Abstract
High school students are not often given opportunities to communicate scientific findings to their peers, the general public, and/or people in the scientific community, and therefore they do not develop scientific communication skills. We present a nine-week course that can be used to teach high school students, who may have no previous experience, how to read and write primary scientific articles and how to discuss scientific findings with a broad audience. Various forms of this course have been taught for the past 10 years as part of an intensive summer research program for rising high school seniors that is coordinated by the Young Scientist Program at Washington University in St. Louis. The format presented here includes assessments for efficacy through both rubric-based methods and student self-assessment surveys.
INTRODUCTION
The Young Scientist Program (YSP; ysp.wustl.edu) at Washington University in St. Louis is a science education outreach program that strives to introduce high school students to careers in STEM fields and to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in these fields. The Summer Focus (SF) program was established within YSP in 2001 as a paid summer internship in which high school students would experience authentic, hands-on scientific research (2). Over the past two decades, Summer Focus has grown to incorporate a college preparatory course and a scientific communication course (4). The scientific communication course teaches students how to find and read primary scientific literature, how to compose a journal-style article using their own scientific findings, and how to present their findings to a broad scientific audience. Here, we present the curriculum for this scientific communication course, along with tools for assessing students’ learning and examples of student papers and presentations.
We believe that the skills taught in this course should be introduced to students before they reach the college level. Although the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Vision and Change is targeted at undergraduate education, some of the goals laid out in the report can be addressed at the high school level (1). For example, Vision and Change calls for students that are “competent in communication and collaboration” and have “a certain level of quantitative competency, and a basic ability to understand and interpret data” (1). Skills such as data interpretation are essential for daily life, where individuals must be able to understand and interpret data that are presented to them, and make decisions based on their interpretation. Furthermore, students who have mastered these skills will likely perform better on standardized tests such as the PSAT, SAT, ACT, and certain AP/IB tests, and should have better chances of winning scholarships and being accepted into college. This is particularly important for the underprivileged students in St. Louis. In 2009, only 16% of St. Louis Public School students scored at or above the national average for the ACT (10). Through this course, we aim to improve high school students’ science communication skills, writing skills, and ability to understand and interpret basic scientific data.
Intended audience / Prerequisite student knowledge
This course has been designed for rising high school seniors participating in an intensive summer research experience through the Young Scientist Program at Washington University in St. Louis. Students do not need to have prerequisite knowledge before taking this course, as it is flexible enough to accommodate students with limited prior knowledge and a range of reading and writing abilities.
A multi-step application process is used to select students for the Summer Focus program. The Young Scientist Program has established relationships with high schools throughout the greater St. Louis metropolitan area, which includes public and private high schools from St. Louis city, the surrounding Missouri counties, and some schools in Illinois. As such, the Summer Focus leadership team is able to notify schools when the application opens and to remind them to encourage their students to apply. The application includes brief and optional demographic data, a short essay addressing their motivation to apply for the program, and questions about their extracurricular activities, job experience, awards, and previous research experience. The students also submit two letters of recommendation and an official transcript. Incomplete applications are not excluded. Each application is reviewed and scored by the Summer Focus director or assistant director and at least three separate volunteers. Although a transcript is part of the application, the student’s grade point average is not taken into account; rather, the transcript is used to determine 1) whether the student has challenged him/herself academically, 2) the availability of advanced placement courses, and 3) regular attendance. When evaluating applications, volunteers attempt to identify students who have had limited access to other research experiences and would therefore benefit from the program. Approximately 30 to 40 students are invited for a formal, on-campus interview, where they meet with three pairs of interviewers who probe each student’s curiosity, creativity, ability to work as a team, ability to work individually, and more. The interviewers meet as a group to discuss which students will be given offers. Interviewers consider whether the students can commit to the full program, have previous research experience or can pay for a separate experience, want to participate in the program, and will benefit from participating in the program. Depending on funding, approximately 16 students are offered positions each summer.
Learning time
As presented here, the course meets weekly for one and a half to two hours per session, for nine weeks (Table 1); total in-class time is 12 to 16 hours. Out-of-class homework assignments (e.g., writing drafts of various sections of the paper, creating presentations, peer review) build on the material that was covered in class that week and prepare the students for class the following week. This homework generally does not require more than one to two hours per week.
TABLE 1.
Example class syllabus.
| Week | In-Class | Assignments Due in Class |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-SF meeting (optional) |
|
|
| Week 1 (3 h) |
|
|
| Week 2 (1.5 h) |
|
|
| Week 3 (1.5 h) |
|
|
| Week 4 (1.5 h) |
|
|
| Week 5 (1.5 h) |
|
|
| Week 6 (optional) (10–15 min) |
|
|
| Week 6 (1.5 h) |
|
|
| Week 7 (beginning of week) |
|
|
| Week 7 (1.5 h) |
|
|
| Week 8 (optional) (10–15 min) |
|
|
| Week 8 (1.5 h) |
|
|
| Week 9 (2 h) (Every day, optional) |
|
|
SF = Summer Focus program; h = hour(s); min = minutes; 6 Cs = clarity, conciseness, credibility, completeness, consistency, coherence; Q = question; M&M = materials and methods; Q&A = question and answer.
We also offer three optional sessions: one in which the students complete a short pre-assessment survey and writing pre-assessment (Appendices 1 and 2), and two in which the instructors can hold individual meetings with students to discuss their progress on the final paper. Since our program ends with a summer symposium, we ask the students to practice their presentations as a group every day during week 9; however, this practice time could be shortened to only occur during the scheduled class time.
Learning objectives
After completing the course, students will be able to:
Identify the major sections of a scientific article and describe the content that each section should contain.
Write individual sections of a scientific article.
Analyze simple figures from scientific articles and draw conclusions from these figures.
Effectively peer review another student’s written work.
Communicate original scientific findings to an audience with a diverse knowledge background.
Develop an effective presentation style.
PROCEDURE
Materials / Student instructions / Faculty instructions
It is best if class sessions are held in a room with a projector and a whiteboard or chalkboard, as the students give multiple presentations throughout the course and the instructors often use projected presentations to augment the lesson of the day. There are no necessary wet lab components.
The course is taught by two volunteer instructors to divide the workload. The instructors typically are graduate students recruited from our YSP volunteer pool. Each instructor teaches the course for two years; schedules are staggered so that there is an experienced instructor and a new instructor each year. This course also utilizes the volunteer base of YSP in order to hold small-group discussions with students at the end of most classes and to objectively assess presentations throughout the course.
The syllabus distributed to the students is shown in Appendix 3. The students do not receive credit for their participation in the course or in the summer program. However, they do receive a stipend as part of this internship; accordingly, they are expected to attend all class sessions and to actively participate in each class. Expectations for the students and the guidelines for the final paper and presentation are included in the syllabus. We also present a schedule with which the students can keep track of their assigned homework and due dates. Throughout the summer, the Summer Focus leadership team stresses to the students that they are expected to act professionally and to treat their summer experience as a job. The students are told at the beginning of the summer that if they do not turn in the required assignments, their stipend may be withheld until the work is completed. The students’ research mentors and tutors also have access to the class syllabus, and encourage the students to complete their assignments during breaks in the lab. We have had very few instances of students not completing the assignments.
As shown in the sample syllabus (Table 1), the first class meeting is the longest and sets the students up for a successful summer. Our students come from high schools across the St. Louis metropolitan area, and we want them to be comfortable with each other and the instructors; therefore, we start off the first class by playing a few ice-breaker games. Once everyone knows the names of their classmates, we introduce basic writing skills, the purpose of scientific writing, examples of scientific sources, what plagiarism is and how to avoid it, and the sections of a scientific paper. We use a previous student’s paper to ease them into reading scientific literature and to show them what they will be able to do by the end of the summer. Many of our students know previous participants or attend the same schools as previous participants, and showing our students what their peers have achieved helps build self-efficacy (particularly in regard to understanding scientific writing and their own writing skills) (11). Outside of class, the program has an intensive research focus, so we also walk all of the students through a literature search using PubMed (pubmed.org) before helping them perform individual searches based on what they will be studying. If desired, instructors can have students fill out a writing pre-assessment (to give the instructors an idea of how much attention an individual student might need) and an overall pre-assessment survey at this first meeting (shown in Appendices 1 and 2). Due to the structure of our program, the students complete these assessments and other administrative paperwork before the summer starts, but they can easily be completed at the very beginning of this first meeting.
The classes have a more defined structure for the rest of the summer. A different topic (e.g., the format and content of a Materials and Methods section) is covered in each class, and the instructors incorporate student discussion, questions for the students, and active learning activities (e.g., think-pair-share) into each session (5, 6, 9). We include examples from previous students and current literature as often as possible. The students often complete a preparatory reading and a worksheet before coming to class to be prepared to discuss the topic in depth with the instructors and their classmates and to participate in an activity. These homework assignments include instructions at the top of each sheet and are shown in Appendix 4.
After the topic of the day has been covered, students divide up into small groups for the last 10 to 15 minutes of class to discuss their projects with their peers and a volunteer (graduate student, postdoc, etc.). Throughout the summer, when the students are doing group work, we place them into groups of three to four students from different backgrounds to encourage discussion and collaboration among students who may not usually interact. In these discussions, each student will describe their project and will answer a few questions from their peers and/or the volunteer. These sessions informally assess the students’ understanding of their projects and give the students practice communicating with a low-stakes, scientific audience composed of their peers. These sessions can also address discrete goals, such as asking the students to describe their projects in lay terms, as if they were speaking to a family member or friend not in science, instead of using jargon. The volunteers mediate (but do not lead) the discussion and provide the students with constructive feedback.
There are also multiple opportunities throughout the summer for each student to present before a larger group. In the third week of class, students give short presentations in which they must explain the project background, their hypothesis, and some of the methods they will learn and employ during their time in lab. Volunteers attending this presentation assess the students’ presentation skills using a rubric (Appendix 5). Results of these assessments are not shared with the students. Students build on this presentation over the course of the summer as they create a final presentation on their project and the laboratory work that they completed. During the class period in week 8, students make their final presentations to their classmates, instructors, and the same volunteer assessors from their first presentation. In our program, these final presentations are given during an end-of-summer symposium, and the students intensely practice and edit their presentations each day of the ninth week. The daily practice sessions are not required, but we find that students who engage in them improve their presentations and presenting immensely over the course of the week. In addition to feedback from the instructors, the students also take notes and give each of their classmates a critique. Finally, chalk talks (oral presentations given without supporting slides, although a chalkboard may be used to draw figures or models) represent a distinct way in which work-in-progress is communicated in science. Our students present a short chalk talk to the class in the middle of the summer to familiarize themselves with this format.
As mentioned in the section on learning time, one-on-one meetings can be included in the schedule. Each meeting is short, usually 10 to 15 minutes, but allots time for an instructor to meet with a student (and their mentor and tutor, in our case) to provide feedback on their writing. These meetings can also be used to assess what the student does and does not understand, and to reinforce concepts that have been taught in class.
Suggestions for determining student learning
Our course does not provide a grade for students, but our assessments allow us to evaluate student learning and our own teaching. Students are given assignments that support the topics we have covered in class, and they must implement what they have learned about the sections of a scientific paper to write a manuscript describing their own work from the summer. Beyond the written sections of a paper that the students turn in, homework assignments help the instructors to assess student comprehension and learning with regard to Learning Objectives 1, 2, and 4. These assignments are not graded, but help the instructors identify any weaknesses in individual students. To help ensure that the students work on their papers throughout the summer, they are periodically required to turn in individual sections and drafts. This gives the instructors an opportunity to see how much progress each student has made and what they are struggling with in order to provide rewriting suggestions.
We have recently added a rubric-based presentation assessment that allows us to more formally assess student learning over the course of the summer (Appendix 5). As mentioned in the instructions above, this assessment is performed at the beginning of the summer and again at the end of the summer by volunteers who are not otherwise connected to the course or the students. These assessments allow us to examine the extent to which Learning Objectives 5 and 6 are addressed.
Finally, we have recently designed rubric-based methods for assessing student gains in figure analysis. This addition will allow us to better assess Learning Objective 3. We anticipate presenting the results of these analysis methods in the future, after we have collected data from multiple student cohorts. We expect our students will particularly improve with figure analysis in their own field of study.
Of important note, our students represent a diverse range of abilities and educational backgrounds. Most of our students are from urban schools within the St. Louis Public School district, although a few students each year come from private schools within the city or from the outlying areas. Our students therefore begin the course with distinct individual skills, needs, and opportunities for improvement. We believe that this course is helpful for a diverse set of students such as ours, and that all students benefit from participation in this course. We acknowledge that the students spend the vast majority of their time working in the lab alongside a research mentor. As such, these mentors influence what the students learn over the course of the summer, as well as student performance on the final assessments. Therefore we also offer a self-assessment that students can complete at the conclusion of the course, which identifies areas in which each student thinks he/she has improved over the summer (Appendix 6).
Sample data
We have included two sample final papers and two sample final presentations to illustrate the products the students have created by the end of this course (Appendices 7 and 8).
Safety issues
As this course does not entail wet lab work, there are no safety issues to consider when implementing this course.
DISCUSSION
Field testing / Evidence of student learning
High school students participating in the Summer Focus program have been taught scientific communication in a similar writing course for 10 years (2, 4). The course is designed to accomplish a number of learning objectives focused on teaching students how to read and write scientific articles and how to present original scientific data. Recently, we have implemented straightforward analysis methods, including both student self-assessments and rubric-based assessments, which may inform potential modifications to the class.
In addition to addressing the described learning objectives, this course brings diversity into the classroom, provides students with opportunities to practice working in groups, and fosters discussion among peers. For this article, we assessed two separate cohorts of students. The first cohort comprised 14 total students, 10 girls (71.4%) and 4 boys (28.6%) (Fig. 1A). The second cohort included 16 total students, 10 girls (62.5%) and 6 boys (37.5%); in total, we report results from 30 students, 67% of which were girls. Of these 30 students, 14 identified their race as Black, 9 as Caucasian, 6 as Asian, and 1 chose “I prefer not to answer” (Fig. 1B). Furthermore, the students represent a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and attend different types of schools throughout the St. Louis metropolitan area (9).
FIGURE 1.
Self-identified gender (A) and race (B) of our 2013 and 2014 student cohorts.
We used informal, pre-assessment surveys that utilize a modified Likert scale to determine whether the students were already familiar with the concepts and skills that would be taught in this course (Appendix 1) (8). This scale included responses from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Therefore, survey questions with a median response greater than 2 indicate a positive response. The surveys were completed the first day of class before any material had been covered. While 73% of students reported having read a scientific paper, 40% reported not being able to name the parts of a scientific paper, and the remaining 60% reported that they were unsure if they could. Approximately 67% of students reported that they had previously interpreted basic scientific results, although students felt neither comfortable nor uncomfortable doing so (Table 2). Additionally, 67% of students reported that they had not previously written a scientific paper, and felt neutral about whether they would be comfortable writing a scientific paper. The majority of students reported having confidence in their oral presentation skills, critical thinking skills, and ability to effectively peer review (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Results of pre-assessment survey.
| Median scorea,b | |
|---|---|
| Question 4: I feel comfortable interpreting basic scientific results. | 2 |
| Question 5: I feel confident in my writing skills. | 2 |
| Question 7: I feel comfortable writing a scientific paper. | 2 |
| Question 8: I feel confident in my oral presentation skills. | 3 |
| Question 9: I have strong critical thinking skills. | 3 |
| Question 10: I can review and critique a peer’s work effectively. | 3 |
Answers were ranked on a scale of 0 to 4, with 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree.
n = 15 students.
Similarly, post-assessment surveys were used to monitor the students’ own impressions of their improvement over the course of the summer (Appendix 6). The results of these surveys indicate that students felt they made gains in a number of areas (Table 3). We found that 100% of students were confident that they could name the parts of a scientific paper, while only 25% thought they could at the beginning of the summer. Although some students felt that they could interpret basic scientific results at the beginning of the summer, the majority of students reported that they were comfortable interpreting basic scientific results at the end of the summer. While students reported that they felt uncomfortable writing a scientific paper before the course, they felt very comfortable writing a scientific paper after taking the course. Based on the surveys, students felt more confident with regard to their writing and oral presentation skills after completing the course. Students also indicated that they felt they had developed critical thinking skills and could effectively review and critique a peer’s work.
TABLE 3.
Results of post-assessment survey.
| Median Scorea, b | |
|---|---|
| Question 3: Were you able to interpret basic scientific results at the beginning of the summer? | 2 |
| Question 4: Do you feel comfortable interpreting basic scientific results now? | 4 |
| Question 5: Did you feel comfortable writing a scientific paper before Summer Focus? | 1 |
| Question 6: Do you feel comfortable writing a scientific paper after completing Summer Focus? | 3.5 |
| Question 7: Do you feel more confident in your writing now that you have completed the Writing Course? | 3.5 |
| Question 8: Are you more confident in your oral presentation skills now that you have completed the Writing Course? | 3 |
| Question 9: Do you feel you have developed critical thinking skills? | 3 |
| Question 10: Do you feel you can review and critique a peer’s work effectively? | 3 |
Answers were ranked on a scale of 0 to 4, with 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree.
n = 28 students.
Finally, the greatest gains are seen in the final papers and presentations that the students create by the end of the summer. We do not grade or otherwise quantitatively evaluate student papers, so we have provided examples of students’ writing pre-assessment responses (which correspond to Appendix 3) and their respective final papers in Appendix 7. The final papers that the students create by the end of this course are of very high quality. Our students have won awards in national writing competitions, have had papers accepted to the Journal for Emerging Investigators (3), and have successfully used their papers in college applications and scholarship applications. Examples of final student presentations (including edits from a week of practice that occurred after the assessment) can be found in Appendix 8. The students improve their presenting “style” (including slide design, verbal delivery, and nonverbal delivery) over the course of the nine-week program (Fig. 2). Additionally, the students create clear, concise and polished presentations that include the major sections of a formal scientific presentation (background information, methods, results, and discussion) and generally fall between “good” and “excellent” when assessed by rubric (Fig. 3). The “final” presentation assessment was in the second-to-last week of class, before the students had intensely practiced their presentations. We did not assess the students during the final symposium as we were interested in individual gains without the intensive practicing of the final week, but the students continue to improve with each practice session. Our data support the idea that students involved in summer research programs are more confident in their ability to perform laboratory science experiments (7). However, we believe that the course described here can be used to augment a summer research experience and to effectively teach diverse high school students with widely ranging previous experiences how to employ the major forms of scientific communication.
FIGURE 2.
Results of presentation style assessment. Students demonstrated improvements in slide design, verbal delivery, and nonverbal delivery between their first presentation and their last presentation in class. Each student’s average score from three volunteer assessors was used to calculate a median score (n = 30 students for first presentation and n = 27 students for last presentation). Scores are converted to percentages to account for different numerical scales in the 2013 and 2014 rubrics. The requirements for each category were unchanged.
FIGURE 3.
Results of presentation content assessment. Students are able to create presentations that thoroughly address important background information, methods, results, and discussion sections. Each student’s average score from three volunteer assessors was used to calculate a median score (n = 27 students). Scores are converted to percentages to account for different numerical scales in the 2013 and 2014 rubrics. The requirements for each category were unchanged.
Possible modifications
Although this course was designed for rising high school seniors, it could be used for college freshmen or adapted for use with younger students. The course could also be abbreviated to focus on individual skills, such as writing a scientific paper or presenting scientific data to a particular type of audience. Each of these focused topics could be presented as stand-alone workshops. However, we do not feel that the course in its entirety could be condensed into a one- or two-day workshop, as students need time to develop ideas and to practice the skills presented in each class session—and this cannot be accomplished overnight.
Finally, this course was designed for students who are generating their own data alongside research mentors who can help the students outside of class. However, it is feasible that students (individually or in pairs or groups) could write papers or create presentations discussing methods and data from case reports, data collected from laboratory exercises done by an entire class, or other sources.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
Appendix 1: Pre-assessment questions
Appendix 2: Writing pre-assessment
Appendix 3: Student syllabus
Appendix 4: Homework assignments and worksheets
Appendix 5: Presentation assessment rubric
Appendix 6: Post-assessment questions
Appendix 7: Sample student writing pre-assessment responses and corresponding final papers (2)
Appendix 8: Sample student final presentations (2)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding was received from the Young Scientist Program Endowment for Science Literacy, MidSci, WashU Office of Diversity Programs, WashU Medical School Alumni Association, WashU Medical Scientist Training Program, WashU Division of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, BioMed RAP, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Dr. Will Ross, and the BALSA Group. We thank John Russell, Gabriela Szteinberg, David Hunstad, and Katherine Chiappinelli for critical reading. We also thank previous Writing Course instructors Hanako Yashiro, Elizabeth Tuck, Katherine Chiappinelli, Devjanee Swain Lenz, and Britney Moss for creating the original template of this course. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
REFERENCES
- 1.American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action: a summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; July 15–17, 2009; Washington, DC. 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Beck MR, Morgan EA, Strand SS, Woolsey TA. Volunteers bring passion to science outreach. Science. 2006;314:1246–1247. doi: 10.1126/science.1131917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bradley IC, Danka ES. Characterization of a UPEC degS mutant in vitro and in vivo. J Emerg Investig. 2015. [Online.] http://www.emerginginvestigators.org/2015/03/upec-degs-mutant/
- 4.Chiappinelli KB. The Young Scientist Program: Fostering diversity in science and public science literacy. ASBMB Today. 2011. [Online.] http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=14604.
- 5.Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science. 2011;332:1213–1214. doi: 10.1126/science.1204820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Handelsman J, et al. Scientific teaching. Science. 2004;304:521–522. doi: 10.1126/science.1096022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Knox KL, Moynijan JA, Markowitz DG. Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skills. J Sci Educ Technol. 2003;12:471–478. doi: 10.1023/B:JOST.0000006306.97336.c5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psych. 1932;140:1–55. [Google Scholar]
- 9.St. Louis Public Schools District Data Profile. District Data Profile, St Louis Public Schools. 2009. [Online] http://www.slps.org/Page/129.
- 10.Tanner KD. Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013;12:322–331. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Trujillo G, Tanner KD. Considering the role of affect in learning: monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014;13:6–15. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Appendix 1: Pre-assessment questions
Appendix 2: Writing pre-assessment
Appendix 3: Student syllabus
Appendix 4: Homework assignments and worksheets
Appendix 5: Presentation assessment rubric
Appendix 6: Post-assessment questions
Appendix 7: Sample student writing pre-assessment responses and corresponding final papers (2)
Appendix 8: Sample student final presentations (2)