What Did They Learn? Objective Assessment Tools Show Mixed Effects of Training on Science Communication Behaviors
What Did They Learn? Objective Assessment Tools Show Mixed Effects of Training on Science Communication Behaviors
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fcomm.2021.805630
复制
发表时间：
2022-02-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Rubega, Margaret A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Capers, Robert S.;Oeldorf-Hirsch, Anne;Rubega, Margaret A.
人们普遍认为，有必要评估培训科学家与非专业受众进行更有效沟通的方案是否成功。然而，对于如何做到这一点，人们几乎没有达成一致意见。当我们谈论“有效沟通”时，我们指的是什么？我们应该衡量什么？我们应该如何衡量它？沟通培训项目的评估通常会纳入学生或培训师自己的观点，尽管这被广泛理解为评估的偏见。我们最近完成了一项为期3年的实验，使用非科学家的观众来评估培训对STEM（科学，技术，工程和数学）研究生沟通能力的影响。总体而言，观众认为STEM格拉德生的沟通表现在培训后并不比之前更好，正如我们在Rubega等人2018中所报告的那样。然而，收视率并没有揭示培训是否改变了特定的受训者沟通行为（例如，行话使用，叙述技巧），即使太少，影响学员的整体成功。在这里，我们直接测量学员的沟通行为，使用多种文本分析工具和分析学员的肢体语言在录像会谈。我们发现，学生使用的行话下降后培训，但使用的叙事技巧并没有增加。Flesch阅读轻松和Flesch-Kincaid等级分数，作为句子复杂性和单词选择的指标，在教学后没有什么不同。受训者在谈话中的手部动作和犹豫与观众对可信度和清晰度的评分呈负相关;另一方面，微笑与观众给出的可信度，清晰度和参与度评分的提高相关。我们表明，客观的工具可以用来衡量成功的沟通培训计划，非语言线索与观众的判断，并加强沟通课程改变一些，如果不是全部，沟通行为。
There is widespread agreement about the need to assess the success of programs training scientists to communicate more effectively with non-professional audiences. However, there is little agreement about how that should be done. What do we mean when we talk about "effective communication"? What should we measure? How should we measure it? Evaluation of communication training programs often incorporates the views of students or trainers themselves, although this is widely understood to bias the assessment. We recently completed a 3-year experiment to use audiences of non-scientists to evaluate the effect of training on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) graduate students' communication ability. Overall, audiences rated STEM grad students' communication performance no better after training than before, as we reported in Rubega et al. 2018. However, audience ratings do not reveal whether training changed specific trainee communication behaviors (e.g., jargon use, narrative techniques) even if too little to affect trainees' overall success. Here we measure trainee communication behavior directly, using multiple textual analysis tools and analysis of trainees' body language during videotaped talks. We found that student use of jargon declined after training but that use of narrative techniques did not increase. Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores, used as indicators of complexity of sentences and word choice, were no different after instruction. Trainees' movement of hands and hesitancy during talks was correlated negatively with audience ratings of credibility and clarity; smiling, on the other hand, was correlated with improvement in credibility, clarity and engagement scores given by audience members. We show that objective tools can be used to measure the success of communication training programs, that non-verbal cues are associated with audience judgments, and that an intensive communication course does change some, if not all, communication behaviors.