea.21554

|

J Res Sci Teach. 2019;56:1135–1152. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1135

1 | INTRODUCTION

The contributions made to society by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)professionals are numerous and invaluable. Although higher education trains STEM professionals toconduct scientific research, there is a general lack of training on how to communicate research to thegeneral public, even though STEM scientists are increasingly tasked with speaking to the generalpublic (Silva & Bultitude, 2009) and communication skills have been identified as an essential partof achieving independence and success in STEM professions (National Postdoctoral Association,2018). Science communication training has been listed as an initiative for many granting agencieslike the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2000, 2017b), the National Institutes of Health (NIH,2018), and the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. Department of Energy, 2018). Graduate STEM stu-dents who aspire to become STEM professionals are inclined to benefit from communication training(Besley & Tanner, 2011; Blanchard, 2017; Brownell, Price, & Steinman, 2013; Treise & Weigold,2002). Graduate STEM students with communication training as part of their education are betterprepared to communicate their research to various audiences (Besley, Dudo, & Storksdieck, 2015;Dudo, 2015). Science communication training not only benefits up-and-coming STEM professionalsand their audiences, but also the community at-large, as research demonstrates a connection betweeneffective communication and economic progress (Silva & Bultitude, 2009).

Effectiveness in any endeavor can be characterized in terms of success in meeting goals. Thegoals of science communication may be several, as suggested by the National Academies of ScienceEngineering and Medicine (2017). Many STEM practitioners merely wish to share the findings andexcitement of science. Others aim to increase appreciation for science as a useful way of understand-ing and navigating the modern world. Frequently, the goal in communicating with the public is tofocus attention on a specific issue that requires a decision that would benefit from understanding therelated science. Increasingly, scientists are interested in influencing people's opinions, personal andcollective behavior, and policy preferences. Some science communicators try to engage with diversegroups so that broad perspectives about science can be considered in seeking solutions to societalproblems. Many STEM workers see informing the public about the outcome of publicly-fundedresearch as a contractual and ethical obligation. While training in communication is generally lackingin STEM graduate education (Leshner, 2007), there is no reason to believe that the fundamentals ofeffective science communication would be any different from the bases of good communication ofany kind.

But a question lingers as to how to develop communication skills in STEM graduate studentswhose schedules are full and attention is often elsewhere. In response, we have examined the role ofexperiential training in a multifaceted communication training program for STEM graduate students.Experiential learning is often seen as an especially efficient way to maximize learning and retention(D. A. Kolb, 2014).

2 | MAKING EFFECTIVE STEM SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS

Scientists strive to increase the public's knowledge (Priest, 2014). Before, when the perceived onuswas on the audience to understand and process scientific evidence, scientists habitually blamed thepublic for having a lack of scientific knowledge or understanding in times of controversy (Johnson &Hamernik, 2015). This way of thinking has transformed, and now there is a greater realization thateffective science communication requires more than the delivery of evidence to make a point salientto audiences, as their interpretations of science will often be “through their own cultural,

1136 LUISI ET AL.|

psychological, and social filters” (Johnson & Hamernik, 2015, p. 8). One need only to look at vacci-nation rates in the United States for an example. Despite many individuals and U.S. health agenciesstrongly recommending vaccines and pointing out that they save millions of lives (e.g., AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, 2017; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,2013, 2015; Petrosky et al., 2015), numerous studies have since been directed to address various vac-cine disparities and improved communication efforts to increase vaccination rates (e.g., Addis, 2015;Doherty, Motel, & Weisel, 2015; Radisic, Chapman, Flight, & Wilson, 2017). Communicating amessage is not enough. Scientists are tasked with the need to design messages that include evidencein a way that it is understandable and appealing to target audiences.

Recommendations to improve science communication are plentiful. Speaking with confidenceand reducing apprehension is an oft mentioned initial step, covered across public speaking coursesand texts (Pearson, DeWitt, Child, Kahl, & Dandamudi, 2007; Raja, 2017). The use of human-interest stories can be useful for gaining audience attention (Jebril, Vreese, Dalen, & Albæk, 2013;Valkenburg, Semetko, & De Vreese, 1999). It is important to recognize that audiences do not oftencome equipped with the vocabulary, experiences, or even at times, the motivation to understand andvalue the messages that STEM scientists want to convey (Besley & Tanner, 2011; Johnson &Hamernik, 2015; Kahan et al., 2012). Another fundamental lesson is awareness that science commu-nication is more effectively done when considering the diversity within audiences, persuasivedevices, audience attitudes and beliefs, access to information, and empowerment strategies(e.g., Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, & Rodriguez, 1986; Chon & Park, 2017; Dahlstrom, 2014; Geana,Greiner, Cully, Talawyma, & Daley, 2012; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).

Graduate STEM students as science communication trainees also benefit from learning that audi-ence identity includes audience experiences, biases, language, and motivations. Audiences arediverse, and a message that is effective for one group, or sub-group, may not work for another(e.g., Cohen, Caburnay, & Rodgers, 2011). Trust in scientists by the public varies (Pew ResearchCenter, 2017) and is especially lower among vulnerable groups or populations (Christopher, Watts,McCormick, & Young, 2008; Guadagnolo et al., 2009; Kneipp, Lutz, & Means, 2009). Other issues,such as health literacy, affect message reception, as more than one-third of U.S. Americans are belowan intermediate level of health literacy—meaning, they may not be able to read and comprehend aprescription label without assistance (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2018). Tailor-ing messages to audiences based on identity and characteristics, and reasons for accessing informa-tion (e.g., Chaet, Morshedi, Wells, Barnes, & Valdez, 2016; Dirmaier, Härter, & Weymann, 2013;Takla, Velasco, & Benzler, 2012; van Lieshout, Huntink, Koetsenruijter, & Wensing, 2016), often ismore effective when appealing to an audience than a generic message (Young, Willis, Stemmle, &Rodgers, 2015). Studies about science communication training programs have echoed the need forthese lessons to be included to achieve programmatic success. For example, Besley et al. (2015)highlighted the importance of teaching students that structuring messages to align with audiencevalues and making the message understandable are necessary criteria for successful science commu-nication training. Additionally, Longnecker (2016) states that for a message to be effective, recipientsmust feel the message aligns with their sense of identity.

2.1 | Science communication program evaluation

While there is a wealth of guidance on suggested components for a science communication program,there is less guidance on how to evaluate such programs (e.g., Rakedzon & Baram-Tsabari, 2017).The need for studies evaluating science communication training programs has begun to be met, but

LUISI ET AL. 1137|

these evaluations are minimal and are often qualitative (e.g., Besley et al., 2015; Clark et al., 2016)or only incorporate a few self-reported survey measures (Feldon, Maher, & Timmerman, 2010).Scholarly development and evaluation of science communication training programs, grounded in the-ory, provide an opportunity to develop a reference for designing successful science communicationtraining programs.

3 | EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY

When learning about science, research suggests that explicit, activity-based learning is more effectivethan learning content alone (Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). The same can be said for science communica-tion training. A growing body of work dedicated to developing science communication trainingefforts has produced useful findings that serve to inform training initiatives. Training programs wherelearning is geared less toward a lecture format, and more toward an interactive format, are rec-ommended by Dilger and McKeith (2015) and Silva and Bultitude (2009). Learning occurs bestthrough an experiential process, which encourages learners to engage in a process that attends tomultiple learning styles (A. Y. Kolb & D. A. Kolb, 2005; D. A. Kolb, 1984).

Experiential learning theory (D. A. Kolb, 1984) highlights several principles of learning. First, thetheory suggests that emphasis should be placed on “the process of learning as opposed to the behav-ioral outcomes” (p. 26). In this view, having rigid outcomes as a metric to evaluation can be counter-productive to learning, as learning experiences are unique to the individual, and learning should be atransformative process that allows for modification of ideas. Second, experiential learning should beviewed as a continuous process, and that “[k]nowledge is continuously derived from and tested inthe experiences of the learner” (p. 27). Therefore, learning needs to be deeper than exposure to con-tent, and also requires active engagement in the lessons. Third, “learning results from the resolutionof conflicts” (p. 29). Specifically, that means that for learning to occur, individuals must be able toreflect on their experience and abilities to synthesize their acquired knowledge to make sense andmeaning so that they are able to apply these skills. Fourth, experiential learning theory states thatlearning requires “adaptation to the social and physical environment” (p. 29). It is a holistic learningprocess that “involves the integrated functioning of the total organism – thinking, feeling, perceiving,and behaving” (p. 31). Fifth, learning requires interaction with the environment and receiving feed-back to make meaning. Last, the process of learning is the process of knowledge creation, as “[k]nowledge is the result of the transaction between social knowledge and personal knowledge” (p. 36).

Experiential learning has been used and cited by many educational, governmental, and grant-awarded program initiatives (e.g., NSF, 2017a; The University of Texas at Austin Faculty InnovationCenter, 2018; U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2018). Given its success and attractiveness as a the-oretical framework to structure teaching agendas, applying experiential learning theory, via a qualita-tive approach, as a means to evaluate science communication training program can yield potentiallyuseful findings about a program's strengths and opportunities for growth.

A qualitative approach would aid in analyzing the holistic influence of a science communicationtraining program, as this approach “can help researchers access the thoughts and feelings of researchparticipants, which can enable development of an understanding of the meaning that people ascribeto their experiences” (Sutton & Austin, 2015, p. 226). Additionally, qualitative inquiry is “usuallyconducted to explore problems about which relatively little is known” (Morse & Field, 1996, p. 2),and this applies to the case of qualitative analysis of a science communication training program.

1138 LUISI ET AL.|

4 | PURPOSE OF STUDY

The body of existing literature establishes: (a) the need and strong desire for graduate STEM studentsto possess skills to effectively communicate with their audiences; (b) programs that accomplish thisgoal; and (c) a more holistic, qualitative, evaluation process of such programs. This study addressesthe third point. A qualitative science communication training program evaluation, developed with afoundation of tested theory, accomplishes several things. It provides a deeper understanding of train-ing programs, their efficacy as a whole, along with the efficacy of their components. Additionally, anevaluation based on theory is likely to be a sounder lens for analyzing programs and, thus, can helpimprove science communication training programs by supplementing programs with tested sugges-tions, and not with anecdotal knowledge alone.

The science communication training program “Decoding Science” (Rodgers et al., 2018) yieldeddata that were analyzed for the purpose of program evaluation. The decoding science program (DSP)was innovative in its approach, as it targeted graduate STEM students across a variety of disciplines,was developed by an interdisciplinary team of faculty and researchers, and the data were evaluatedvia triangulation (for a detailed description, see Rodgers et al., 2018). The current case study returnsto the data from “Decoding Science,” utilizing a different and holistic approach, to address the ques-tion: What are the key experiential learning-related themes that are present in “Decoding Science?”

5 | METHODS

To identify the key experiential learning-related themes, the authors performed a thematic analysis ofthe available data from the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018). Specifically, the researchers used a process,adapted by Elo and Kyngäs (2008) of preparing and organizing materials from the workshops, thestudent products, and the feedback from the graduate STEM students, in order to identify experientiallearning theory principles (D. A. Kolb, 1984). The reporting (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) phase of this pro-cess occurs in Sections 6 and 7. In these sections, the authors provide an overview of the DSP(Rodgers et al., 2018) science communication training program, and outline the process of data col-lection, processing, and analysis.

5.1 | The DSP overview

The DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) is an intervention program designed to improve graduate STEM stu-dent trainees' ability to effectively communicate research to the public in a clear, compelling, andconvincing way. An evaluation of the program found that trainees experienced significant improve-ment in their communication skills.2 The current study offers a qualitative examination that takes aholistic look at the DSP as a whole, since the original program contained multiple components andoutputs that are discussed below.

5.1.1 | Participants

The DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) was developed by a team of seven members—three university fac-ulty researchers (one from strategic communication, two from education) and four faculty trainers(one from biology, engineering, journalism, and theater each). As of this writing, there were59 (N = 59) graduate STEM student trainees who were recruited and completed the training.

LUISI ET AL. 1139|

Trainees were recruited from STEM fields at a large U.S. Midwestern university via graduatestudent email lists, promotional materials, and direct communication with others in the university set-ting. There were 19 trainees in the Spring 2016 cohort, 11 trainees in the Fall 2016 training cohort,14 participated in the Spring 2017 training cohort, and the remaining 15 participated in Fall 2017.There were 33 female trainees, and 26 male trainees from the following STEM areas of study:anthropology, biological sciences, computer science, exercise physiology, genetics, human environ-mental science, informatics, life sciences, natural resources, plant and insect/microbial science, andrural sociology. Of the 59 trainees, 30 (18 females, and 12 males) were native English speakers,while the remaining 29 (15 females, 14 males) were not.

5.1.2 | DSP stages

Program development occurred over the course of six stages (see Rodgers et al., 2018). In the firststage, the faculty trainers and researchers developed goals, grading policies, and instruments forassessment. In the second phase, the students developed scripts and visuals, and gave recorded3-minute science story presentations on their research areas. The third phase involved students takingpart in four workshops (a) Science on Stage, (b) Visualization and Design, (c) Being Comprehensibleand Engaging, and (d) Telling Your Story, and giving 3-minute presentations after each workshop.The fourth phase required the student trainees to edit their original scripts and visuals, and give theirpolished 3-minute science story presentations. In the fifth phase, external audiences (nonscientists)assessed the pre- and post-training presentations of the student trainees. In the final phase, data fromphases two through five were used to modify and refine the program to remove portions that did nothave audience influence.3

5.2 | Thematic data analysis

To identify the key experiential learning-related themes that are present in the DSP (Rodgers et al.,2018), the researchers conducted a thematic data analysis of the material from the workshops, thestudent products, and the feedback from the graduate STEM students. A three-step series wasadapted from Elo and Kyngäs (2008): preparation, organizing, and reporting.

5.2.1 | Preparation

The following data were compiled analysis: syllabi and outlines from the four workshops, one videorecording of each of the workshops, the graduate STEM student trainees' scripts and visuals, the firstand final science story presentations given by the trainees, and the open-ended responses from thetrainees written in their exit interviews.

5.2.2 | Organizing

In the organizing phase, experiential learning theory (D. A. Kolb, 1984) served as a reference pointto guide the analysis of how the components of the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) promoted experientiallearning. Researchers looked for connections between the notes from the open-coding process andrelated concepts to the theoretical principles outlined by D. A. Kolb (1984).

The data were organized into three groups: workshop materials, products, and trainee feedback.Analysis of the workshop materials (the four syllabi, outlines, and transcribed sessions) was

1140 LUISI ET AL.|

completed and then open coding was conducted to explore themes. Following the coding of theworkshop materials, the products (25 pre- and post-intervention science stories pairs that were de-identified and made available for analysis [11 from the Fall 2016 cohort, and 14 from the Fall 2017cohort]) along with the trainee feedback (28 completed the open-ended exit interview questions[10 from the pilot Spring 2016 cohort, six from Fall 2016, and 12 from Spring 2017])4 from exitinterviews were read and also open-coded. After the open-coding process and noting initial themesto develop a preliminary coding sheet, the notes were collapsed in a grouping process that identifiedrecurring themes. Next, these themes were categorized based on experiential learning theoreticalprinciples. Ultimately, these segments were collapsed once more into an abstraction level theme:experientially learning how to effectively communicate science (see Table S1 for the “Visual Repre-sentation of the Organization Process”).

5.2.3 | Reporting

The findings of this study, and their implications, are discussed in the context of experiential learningtheory in the following Sections 6 and 7.

6 | RESULTS

This qualitative thematic case study sought to evaluate the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) through thelens of experiential learning theory. The principle learning goal for the program was to “improvegraduate STEM student's ability to communicate their research clearly and compellingly with thegeneral public” (Rodgers et al., 2018, p. 4). Open coding of the program materials from the programyielded notes that were collapsed at the grouping level (e.g., some notes were collapsed into a themeof trainees needing to pay attention to audience characteristic [needs, abilities, diversity, and limita-tions] and the need to tailor the science story). These categories were reanalyzed and were, for suc-cinctly discussing the findings in this paper, further collapsed into the following categories thatexperiential learning (D. A. Kolb, 1984) requires:

1. Continuous process,2. Resolving conflicts,3. Adaptation to the world,4. Environmental interaction, and5. Knowledge creation.

These categories were condensed once more into the abstraction level: experientially learning how toeffectively communicate science (see Table S1 for the “Visual Representation of the OrganizationProcess”), which aligned with the expressed main goal of “Decoding Science,” (Rodgers et al.,2018) as trainees were not only exposed to content, but experienced it—allowing them to learn andexperience how to communicate science effectively.

6.1 | Continuous process

The DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) involved a continuous process of trainees working to improve theirown skills, and producing a science story presentation and an accompanying illustration, consideringthe feedback trainees received on drafts and incorporating what was learned in the workshops. The

LUISI ET AL. 1141|

program was designed as a continuous process, but as is discussed in Section 6.6, exit interviewfeedback support that the trainees were, at least implicitly, cognizant that learning to effectively com-municate science was not a one-and-done learning experience. Trainees were set on a path thatallowed them to take away lessons from the training, but also continue enhancing, practicing, andapplying their skills beyond the training sessions.

The nature of experiential learning as a continuous process was not isolated to the trainees, butalso extended to the development team. The process of interdisciplinary collaboration, programmaticevaluation, and subsequent revision also gave the team a space and opportunity to learn about theprogram's strengths and areas for improvement, so that this knowledge could be applied to improvethe DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) in future iterations.

6.2 | Resolving conflicts

Both graduate STEM student trainees and the developmental team experienced conflict resolution.Concerning the trainees, one of the major conflicts that the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) addressed wasinternal conflict. STEM professionals are often nervous about speaking to audiences. The traineesdiscussed the mismatch between what they felt (e.g., nervous), and what they wanted to convey(e.g., confidence). The first workshop, “Science on Stage,” addressed these issues. Trainees wereadvised that “[w]hen you're speaking to the public, your audience will be constantly reading yournonverbal cues. Reminding yourself of that fact may help you make conscious choices about yourinner monologue” (e.g., if a speaker thinks, and has an inner monologue, that a question from theaudience is stupid, no matter how polite the response the speaker may be with words, the expressionmay relay their impatience).

The solutions presented for addressing this conflict focused on engaging in “actable goals”(a continuous process) and mindfulness to nonverbal cues that needs to be done in order to success-fully communicate with audiences (also continuous). The faculty trainer in this workshop stated:

The key, the secret to being able to communicate, to stand up in front of a public andnot to come to nervousness is to have something to do. That's a number one importantsecret that actors learn is if I'm going to be up on stage and I don't want to be thinkingabout what do I look, like oh do they think I'm ugly oh do I, you know, all of thoseawful things about ourselves, we have to have something to do. So actors find some-thing to do and we'll look at what you might be doing, but that is the secret to not beingnervous on stage is to have something to do that you feel more or less comfortabledoing, right?

To drive this point home, the exercises in this workshop centered on making the trainees aware oftheir bodies and space (e.g., “Circle and the Cross”5), as well as working with scripts for their exter-nal and internal monologues.

Another source of conflict was the different advice that students received in the workshops,reflected in the values, principles, and ideals of faculty trainers who each represented a different dis-cipline. In an exit interview comment, a student reflected:

There was a lot of good feedback from experienced professors, but a lot of times thosefeedback were in conflict, so I didn't know which one to use. For example, one profes-sor said to have more information on the slide, but another said to remove that

1142 LUISI ET AL.|

information. But when ____ and ____ came together [6], it was more useful, becausethey were able to come to a consensus even if they conflicting suggestions, and presentthat consensus in a way that was useful to me. So, perhaps more cooperative mentorshipto reduce the confusion about which professor's feedback to use?

Students were tasked with the responsibility of synthesizing multiple sources of feedback, not alwayscomplimentary, to achieve the goal of communicating science effectively. However, this is alsoindicative that the process to develop the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) was also not free of conflict. Asthe development was an interdisciplinary effort, it required that people from various academic back-grounds come together, negotiate, and contribute to developing a curriculum that would be clear tothe graduate STEM student trainees.

6.3 | Adaptation to the world

The DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) material emphasized the need to not address only the material beingpresented to the audience, but also the need to address how one's presence come across to an audi-ence. The first workshop, “Science on Stage”, focused on the idea that audiences will not only focuson the words that the trainees will deliver, but will also absorb their nonverbal cues. The trainer forthis workshop stated “…if you really want to reach out to someone, you may not do it with words,you but you may do it with your voice, and your physical expression and your eyes.” This requiredthe graduate STEM student trainees to have to adapt themselves to the world around them. Specifi-cally, the students were reminded that audiences would not only focus on the words that the traineeswill deliver, but will also absorb their nonverbal cues.

“Visualization and Design,” borrowed from expertise in the field of design. The workshop taughtaspects of nonverbal communication and discussed the need for science communicators to fit to audi-ence understanding of stories (e.g., the progression of having a beginning, middle, and end), graphi-cally represented data (e.g., using the best graph to describe data), and other visuals (e.g., theimportance of fonts and color use on illustrations to enhance audience reception and appeal). There-fore, this workshop addressed the importance for scientists to make sure they are able to tell theirresearch stories in an organized fashion, using tools to connect with audiences, but to also select andproduce graphics which have appealing and easy to understand typography and graphics. The trainerexplained:

So yes, so, so there is the danger of people making assumptions based on the color,right? That's, that's a very good point because sometimes….the key point in that com-ment is, you have to be careful so that people don't make unnecessary assumptions.Because you people group things by color, right? People group things based on shapeor proximity, there are different ways. So how you organize will have implications forhow people interpret.

As part of the workshop, students participated in exercises where they watched and critiqued otherpresentations and graphics. Through these exercises, the trainees were able to understand thestrengths and weakness of what they analyzed, enabling them to better apply the principles to achievecommunicating with the general public.

The workshop, “Being Comprehensible and Engaging,” focused on the need for scientists to com-municate clear and concise take home points because of audience limitations with regard to memory,

LUISI ET AL. 1143|

understanding, and bias. Concerning bias, the trainer reminded the trainees to “…keep that in mindit's pretty much established fact that directly contradicting a disagreement with any of those groupswholly strengthens their current state,” and that audiences are very concerned with their own per-sonal interests. For these reasons, the students were advised to engage in the following work: avoidthe use of jargon, speak on the audience's level, and make the take home points succinct. It is impliedthrough this workshop that audiences have diverse characteristics (e.g., age and educational level), sothat research story messages needed to be adapted accordingly.

In the workshop, “Telling Your Story,” the idea that there is no one universal audience was adriving principle. This workshop builds off the discussion regarding audience bias in “Being Com-prehensible and Engaging.” In “Telling Your Story” workshop the trainer discussed the importanceof scientists tailoring messages to appeal to audience identity. The trainer explained in an example:

…whether it is lava flow or volcanology…frame theory math, and I have to tailor thatfor my audience and target it a special way. But, when we are able to segment and tailormessages, it makes our job easier, and the reason for that is, the more that we can seg-ment and tailor, the higher the chance of success. And that's what we're going for. So,like I said, if you're speaking to a lay audience or a grant giving audience, you have totarget in different ways. Now the beginning of all of this is research, and I know that's aconcept all of you are very familiar with. And the reason that research is important isit's the first step in any communication effort.

To illustrate these points to the trainees, the trainer had them perform exercises in which they prac-ticed segmenting audiences, evaluated messages and their related audiences, and practiced tailoringtheir research stories. This workshop not only spoke to the main goal of communicating science suc-cessfully to their audience, but also pointed out that the communication must be a fit, and therefore,adapted, to the audience in order to be effective.

6.4 | Environmental interaction

As part of the workshop, students participated in exercises where they watched and commented onother presentations and graphics. Additionally, the trainees received feedback from the faculty work-shop leaders. Through these exercises, the trainees were able to understand the strengths and weak-ness of what they analyzed, enabling them to better apply the principles to their own work. Byhaving peers and instructors as an audience, and by also serving as an audience, the trainees engagedwith their environment and received feedback that was fundamental to them continuing the processto become effective science communicators. For some of the trainees, engagement with the environ-ment went beyond the training. In one exit interview comment, a trainee reported “I strongly believemy ability to communicate my science improved greatly in this program. I know this because myparents, grandparents, family, and friends all watched my video said they learned quite a lot fromit”—which also suggest that knowledge was created and extended beyond the training.

6.5 | Knowledge creation

The process of knowledge creation was perhaps most demonstrative in the final products developedby the trainees. Concerning their verbal presentations, often, in the preintervention condition, thespeakers used a lot of jargon, did not have a storytelling structure, appeared nervous, focused a

1144 LUISI ET AL.|

portion of their time trying to explain their illustrations, and did not get to the main point of their talkquickly or clearly. For example, in one of the preintervention stories from Fall 2017, a trainee beganthe presentation:

All right, so as the human population increases, we also need to increase our food pro-duction. And, so, I study a plant pathogen that actually, um inhibits the growth of, of aplant. And so, here we have, um, our bacteria, this is called agrobacterium tumefaciens,and it causes crown gall disease in plants, so these are these tumors that you see here,and this blocks the nutrient, um, ah, transport throughout the plant, and this would, um,greatly decrease the, or stunt growth of, um, the of these, uh, of these plants…

The trainee went on to discuss bacteria that resist antibiotics, however, the presentation was riddledwith verbal fillers and focused a lot on explaining the illustration that was meant to help support thepresentation. In addition, the presentation leaned a lot on the use of jargon. After completing theDSP (Rodgers et al., 2018), the trainee began the postintervention presentation with a story:

Tom Patterson is a professor at UC San Diego. He travelled to Egypt with his wife dur-ing Thanksgiving break, and came back with a deadly superbug. His doctors tried oneantibiotic after another, but nothing worked on him; even last-resort antibiotics were nolonger working on him. His wife was desperate to find a cure, so desperate in fact, thatshe was willing to try sewer water. Um, you may be surprised to find the sewer wateractually worked on him. Tom's case is not actually very rare, um, it's becoming,antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming an increasingly, um, um an increasing prob-lem for public health.

In this iteration of the talk, the trainee appeared to be more confident, given the slower pace ofspeech, and fewer verbal fillers. Even the tone of voice was lower—a sign of being more at ease.Additionally, there was much less use of scientific jargon. Instead of devoting their time mostly toexplaining the illustration, the trainee opened the presentation with a human-interest story, easilymore connectable with a general audience. Findings such as these were consistent across the analysisof pre- and post-intervention presentation comparisons, suggesting that speaker work was an impor-tant component to improving the visual speaker identity (e.g., nervousness and a lack of confidence)and the ability to reach the audience (e.g., using a human-interest story and storytelling).

The illustrations were informative in showing knowledge creation.7 Prior to their training,preintervention illustrations often included the speaker's identity as a STEM practitioner and pre-senters did little in consideration to adapt the presentations to the public audience. Specifically,trainees used field-specific jargon and complex diagrams that they would end up having to explain indetail, often in a rushed manner. Thus, instead of being a visual aid that supplemented the presenta-tions, the trainees often devoted a lot of time explaining their images at the expense of their message.Preintervention illustrations for presentations about bacteria-resistant tomatoes, discussing how togrow more productive crops to improve nutrition and the economy using plants to treat sewage inIndia, and decreasing recurring childhood cancer, heavily relied on presence of jargon in the visuals.To appeal to a general audience, trainees were encouraged to focus more on the human-interestappeal of their science stories and to use their images as a supplement the human element.

Through the training, many students learned to use visuals as a supplement to their presentations,instead of making them so intricate that they had to be explained, as they did in the preintervention

LUISI ET AL. 1145|

visual. Experiential learning through speaker work was largely reflected in how the illustrationschanged between the pre- and post-intervention iterations. For example, concerning a science storyabout making tomatoes more bacteria-resistant, the preintervention illustration (see Figure S2) con-tained many different pictures within the illustration (e.g., of a salad, rotten tomato, etc.) and refer-ences to field concepts (e.g., “GMO” and DNA sequences) that the caused the speaker to noticeabledeviate from the principle message to devote time to explaining the image. In the training, speakerwork that is recommended includes themes such as avoiding jargon in the visual, simplification ofillustrations (e.g., not using too many colors, clean lines, few words, etc.).

In the postintervention iteration of the illustration (see Figure S3) for the science story, the num-ber of images posted to the PowerPoint slide was reduced to three, and the visual served to compli-ment to the story message. Previously, the speaker relied more heavily on the images to tell the storybehind the message they wanted to convey—the creation of bacteria-resistant tomatoes. The post-intervention image, by having one simple unifying theme (in this case, healthy tomatoes), servedmore to compliment the story, allowing the trainee to devote time to speaking to the audience directlyto explain their work, and not their supplemental image.

In another example, from a story about using plants to treat sewage in India, the preinterventionvisual (see Figure S4) consisted mostly of text explaining the scientific process that took place intheir study, while the speech also discussed this and the burden of sewage in India. The images thatwere used arguably did not convey the burden of the sewage issue. Following the training, the traineechanged their visual to include just one image showing how sewage is a problem that is an ever-present burden for many Indian citizens (see Figure S5; MilaAdam, 2016). While not deviating ordiminishing from the importance of the science and the process that took place in their work, thetrainee supplemented their story and further established the importance and impact of their work withthis visual.

From the analysis of the comparison of the pre- and post-intervention illustrations, it was evidentthat knowledge creation occurred and was applied by communication science trainees. Sciencetrainees transformed their visual aids from distracting, complicated and untailored, to thesissupporting, human-interest appealing designs—suggesting trainees had engaged in experiential learn-ing on how to more effectively communicate science stories to the public.

6.6 | The trainee experience

After participating in the program, each cohort was asked to complete an exit interview. Traineeswere asked whether they felt that the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) improved their ability to use clearcommunication principles, communicate science verbally to nonscientists, and if there was anythingthey would change about the training. The 27 trainees who completed the exit interviews were alsoasked if they had applied, or planned to apply, the knowledge they acquired from the program out-side of the training sessions.

Concerning their abilities to use clear communication principles and communicating with nonsci-entists, trainees unanimously expressed that they felt that they had improved, suggesting knowledgecreation. Trainees referred to principles expressed in workshop objectives in the training sessions(e.g., avoiding the use of jargon, using simpler words, focusing on a few main take away points, andtailoring the talk to the audience), demonstrating knowledge creation. One trainee from the Fall 2016cohort stated:

1146 LUISI ET AL.|

I tend to have a very formal writing and speaking style. This training has helped melearn to present my work in a way that's accessible and reminded me how to tune mylanguage to my audience…

Another example of knowledge creation, related to the need for one to adapt to the world, a Fall2017 trainee responded:

I realized in the training session that the human brain can only handle up to 3 or 4 keyinformation in a presentation. Therefore, when prepare a presentation, it is better tosummarize the key ideas instead of presenting all trivial details.

Related to adapting to the world, the realization that tailoring a message to the audience was impor-tant because of their diverse identities was a recurring theme. A trainee from the Spring 2017 cohortstated that s/he “…especially enjoyed learning more about…how to strategically form your agree-ment based on the group who you were trying to get funding from. This is especially useful forscientist,” demonstrating that the student felt that the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) had practical valuefor her/his career.

Knowledge creation was also repeated across several of the interview responses, as evidenced asa shift in speaker identity. Specifically, the program helped trainees to become less nervous, andmore confident. One trainee from the Spring 2017 cohort explained:

Along with feeling like I can plan a talk more effectively, each rehearsal I was less andless nervous to give a talk. Normally, I want to melt into the wall, and have to fight theurge to run out of the room. The environment of the rehearsals was very positive, andthe improvements suggested by the instructors was always very constructive. We wereall on the same team. I am looking forward to using these skills in my nextpresentation!

Although, at the time of the interviews (immediately following the training), most of the traineesindicated that they had not yet had a chance to use the skills the program taught them but all traineesindicated that they planned to use these skills in the future, indicative of knowledge creation, andlearning as a continuous process. Several trainees did indicate that they already had positive experi-ences using what they had learned. One of the Spring 2017 trainees reported: “I got a job offer fromMichigan State and I am positive they liked me because of the presentation that I gave to them. Iused the ideas from the workshop to prepare my talk.”

It was the hope of many of the trainees that, as in the case of the trainee hired by Michigan State,that they would be able to use the skills they learned in a variety of circumstances, including jobinterviews, conference presentations, and research talks—suggesting that communication skillsacquired by the program to talk to the general public can be useful when applied to other contexts orsituations as well.

7 | DISCUSSION

This case study examined experiential learning of communicating science effectively that took placein the DSP (Rodgers et al., 2018) science communication training program, using the principles ofthe experiential learning theory as a basis for evaluation. The purpose of this study was based on the

LUISI ET AL. 1147|

need to address a more holistic evaluation of science communication training initiatives, as suchinitiatives often contain multiple components and outputs. As knowledge is plentiful regarding whatSTEM professionals need to know to communicate more effectively, this study contributes to theknowledge of the learning process that is necessary to transform graduate STEM students into effec-tive communicators.

The findings from this study support that “Decoding Science” (Rodgers et al., 2018) does well inachieving the goal of training graduate STEM students because it views learning effective sciencecommunication skills as a process. Program developers designed the program this way, and traineesrealized that the process is necessary, and that transformation is necessary, to achieve the ability toreach and influence their audiences. Findings also support that conflict is a necessary part of learning.Program developers negotiated development of the science communication training program; how-ever, differences in their approaches were sometimes evident to trainees. Trainees had to navigateconflicting messages to develop their science stories. This is indicative that there may be some con-flict among developers, perhaps due to the interdisciplinarity of faculty, with regard to how theyapproach successful science communication; evidence supports that when discussed, developersresolved conflicting issues. This suggests that learning that takes place in “Decoding Science” is notlimited to the graduate STEM student trainees, but also extends to program developers.

Adaptation to the environment was a major experiential learning theme present in the “DecodingScience” (Rodgers et al., 2018). Most of the training was related to teaching graduate STEM studenttrainees how to appeal to their audience. The workshops addressed audience limitations, abilities,biases, and the importance of researching the audience, segmenting, and tailoring the message toaudiences (e.g., Chaet et al., 2016; Dirmaier et al., 2013; Takla et al., 2012; van Lieshout et al.,2016), as the responsibility for message delivery is on the scientist, not the audience.

Environmental interaction also played a role in the program's experiential learning process.Feedback that the trainees received from their peers and faculty trainers gave ability to continue theprocess of synthesizing knowledge to improve research presentations. Final products presented bytrainees were indicative of knowledge creation. In one sense, the purpose of the program was to trainstudents on how to become more effective in increasing audience knowledge, aligning with the goalsof the scientific community (Priest, 2014). However, this shows that knowledge was created in thatthe trainees were able to take lessons from the workshops and feedback received, and synthesize it totransform their work. Trainee feedback evidence supports the effectiveness and the experientiallearning nature of “Decoding Science” (Rodgers et al., 2018).

This study has implications for science communication training initiatives. Future studies couldmake significant advances by developing and examining more science communication training pro-grams that are experiential. As learning is an involved process (A. Y. Kolb & D. A. Kolb, 2005;D. A. Kolb, 1984), it is critical that programs not only teach aspiring graduate STEM students howto communicate effectively, but also expose them to the practice of the process. Additionally, pro-grams would do well to be open to being transformative along with their students. As feedback fromthe program was used to modify its structure, “Decoding Science” (Rodgers et al., 2018) adapted tobenefit the trainees, just as the trainees were taught to adapt to their audience.

Another implication of this study is that it is possible to conduct science communication trainingprogram evaluations that are theory-based. Rigor should not end at program development, but shouldextend to evaluation. Though experiential learning has been applied and cited widely (e.g., NSF,2017a; The University of Texas at Austin Faculty Innovation Center, 2018; U.S. Food & DrugAdministration, 2018), it is not the only pedagogical theory that exists. Future studies will make sig-nificant contributions by evaluating cases of science communication training programs under

1148 LUISI ET AL.|

theoretical lenses and more holistically. In turn, this may have implications for science education. Ifprograms are evaluated through examined theory, program developers can better identify anddevelop program elements to more efficiently and effectively teach scientist how to discuss sciencewith the public. This might have even greater implications for science education, in that scientistscan understand that learning science is not for them and their academic peers, but also for the publicwho benefits from their work. STEM contributions to society are important, but it is also importantthat audiences understand what scientist are saying. STEM communicators must not be only taughthow to communicate science effectively—they must also experience it.

ENDNOTES

1 Houston (2008, p. 101).2 See Rodgers et al. (2018) for a full report of the results.3 See Rodgers et al. (2018) for a complete outline of the methodology, including outlines of the workshops, and for thefindings from the assessment by the nonscientists.

4 The exit interview responses from the Fall 2017 cohort were not available at the time of the analysis for this study.5 Boal, A. (2002). Games for actors and non-actors (A. Jackson, Trans.). New York, NY: Routledge, p. 50.6 Names of the instructors removed.7 Because the training was for educational, noncommercial purposes, the trainees developed visuals that often includeduncited, copyrighted images. For the purposes of this article, the included visuals are recreations that were inspiredby the original work of the trainees, done to match the original works as close as possible. Material included does notrequire attribution unless otherwise noted.

ORCID

Monique L. R. Luisi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8621-7101Shelly Rodgers https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9062-8912Jack C. Schultz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9870-3537

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Rutherford's enlarged: A content-embedded activity to teach about nature of science. Phys-ics Education, 37(1), 64–68.

Addis, N. (2015). Don't call them dumb: Experts on fighting the anti-vaccine movement. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/dont-call-them-dumb-experts-fighting-anti-vaccine-movement-n298956

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2017). Vaccines. Retrieved from https://www.forceforscience.org/vaccines/

Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists' views about communication training. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186

Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to commu-nicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972

Blanchard, A. (2017). The importance of science communication. Retrieved from https://www.osa.org/en-us/the_optical_society_blog/2017/october/the_importance_of_science_communication/

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need toteach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Under-graduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6–E10.

LUISI ET AL. 1149|

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An indi-vidual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Vaccines and immunizations: Pertussis: Summary of vaccinerecommendations. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/recs-summary.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Vaccine safety: Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis safety.Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/dtap-tdap-vaccine.html

Chaet, A. V., Morshedi, B., Wells, K. J., Barnes, L. E., & Valdez, R. (2016). Spanish-language consumer health infor-mation technology interventions: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(8), e214–e214.https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5794

Chon, M.-G., & Park, H. (2017). One does not fit all: Health audience segmentation and prediction of health behaviorsin cancer prevention. Health Marketing Quarterly, 34(3), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2017.1346434

Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in acommunity-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406.

Clark, G., Russell, J., Enyeart, P., Gracia, B., Wessel, A., Jarmoskaite, I., … Roux, S. (2016). Science educational out-reach programs that benefit students and scientists. PLoS Biology, 14(2), e1002368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002368

Cohen, E. L., Caburnay, C., & Rodgers, S. (2011). Alcohol and tobacco advertising in Black and general audiencenewspapers: Targeting with message cues? Journal of Health Communication, 16(6), 566–582.

Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audience. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13614–13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111

Dilger, A. C., & McKeith, F. K. (2015). Training graduate students to communicate science to broad audiences. AnimalFrontiers, 5(3), 60–63.

Dirmaier, J., Härter, M., & Weymann, N. (2013). A tailored, dialogue-based health communication application forpatients with chronic low back pain: Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Informatics &Decision Making, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-66

Doherty, C., Motel, S., & Weisel, R. (2015). 83% say measles vaccine is safe for healthy children. Retrieved fromhttp://www.people-press.org/2015/02/09/83-percent-say-measles-vaccine-is-safe-for-healthy-children/

Dudo, A. (2015). Toward a model of scientists' public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Sci-ence Communication, 35(4), 476–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Feldon, D. F., Maher, M. A., & Timmerman, B. E. (2010). Performance-based data in the study of STEM Ph.D. Educa-tion. Science, 329(16), 282–283.

Geana, M., Greiner, K., Cully, A., Talawyma, M., & Daley, C. (2012). Improving health promotion to AmericanIndians in the Midwest United States: Preferred sources of health information and its use for the medical encounter.Journal of Community Health, 37(6), 1253–1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-012-9564-x

Guadagnolo, B. A., Cina, K., Helbig, P., Molloy, K., Reiner, M., Cook, E. F., & Petereit, D. G. (2009). Medical mis-trust and less satisfaction with health care among native Americans presenting for cancer treatment. Journal ofHealth Care for the Poor and Underserved, 20(1), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.0.0108

Houston, P. D. (2008). No challenge left behind: Transforming American education through heart and soul. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Jebril, N., Vreese, C. H., Dalen, A., & Albæk, E. (2013). The effects of human interest and conflict news frames on thedynamics of political knowledge gains: Evidence from a cross-national study. Scandinavian Political Studies, 36(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12003

Johnson, K. A., & Hamernik, D. L. (2015). Science and society: Challenges of communicating science. Animal Fron-tiers, 5(3), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2015-0025

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizingimpact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547

1150 LUISI ET AL.|

Kneipp, S. M., Lutz, B. J., & Means, D. (2009). Reasons for enrollment, the informed consent process, and trust amonglow-income women participating in a community-based participatory research study. Public Health Nursing, 26(4),362–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2009.00791.x

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in highereducation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Leshner, A. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315(5809), 161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138712Longnecker, N. (2016). An integrated model of science communication—More than providing evidence. Journal of

Science Communication, 15(5), 1–13.MilaAdam. (2016, May 21). Water pollution in India [digital image]. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/

wiki/File:IndiaPollution.jpgMorse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1996). Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research

agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.National Institutes of Health. (2018). Clear communication. Retrieved from https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-

office-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communicationNational Postdoctoral Association. (2018). NPA core competencies. Retrieved from https://www.nationalpostdoc.org/?

CoreCompetenciesNational Science Foundation. (2000). Communicating science and technology in the public interest. Retrieved from

https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2000/nsb0099/nsb0099.pdfNational Science Foundation. (2017a). Development and assessment of full-scale experiential learning opportunities in

structural engineering. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1726621&HistoricalAwards=false

National Science Foundation. (2017b). NSF makes new awards for graduate education projects [Press release].Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=242564

Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingeringdistractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

Pearson, J. C., DeWitt, L., Child, J. T., Kahl, D. H., & Dandamudi, V. (2007). Facing the fear: An analysis of speech-anxiety content in public-speaking textbooks. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090701304923

Petrosky, E., Bocchini, J. A., Jr., Hariri, S., Chesson, H., Curtis, C. R., Saraiya, M., … Markowitz, L. E. (2015). Useof 9-Valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: Updated HPV vaccination recommendations of the advisorycommittee on immunization practices. MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 64(11), 300–304.

Pew Research Center. (2017). Mixed messages about public trust in science. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/

Priest, S. (2014). Critical sense of science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(5–6), 138–145.Radisic, G., Chapman, J., Flight, I., & Wilson, C. (2017). Factors associated with parents' attitudes to the HPV vaccina-

tion of their adolescent sons: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 95, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.11.019

Raja, F. (2017). Anxiety level in students of public speaking: Causes and remedies. Journal of Education and Educa-tional Development, 4(1), 94–110.

Rakedzon, T., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Assessing and improving L2 graduate students' popular science and aca-demic writing in an academic writing course. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1192108

Rodgers, S., Wang, Z., Maras, M. A., Burgoyne, S., Balakrishnan, B., Stemmle, J., & Schultz, J. C. (2018). Decodingscience: Development and evaluation of a science communication training program using a triangulated frame-work. Science Communication, 40(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017747285

LUISI ET AL. 1151|

Silva, J., & Bultitude, K. (2009). Best practice in communications training for public engagement with science, tech-nology, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Science Communication, 8(2), 1–13.

Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. The Canadian Jour-nal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226–231.

Takla, A., Velasco, E., & Benzler, J. (2012). The FIFA Women's World Cup in Germany 2011—A practical examplefor tailoring an event-specific enhanced infectious disease surveillance system. BMC Public Health, 12(1),576–582. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-576

The University of Texas at Austin Faculty Innovation Center. (2018). Experiential learning. Retrieved from https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/experiential-learning

Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Coming to terms with the impact of communication. Advancing Science Commu-nication: A Survey of Science Communicators, 23(3), 310–322.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2018). Building America solution Center: Sales tool. Retrieved from https://basc.pnnl.gov/sales-tool

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2018). America's health literacy: Why we need accessible health infor-mation. Retrieved from https://health.gov/communication/literacy/issuebrief/#intro

U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2018). FDA pharmacy student experiential program. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/workingatfda/fellowshipinternshipgraduatefacultyprograms/pharmacystudentexperientialprogramcder/default.htm

Valkenburg, P. M., Semetko, H. A., & De Vreese, C. H. (1999). The effects of news frames on readers' thoughts andrecall. Communication Research, 26(5), 550–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026005002

van Lieshout, J., Huntink, E., Koetsenruijter, J., & Wensing, M. (2016). Tailored implementation of cardiovascular riskmanagement in general practice: A cluster randomized trial. Implementation Science, 11, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0460-0

Young, R., Willis, E., Stemmle, J., & Rodgers, S. (2015). Localized health news releases and community newspapers:A method for rural health promotion. Health Promotion Practice, 16(4), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915580538

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at theend of this article.

How to cite this article: Luisi MLR, Rodgers S, Schultz JC. Experientially learning how tocommunicate science effectively: A case study on decoding science. J Res Sci Teach. 2019;56:1135–1152. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21554

1152 LUISI ET AL.|