Annotations are color-coded by category see Table 1 for a description of the categories. SitC advances science communication in two ways. First, annotations provide a set of tools for deconstructing scientific papers, giving students a better understanding of experimental design and the logical flow from results to conclusions.
With the scientific jargon interpreted, students can see how the authors identified a question, collected and analyzed data, and proposed the next question s. This introduces students to the non-linear and iterative nature of science. Second, writing annotations serves as a professional development opportunity in science communication. While annotators graduate-level students and above may be reasonably knowledgeable about research and content in their own fields, they are often inexperienced at communicating these concepts to a non-expert audience.
We have developed an iterative and collaborative method for annotating research papers. Annotators provide the additional explanation and background necessary for non-experts to gain a deeper understanding, while paper authors make sure the original research is well-represented. Science in the Classroom staff ensure that the science is communicated at an appropriate level. Additionally, annotators are successful in lowering the reading level of the content of these papers to one appropriate for first-year undergraduate students.
Great expectations : an annotated bibliography / George J. Worth - Details - Trove
Between and , SitC annotator training consisted of a one-hour Skype training session with the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS SitC project director, during which the annotation process was discussed and a timeline for completion was developed. An accompanying online Annotators Guide was provided to participants. As there was a small cohort of annotators at that time approximately two annotators were trained each month for a total of 66 annotators , one-on-one training was feasible. However, as SitC grew and as the number of interested annotators increased, it was necessary to streamline and scale up the training process.
The course Students Reading Real Science: Bringing Primary Literature into the Undergraduate Classroom was offered as six minute sessions that met weekly in the fall of The course was taught by Dr. Rachael R. The CIRTL course was a pilot study with a small number of participants and was taught only once in the fall of Participants were graduate students and postdocs whose academic institutions belonged to the CIRTL network in the fall of Registration for the course was voluntary and the class size was capped at twelve.
Fourteen students were initially enrolled based on CIRTL data of the likelihood of students dropping courses and a waitlist was generated. In the end, eight students completed the course requirements, which included annotating a research paper and submitting a post-course survey. The class met synchronously online, using web conferencing software, and course materials were hosted on a Moodle site.
Topics covered in the course included learning about primary literature as an educational tool, science literacy and academic language, and addressing the content and literacy levels of a target audience the full syllabus and additional course materials can be provided upon request. Currently, annotator training is offered via the SitC website. Interested volunteers, at the graduate level and above in their science careers, are invited to participate. This training is modeled on the best practices we established during previous annotator trainings original SitC annotator training and CIRTL.
These published surveys were developed for use with undergraduate populations; however, we felt the questions were applicable to our population of graduate students and postdocs. Several additional questions were written by the SitC team to examine why annotators wanted to work with SitC, how they used the experience as a professional development opportunity, and whether they perceived any gains in their communication skills as a result of annotation training. There were eight questions in total on the survey, including four that invited a short-answer response and three that contained a total of 55 Likert-scale items on either a 5- or 6-point scale.
Two of the short-answer responses and all 55 Likert-scale items were relevant to this study and were analyzed for this report. We sent the survey link to all previous annotators whose contributions had been published prior to April Student survey responses used a unique ID code, and data could not be traced back to any individual student. The pre- and post-course surveys were developed by the CIRTL team that designed and implemented the course. The post-course survey contained 26 questions, eight of which contained multiple Likert-scale items. Six of the Likert-scale items were relevant to this study and were analyzed for this report.
Evaluation of current SitC annotator training consists of a pre- and post-training survey that combines survey questions from both previous iterations of annotator training FIU IRB approval IRB Respondents use a unique ID code and data cannot be traced back to any individual participant. The surveys are divided by discipline biology, chemistry, and physics due to a communication-skills question asking the respondent to evaluate vocabulary words from each specific discipline. We chose to separate these surveys by discipline to truly measure the communication skills that were being developed, i.
Aside from differences in this one question, the surveys are identical. The pre-training survey consists of 11 questions: eight demographic questions, the discipline-specific vocabulary-based question, and two Likert-scale questions on communication and research skills on either a 5- or 6-point scale.
The post-training survey consists of five questions: the discipline-specific vocabulary-based question, two Likert-scale questions on communication and research skills on either a 5- or 6-point scale , and two questions relating to what participants gained from completing the annotation training i.
Survey invitations were distributed via e-mail SitC annotators prior to spring , through the course listserv CIRTL , and through website links current SitC annotators. The anonymous surveys were administered online through Qualtrics. Analyses were implemented in R version 3. The ease with which readers can comprehend written text is known as readability.
These measures all consist of an algorithm applied to the text of interest that returns a number corresponding to a US grade level. For example, Flesch-Kincaid measures word length and sentence length, while the Gunning Fox index measures the number of words per sentence. To determine whether our annotators were successfully writing their annotations at a reading level appropriate for the target audience of introductory undergraduates, we analyzed the readability levels of i the abstracts of the original research articles within the SitC collection, and ii the corresponding annotations for each research article.
We focused on the abstract text because this section of the research paper is standardized across all scientific disciplines and would allow us to compare results across all our annotated papers. Readable IO has been used previously to evaluate medical and financial texts 19 , To evaluate significant differences in readability, we used R software to perform a paired t -test on the readability levels of the abstract text and the corresponding annotation.
CIRTL course survey-response data for selected prompts. We asked CIRTL students to rate their agreement with several statements relating to science communication. It is important to note that students participating in this course already had an interest in science communication, which may underlie the lack of change. We anticipate that the current version of the online SitC training takes approximately two hours to complete, and it takes an additional six to eight hours to annotate a paper. Because the current version of the online SitC training is so recent launched in summer , we have only two self-identified biologists who have successfully completed the process 36 self-identified biologists are currently participating in annotator training.
As the goal of SitC annotations is to make original research more accessible to an undergraduate audience, we examined whether annotations were easier to read than the original text. Readable IO analysis provides a computer-calculated index which estimates the level of education someone would need to read the source text.
The readability score is roughly equivalent to the grade levels found in traditional US education systems, i. The original abstracts were analyzed first. The average reading level of the 72 abstracts analyzed was Next, the text of the abstract annotations was analyzed. We found that these annotations have an average reading level of Feedback from both SitC annotator training and the CIRTL annotator training course suggests that there is great potential for future annotators to use this as a professional development opportunity to develop science communication skills. Recent surveys reveal that many graduate students and postdocs in STEM fields plan to pursue careers outside of academia, yet there are insufficient professional development opportunities for these early career scientists to train for non-academic careers 4 , Both SitC annotation training and the CIRTL annotation training course were designed to give graduate students and postdoctoral fellows additional training in science communication.
By providing this professional development opportunity, we aimed to equip graduate students and postdocs, early in their careers, with skills and experiences that will be applicable in virtually all career paths. The professional development centered on annotating new SitC resources as a means to help participants better understand the science concepts presented in the article as well as the nuances of communicating these concepts to a general audience.
We aimed to show that this kind of training can be a value-added component of scientific training and should be considered as valuable as traditional research skills. We received significant interest in our annotator training opportunities. We expect this interest to continue, as every respondent to our SitC annotator-training survey indicated that they listed their annotation training on their CV. With participation in both types of training being completely voluntary, SitC annotators and CIRTL students are a self-selected population with interest in science outreach and communication.
The high agreement among participants that SitC annotator training allowed them to contribute to the field of science and to feel like part of the scientific community corresponds with this self-reported interest. However, we saw strong disagreement among SitC annotators when asked if annotator training resulted in gains of feeling like a scientist.
- Le Silence Intérieur (French Edition).
- Families at War.
- New Security Frontiers: Critical Energy and the Resource Challenge (Global Interdisciplinary Studies Series).
- Werke von Fridrich Pfaff (German Edition).
- 2 editions of this work.
- Great Expectations: Annotated (Paperback).
This implies that while annotator training may have made annotators more confident that they are advancing science through their annotations, this confidence appears disconnected from their role as a scientist. This suggests that this population of annotators, who voluntarily participated in science communication training, still may not see science communication as part of their professional responsibility as a scientist. An alternative explanation is that these annotators are already early-career scientists and therefore would not report additional gains in feeling like a scientist as a result of annotator training.
The interest of CIRTL students and their agreement with survey statements relating to science communication is in consensus with this self-selected population, i. While it is encouraging that our annotator training did not make CIRTL students agree with this statement, the lack of a shift in disagreement with this statement is again likely a result of a small sample size and a self-selected population.
One explanation is that some CIRTL students annotated a paper that was outside their field of expertise, and this may have altered their confidence in their ability to communicate their own research. A second explanation is that CIRTL students assumed that they could translate their own research, but after completing the annotation process, they realized it was not as easy as they thought it would be. A final explanation is that while annotators see the value in communication science in general, i. This final explanation is similar to what we saw with the SitC annotators.
Future iterations of annotator training will examine this area in greater depth. Specifically, participants self-reported that the training met the course learning objectives and that the course exceeded expectations based on their personal academic goals. Data from both types of annotator training SitC and CIRTL indicate that participants see a positive shift in their confidence in being able to communicate complex science to a general audience. The readability data support this shift with regard to written communication and confirm that annotators have successfully translated science content to an appropriate level, ensuring that SitC resources are a valuable and useful tool for enhancing undergraduate science education.
We have taken best practices from both preliminary annotator trainings and developed the current, online version of SitC annotator training that is open to any member of the scientific community at the graduate level or above. This biologist-heavy participation has been the norm since we launched annotator training in Despite our efforts to reach all scientific communities, we struggle to identify and attract non-biologists. We encourage all members of the science community to join us as annotators and welcome any ideas to help diversify our annotator pool.
SitC annotator training is the result of best practices learned from our previous training modules. Specifically, interested annotators are encouraged to contact SitC staff to receive annotator training materials and to complete our pre-training survey. Training itself consists of watching six online videos and completing an accompanying worksheet. Once the training worksheet is completed and submitted, annotators may select a paper to annotate and begin developing annotations.
The editing and review process includes SitC staff and the authors of the research paper. Once the annotations and the post-training survey are complete, that annotated paper is posted to the SitC website for use by the scientific community. An overview of the training process, plus example videos and worksheet questions, can be found at www. To discourage annotators from starting to annotate without completing the full training and pre-training survey, we do not post the full training sessions publicly on the SitC website. We encourage interested volunteers to visit the website and contact the SitC staff to properly enroll in annotator training.
Currently, annotator training is an individual endeavor. We have not further examined this training as a graduate-level course. We suggest that instructors wishing to do so visit www. It is possible that this training can be done as a class, with, for example, the training done either together or as a homework assignment, and the annotations done in groups. As we have no data collection on our current annotation process being done as a graduate-level course, we encourage interested instructors to collaborate with us in order to develop best practices that can then be shared with the entire scientific community.
Please contact the corresponding author to join us in this new direction for annotator training. It is necessary to note that we suggest this training only be used by scientists at the graduate level and above. For this reason, and at this time, we do not encourage undergraduates to participate in this version of annotator training. We are currently developing and piloting a separate version of annotator training specifically for undergraduate students and their instructors.
Our preliminary results suggest that undergraduates need a very different kind of training than those members of the scientific community who have already established a solid foundation in research skills. Results from all of our annotators have allowed us to improve and refine our training protocol to ensure that we are providing useful science communication experience. We have also identified components of annotator training that can be further investigated to measure learning gains.
In response to our pilot studies presented here, we have developed an online annotator training course for SitC, open to anyone at or above the graduate level. Complete instructions for completing the training and annotating a paper are available at www. Training consists of six videos covering topics such as the complexities of academic language and an introduction to science communication.
See All Customer Reviews. Shop Books. Add to Wishlist.
Great Expectations: Annotated (Paperback)
USD 3. Sign in to Purchase Instantly. Explore Now. Buy As Gift. Designed as an ebook, this and the other BookDoors annotated editions offer you swift, seamless access to information and commentary. The modest price underscores BookDoors' mission to make these works accessible to an audience of widely different experience and expectations please go to bookdoors. You'll also find at bookdoors. You'll also find a select bibliography, and, part of the initial annotation, an introductory essay.
Product Details About the Author. About the Author. The first annotation is an essay that discusses Dickens's life and the novel, without, however, divulging any of the plot. You can read this if you order the novel or you can read it for free by going to bookdoors. The editor, Richard Fadem, received his B. For more information, please go to bookdoors. Date of Birth: February 7, Date of Death: June 18, Place of Birth: Portsmouth, England. Average Review. Write a Review. Related Searches.