A Comparative Study Practical Versus Reflective Models in Training Scientists to Communicate with The Public

Science communication training for scientists broadly follows two competing pedagogical traditions: a Practical Model emphasising public speaking, writing, and media skills, and a Reflective Model emphasising theory, ethics, and critical awareness of the science-society relationship. Despite the global expansion of such training, comparative empirical evidence on the relative value of the two approaches remains scarce, particularly within the Nigerian tertiary context. This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design to compare the two models among 112 postgraduate scientists and early-career researchers (56 per group), using the Science Communication Self-Efficacy Scale and the Science Communication Training Effectiveness Scale, followed by semi-structured interviews and focus groups (n = 30). Independent-samples t-tests showed that the Practical Model produced significantly higher communication confidence and public engagement frequency, while the Reflective Model produced significantly higher dialogue orientation and audience-centred behaviour (all p < .001, d > 1.0). Hierarchical multiple regression showed that Practical Skill and Reflective Orientation jointly explained 48% of variance in overall communication competence, with their interaction term explaining a further 11% (p < .001), confirming that blended competencies yield the greatest overall gain. The study concludes that neither model alone is sufficient and recommends an integrated, sequenced curriculum for training scientists to communicate credibly and inclusively with the public.

science communication, practical model, reflective model, scientist training, public engagement, blended curriculum.

1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Canfield, K. N., Dawson, E., Patterson, T., Salmon, R. A., & Su, L. J. (2023). Analysis of inclusivity of published science communication curricula for scientists and STEM students. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 22(1), ar4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fähnrich, B., Wilkinson, C., Weitkamp, E., Heintz, L., Ridgway, A., & Milani, E. (2021). RETHINKING science communication education and training: Towards a competence model for science communication. Frontiers in Communication, 6, Article 795198. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lewenstein, B. V., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2022). Life-stage segmentation of science communication training needs. Journal of Science Communication, 21(4), A01. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Pilt, E., & Himma-Kadakas, M. (2023). Training researchers and planning science communication and dissemination activities: Testing the QUEST model in practice and theory. JCOM, 22(06), A04. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Rodgers, S., Wang, Z., & Schultz, J. C. (2020). A scale to measure science communication training effectiveness. Science Communication, 42(1), 90-111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Swords, C. M., Porter, J. S., Hawkins, A. J., Li, E., Rowland-Goldsmith, M., Koci, M. D., Tansey, J. T., & Woitowich, N. C. (2023). Science communication training imparts confidence and influences public engagement activity. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(2), e00037-23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. The Open Notebook. (2026). Hands-on science communication training for scientists [Practitioner resource and course summaries]. https://www.theopennotebook.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2023). Models of teaching science communication to scientists: A global perspective. Sustainability, 15(4), Article 3120. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. van Mil, M. H. W., Bosman, A. M. T., & Franssen, T. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication. EMBO Reports, 21(1), e49122. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Vasquez-Guevara, D. H., Lazzarini Moscoso, D. A., Bermeo, S. J., Seade, C., & Ochoa-Aviles, A. (2025). Action learning workshops for scientists: Science communication for public engagement skills for the VLIR-Teams Active Parks research group. JCOM, 24(05), N01. https://doi.org/10.22323/144720250729092032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study