Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39717052›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

A new approach for increasing graduate students' science communication capacity and confidence.

Erin R Harrington, Scott R McWilliams, Nancy E Karraker, Caroline Gottschalk Druschke, Jenna Morton-Aiken, Elaine Finan, Ingrid E Lofgren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Erin R HarringtonDepartment of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA.
Scott R McWilliamsDepartment of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA.
Nancy E KarrakerDepartment of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA.
Caroline Gottschalk DruschkeDepartment of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Jenna Morton-AikenDepartment of English, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5236-1604
Elaine FinanOffice for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA.
Ingrid E LofgrenDepartment of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an increasing demand for emerging scientists to improve their ability to communicate with public audiences, yet little research investigates the effectiveness of science communication training for graduate students. We responded to this need by developing SciWrite@URI-an interdisciplinary model for science graduate students designed around three learning outcomes based on tenets from the field of writing and rhetoric-habitual writing, multiple genres, and frequent review. SciWrite students completed courses and a science communication internship, attended writing workshops, and became tutors at a newly established Graduate Writing Center. After 2 years of training, students more frequently wrote multiple drafts and engaged in peer review, increased their confidence as writers, and decreased their apprehension about writing. We conclude the tenets of the SciWrite program helped students improve as science communicators, and we make suggestions for effective ways graduate departments and training programs might implement and build on our model.

Indexed as

CommunicationEducation, GraduateScienceCurriculumHumansStudentsWritingGraduate trainingProgram assessmentScience communicationScience writingSciWriteSTEMWriting and rhetoric

Identifiers

PMID39717052
PMCPMC11665425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.