Using Body Mapping to Assess Doctoral Students' Preparedness to Serve as Science Communicators
Keywords:
Body Mapping, Science Communication, Agricultural Communicators, Doctoral Students, Pedagogical Strategies, Career PreparednessAbstract
Land Grant Universities (LGUs) are pivotal in equipping the future agricultural workforce with the skills to effectively communicate agricultural and environmental science. This study utilized body mapping to assess graduate students' readiness to become science communicators following a science communication theories course. Initially, doctoral students viewed communication merely as a tool, showing a need for more awareness about its significance in science. Deliberate efforts were exerted throughout the course to foster a classroom environment that empowered students as science communicators. By the end of the course, students had not only grasped the difference between 'communication' and 'communications' but also expressed a keen interest in tackling science communication-related issues. The evolution of communication technologies significantly influences public access to scientific information and the acceptance of science and related policies. Challenges such as these, augmented by urgent concerns like climate change and the Coronavirus pandemic, underscore the need for agricultural and environmental science graduates adept at communicating science upon entering the workforce. However, achieving this level of preparedness requires not only the provision of relevant courses but also innovative assessment methods that foster metacognitive and soft skills, thereby facilitating social, academic, and political empowerment.
References
Alder, A. Rodman, G., & Du Pre, A. (2016). Understanding human communication (13th ed.). Oxford University Press
Akers, C. W. & Akers, C. (2000). High school agricultural communications competencies: A national Delphi study [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304626677?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
Akinsanya, C., & Williams, M. (2004). Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Nurse Education Today, 24(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(03)00120-5
Ball, S, & Gilligan, C., (2010). Visualizing migration and social division: Insights from social sciences and the visual arts. Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1486
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Co. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrjcp/13/2/158.full.pdf
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
Bonnen, J. T. (1986). A century of science in agriculture: Lessons for science policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(5),1065–1080. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241854
Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012) Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627
Breiting, S. (2009). Issues for environmental education and ESD research development: Looking ahead from WEEC 2007 in Durban. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620902807584
Cannon, K. J., Specht, A. R., & Buck, E. B. (2016). Agricultural communications: A national portrait of undergraduate courses. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 2, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1018
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213
Clem, C. A. (2013). Exploring the competencies, skills, and abilities needed by agricultural communications students: a Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/58458/CLEM-DISSERTATION-2013.pdf?sequence=1
Coetzee, B., Roomaney, R., Willis, N., & Kagee, A. (2017). Body mapping in research. In Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1 – 19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_3-1
Corder, J. & Irlbeck, E. (2018). Agricultural communications skills, abilities and knowledge desired by employers compared to current curriculum: A literary review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04177
Jager, A. D., Tewson, A., Ludlow, B., & Boydell, K. (2016). Embodied ways of storying the self: A systematic review of body-mapping. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research, 17(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.2.2526
Dimick, A. S. (2012). Student empowerment in an environmental science classroom: Toward a framework for social justice science education. Science Education, 96(6), 990–1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21035
Doerfert, D. L., & Miller, R. P. (2006). What are agriculture industry professionals trying to tell us? Implications for university-level agricultural communications curricula. Journal of Applied Communications, 90(3), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1273
Duby, Z., M. Hartmann, I. Mahaka, O. Munaiwa, J. Nabukeera, N. Vilakazi, F. Mthembu, C. J. Colvin, B. Mensch, & A. van der Straten. (2016). Lost in translation: Language, terminology, and understanding of penile–anal intercourse in an HIV prevention trial in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The Journal of Sex Research 53(9), 1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1069784
Fielding, M. (1996). Empowerment: Emancipation or enervation? Journal of Education Policy, 11(3), 399 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093960110308
Gastaldo, D., Rivas-Quarneti, N., & Magalhães, L. (2018). Body-map storytelling as a health research methodology: Blurred lines creating clear pictures. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), 1-26. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2858/4199
Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
Irani, T., & Doerfert, D. L. (2013). Preparing for the next 150 years of agricultural communications. Journal of Applied Communications, 97(2), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1109
Kurtzo, F., Hansen, M. J., Rucker, K. J & Edgar, L. D. (2016). Agricultural communications: Perspectives from the experts. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1019
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Martinez, M. (2017). The mind body self: How longevity is culturally learned and the causes of health are inherited. Hay House, Inc
Masambuka, F., Rodriguez, M., & Buck, E. (2018). Drivers and shakers of agricultural communication: Implications for sustainable development in developing and developed countries. [Paper presentation]. The Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education Annual Conference, Yucatan, Mexico.
Morgan, A. C. (2010). Competencies needed by agricultural communication undergraduates: An industry perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 94(1-2),19–32. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1184
Mikhaeil, C. A., & Baskerville, R. L. (2019). Using semiotics to analyze representational complexity in social media. Information and Organization, 29(4), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100271
Mitsea, E., Drigas, A., & Mantas, P. (2021). Soft skills & metacognition as inclusion amplifiers in the 21st Century. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), 17(04), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i04.20567
Miller, J., Large, M., Rucker, J., Shoulders, K., & Buck, E. (2015). Characteristics of U.S. agricultural communications undergraduate programs. Journal of Applied Communications, 99(4), 76–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1063
Naidoo, S., Duby, Z., Hartmann, M., Musara, P., Etima, J., Woeber, K., ... & Montgomery, E. T. (2021). Application of a body map tool to enhance discussion of sexual behavior in women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Field Methods, 33(2), 143–158. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1525822X20982082
Oyler, C. & Becker, J. (1997). Teaching beyond the progressive-traditional dichotomy: Sharing authority and sharing vulnerability. Curriculum inquiry, 27(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00064
Roth, W. M., & Desaultels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. Peter Lang. Schultz, B. (2008). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an urban classroom. Teachers College Press
Telg, R., & Irani, T. A. (2011). Agricultural communications in Action: A hands-on approach. Cengage Learning.
Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722–731. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs090
Tucker, M., Whaley, S. R., & Cano, J. M. (2003). Agricultural education and agricultural communications: Striking a proper balance in the academy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2003.01022
