Learning (how) to listen: a key aspect in training future scientists for meaningful dialogue with society

ABSTRACT

The current paper presents the findings of an educational design study conducted within the realm of science communication training. Within this study framework, we implemented the active listening observation scale (ALOS) in a science communication training based on (deliberate) experiential learning. Our investigation centered on determining the efficacy and mechanisms through which the ALOS facilitated the acquisition of active listening skills. This was achieved through semi-structured interviews conducted with participants who, as part of our training regimen, participated in numerous dialogue sessions with a non-scientific audience. Through reflexive thematic analysis, it was observed that the ALOS facilitated learning in three distinct manners. First, the ALOS enhanced active listening cognition, by aiding participants in identifying active listening as a spectrum of behaviors serving various functions. Second, the ALOS enhanced the enactment of active listening behaviors by reinforcing the deliberate character of the experiential learning process. Lastly, the ALOS enhanced active listening affect, by assisting participants in recognizing active listening as key in fostering meaningful dialogue. We contemplate our findings within the context of the imperative to advance training initiatives explicitly tailored to fostering meaningful dialogue with society. Moreover, we underscore the necessity to refine science communication training from a pedagogical perspective.

KEYWORDS:

• Listening skills
• science communication
• dialogue
• science communication training, deliberate practice, listening pedagogy

Introduction

The escalating demand for scientists to interact with audiences beyond academia has coincided with a surge in scholarly attention toward science communication training (e.g. Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017a; Kuchel, 2020; Newman, 2020). A burgeoning array of studies is dedicated to providing guidance for both current and prospective training initiatives. Some of these studies yielded standards describing the competencies or skills that should be prioritized in science communication training (e.g. Bray et al., 2012; Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2017). Others provide guidance at the conceptual level, such as defining science communication learning, and proposing related learning objectives (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017b; Lewenstein & Baram-Tsabari, 2022). Nonetheless, to date, there remains a lack of broad consensus regarding what constitutes ‘the right’ training (Barel-Ben David & Baram-Tsabari, 2020; Newman, 2020).

Moreover, there is concern regarding the translation of new theoretic insights into practical application. Previous research has shown that the majority of contemporary training practice still adhere to a more traditional, educational perspective of science communication. For instance, most current training programs in both North America and Europe predominantly emphasize skills and tactics associated with message transmission, while placing minimal emphasis on fostering dialogue (Dudo et al., 2021; Trench & Miller, 2012; Yuan et al., 2017). This observation may elucidate why it is common for most scientists, when interacting with a non-scientific public, to predominantly adopt an informing role (Dudo & Besley, 2016; Hamlyn et al., 2015; Jensen & Holliman, 2016; Metcalfe, 2019).

Within the community of science communication scholars, there is widespread consensus that science communication entails more than simply ‘informing an uninformed public’ (see, e.g. Bucchi & Trench, 2021; Davies, 2022). Effective science communication, as is generally understood, entails two-way dialogue, is mutually beneficial, and involves building relations (Cooke et al., 2017; Illingworth, 2017; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). This necessitates scientists to assume diverse roles. In a previous study, we identified three distinct responsibilities or roles for scientists in contemporary science communication (Reincke et al., 2020, 2022). In addition to sharing knowledge, we ascribed to scientists a responsibility to listen to and learn from members of the public, and a responsibility to invest in relationships. Each of these responsibilities involves a range of skills, necessitating comprehensive training for their development. Recently, the scholarly field of science communication training has advocated for an expansion of research focus (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017a; Barel-Ben David & Baram-Tsabari, 2020; Kuchel, 2020). In addition to examining training content, which pertains to determining what should be taught, there is advocacy for research to delve into training pedagogy, addressing the methodologies of teaching. This entails investigating aspects such as training effectiveness, actual learning processes, and the characteristics of educational design. However, research in this domain, specifically tied to the context of science communication training, remains largely insufficient (Barel-Ben David & Baram-Tsabari, 2020; Rubega et al., 2021).

In summary, although the scholarly field of science communication training demonstrates evident progress, substantial change in training practice, let alone in science communication practice itself, keeps lagging. Yet, imperative to such transformation is the reliance on scholarly research that not only tackles training content but also delves into training pedagogy. In this paper, we present the results of an educational intervention study conducted within the framework of an elective course on science communication. The objective of this study was to examine the learning and training of an important skill in modern science communication: listening (Escobar, 2011; Jackson et al., 2005; Reincke et al., 2022). Throughout the duration of the course, biomedical students, poised as future scientists,¹ engaged in dialogues with teenagers from multiple high schools, positioned as representatives of society, regarding the ethical and social implications of advancing biomedical science. To support our students in developing their listening skills, we provided them with an observation scale directed at monitoring active listening competency. We investigated whether and how this observation scale positively influences the acquisition of listening skills.

Listening

Defining listening

Listening is generally understood as a multidimensional construct, involving cognitive, behavioral, and affective processes (Worthington & Bodie, 2018). Cognitive processes entail activities such as receiving and interpreting messages. Behavioral processes encompass actions undertaken in response to messages. Affective processes involve aspects such as motivation to engage in listening. Scholarship on listening is dispersed across various disciplines and fields of study, including audiology, psychology, and interpersonal communication. Notably, there exist discernible differences among disciplines or fields regarding the emphasis placed on cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions (Worthington & Bodie, 2020). In this study, listening was examined from the perspective of interpersonal communication, where significant research has been dedicated to the behavioral aspects of listening (Manusov, 2020). This is not surprising, given that interpersonal listening, in contrast to scenarios such as listening in a lecture hall or to the radio, places substantial emphasis on how individuals interact by manifesting listening behaviors. These behaviors may be verbal (e.g. asking questions and paraphrasing) or nonverbal (e.g. nodding and maintaining eye contact).

Furthermore, we chose to conceptualize listening, consistent with prevalent communication research, as a form of skilled performance (Hargie, 2019; Worthington & Bodie, 2018). By adopting this perspective, we liken listening skills to psycho-motor skills. Analogous to psycho-motor skills, listening skills are contextual, purposive, and trainable. In addition, they involve competence at cognitive, affective, and behavioral levels (Hargie, 2019). Effective listening necessitates understanding how (and why) to listen (cognition), possessing a willingness to engage in listening (affect), and actively enact associated listening behaviors (behavior) (Wolvin & Coakley, 2000).

A frequently mentioned training strategy in the context of listening is deliberate practice (Rost, 2020). Deliberate practice can be defined as the systematic and purposeful repetition of a skill or component of a skill, resulting in gradual performance enhancement. Typically, in deliberate practice, the overall performance is deconstructed into distinct components, each with clearly delineated performance objectives, facilitating the assessment of improvements in related performance. Learners improve their abilities by repeatedly executing the same task or practice activity, while receiving informative, actionable feedback (Ericsson, 2020; Ericsson et al., 1993).

Active listening as a form of good listening

Research on interpersonal listening describes different types or forms of listening. A conceptually well-developed form, which is often associated with good listening, is active listening (Manusov, 2020; Stewart & Koenig Kellas, 2020). While there may be variations in the precise definition of active listening, most scholars agree that this type of listening comprises three fundamental aspects. First, active listening involves demonstrating nonverbal engagement with the speaker (e.g. through eye contact or vocal affirmations). Second, it involves paraphrasing to reflect the speaker's message without judgement. Lastly, active listeners ask questions to seek clarification or encourage further elaboration (Weger et al., 2010, p. 1014). Generally, the goal of active listening is to gain understanding and to communicate involvement and interest (McNaughton et al., 2008).

Study context

This study was conducted within the framework of a 10-week (part-time) elective course on science education and communication, offered as part of the undergraduate biomedical curriculum at Utrecht University. Throughout this course, predominantly third-year undergraduate biomedical students, engage in visits to several high schools across the Netherlands. During these visits, they introduce innovative biomedical research topics into the classroom and engage in discussions regarding their implications. Through experiential learning methodologies, augmented by elements of deliberate practice, students cultivate a range of communicative and didactic skills. They establish their own specific and measurable (SMART) learning objectives, practicing related behavior and skills through iterative cycles of experiential learning during school visits, and subsequently reflect on their performance based on peer observation and feedback. During the academic year 2021–2022, we introduced a new component to the course known as the ‘Embryolab’, designed specifically to enhance students’ dialogue skills, with a particular emphasis on listening. In the Embryolab, students engaged in dialogues with high-school students regarding socio-ethical issues associated with human embryo research and the genetic modification of human embryonic DNA. An important aim of the Embryolab is to facilitate mutual learning between university students, who are prospective scientists, and high-school students, who represent members of society.

On average, each student participates in 3–4 Embryolabs while being observed by a peer. They focus on achieving 4–6 (self-chosen) learning objectives, with 2–3 of these objectives centered on active listening. Additionally, each student observes 3–4 Embryolabs conducted by a peer. Following each Embryolab session, peer observation notes are discussed in a feedback session. Progress in skill development is documented in a reflection report, for which students receive grading upon completion of the course.

Study design

In this study, we adopted a methodology rooted in educational design research (EDR). EDR integrates the enhancement of educational theory with the creation of interventions aimed at promoting educational practice (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). It progresses through three stages: ‘analysis and exploration’, ‘design and construction’, and ‘evaluation and reflection’ (McKenney & Reeves, 2014). This research focuses on the evaluation and reflection phase.

Educational intervention and study approach

Within our course, peer feedback serves as a fundamental component. However, crafting meaningful feedback can be a challenging task. To facilitate the development of active listening skills, we introduced students to the active listening observation scale (ALOS). The ALOS is a validated observational tool utilized for assessing active listening behaviors demonstrated by a participant during an interaction (Vickery, 2018). It comprises 14 items encompassing various micro-level behaviors associated with active listening, categorized into nonverbal behaviors, verbal behaviors, and general behaviors. Each item is evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the frequency with which the target exhibits the specific behavior, ranging from ‘never’ to ‘very often’. Originally devised by Fassaert et al. (2007), the ALOS was designed to assess the active listening skills of physicians during patient consultations. To facilitate scoring, each item included a brief description accompanied by a set of associated example behaviors. Minor modifications were made to tailor the ALOS to our training model (i.e. the Embryolab). This involved adjustments to both the wording within some of the items (e.g. ‘patient’ was replaced or modified to ‘participants’) and, in some cases, the item explanation (e.g. ‘is good in leading the conversation’ was contextualized within a group conversation, emphasizing aspects such as encouraging multiple voices to be heard). Furthermore, all ALOS items were provided with writing space and the prompt to note relevant situations and quotes. The modified ALOS, as used in the peer observation process during Embryolab sessions, is presented in Figure 1. ALOS-based peer observation involved both item-scoring and the documentation of situations and quotes.

Figure 1. Adapted ALOS (adapted and reprinted from Fassaert et al., 2007).

Participants and data collection

To investigate the extent to which the ALOS contributed to the acquisition of active listening skills, we conducted semi-structured interviews with participants enrolled in our course during the academic year 2021–2022. Following the conclusion of the course, and the determination of their final grades, we extended invitations to students to participate in our study. Those who expressed interest provided written consent. We enrolled ten participants in our study, at which point data saturation was achieved (i.e. interviews 9 and 10 did not yield any novel insights regarding our research question). This aligns with recommendations for determining sample size, particularly applicable to studies with relatively homogeneous samples and a narrow study aim (Guest et al., 2006). The participants comprised third – or fourth-year undergraduate students of biomedical science. All interviews were conducted between December 2021 and May 2022. Two of the participants were interviewed one-on-one, while eight participants were interviewed online via Microsoft Teams. We employed a semi-structured interview guide developed based on our theoretical framework, the purpose of our study, and our own educational expertise. Key topics covered in the interviews included ALOS content (e.g. the relevance of items), the process of observing and constructing feedback using the ALOS, experiences of being observed and receiving feedback with the help of the ALOS, and personal development in active listening skills. Interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min, with an average duration of 47 min.

Data analysis

All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 Pro (Lumivero, 2017) and Braun and Clarke's six-step framework for reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2019; 2021). The analysis in our study was primarily conducted by the first author, with occasional contributions from the second author, particularly aimed at testing assumptions and exploring potential data interpretations.

In the initial phase, interview transcripts underwent repeated examination by the first author, followed by the generation of initial codes using a predominantly inductive analytical approach in the second phase. Furthermore, deductive coding was employed to ensure that initial coding contributed to the formation of themes relevant to the research question. Subsequently, in the third phase, codes were organized under candidate themes, and an initial thematic map was devised, which underwent discussion with the second author in several meetings. During the fourth phase, codes were refined and enhanced as necessary, and the initial thematic map was further developed. This iterative process led to the characterization of three overarching themes, which were subsequently deliberated upon with all authors. In the fifth phase, these overarching themes were elaborated upon and subdivided into associated subthemes, with relevant quotations being gathered. Finally, in the sixth phase, during the report writing process, definitive names were assigned to themes and subthemes, and a selection of the most informative quotes was made.

Results

We characterized three overarching themes recurrent throughout our entire dataset, representing learning processes across the three different dimensions of listening competency as described in ‘Listening’ section (i.e. cognition, behavior, and affect). We will elaborate on our approach to constructing our analysis in accordance with the three-dimensional model of communicative competency. Subsequently, we will engage in a detailed discussion of each theme, presented in separate paragraphs.

During the initial review of the interview transcripts, we identified two overarching patterns in students’ accounts of their engagement with the ALOS during the acquisition of active listening. The first pattern concerned the utilization of the ALOS for enhancing knowledge and comprehension of active listening principles. The second pattern involved the application of the ALOS in the practice of active listening behaviors. In addition, this phase of analysis yielded a diverse collection of codes delineating students’ discussions regarding active listening within the context of dialogue, which served as the overarching purpose of the Embryolab. Particularly, we scrutinized how active listening influenced the dynamics of dialogue, for example in terms of fostering depth of conversation. Subsequently, we identified a relatively deeper underlying pattern inherent in these codes, suggesting the involvement of the ALOS in students’ development in terms of active listening affect (i.e. fostering a willingness to listen). At this juncture, we realized that the students’ experiences with the ALOS potentially contributed to learning across all three dimensions of listening competency. In the first identified pattern – the ALOS in relation to the development of knowledge and comprehension of active listening – we recognized the cognitive dimension: understanding how to listen. In the subsequent pattern – the ALOS in relation to the practice of active listening behaviors – we recognized the behavioral dimension: implementing listening behaviors. We constructed three themes, consistent with the three dimensions of listening competency. Subsequently, we will elaborate on each of these themes, elucidating related subthemes.

Theme 1: the ALOS enhances active listening cognition

In reviewing their personal development regarding active listening competency throughout the course, all participants indicated to have experienced a gradual increase in awareness of the essence and potential impact of active listening in interpersonal communication. This points to an enhancement in active listening cognition. We identified two overarching mechanisms through which the ALOS appears to have enhanced this development, which will be explained in two related subthemes below.

Recognizing active listening as a multifaceted skill with multiple, specific behaviors

First, a frequently reported learning outcome regarding active listening involved the development of a nuanced understanding of its components. As articulated by respondent 10 (R10), ‘well, that [active listening] is more than just nodding yes’. The utilization of the ALOS helped students to appreciate active listening as a multifaceted skill with multiple, specific behavioral components, as illustrated by the expressions of R5 and R3 below:

 … because all the time you see those things on [the ALOS] you think oh yeah, that is also part of it [of active listening]. [R5]

Which various aspects are important for good listening [… .]. And that they can all be broken down into little separate things that you can pay attention to. [R3]

Furthermore, many participants reported that the ALOS had helped them in discerning the specific behaviors they could engage in to actively listen themselves. For example, R5 commented:

Yes, mainly, it made me aware of how, say, specifically what you can do to […] listen actively. [R5]

Similarly, R2 explains how the ALOS facilitated their understanding of the item ‘listens attentively’; delineating how it is translated into tangible behavior:

 … by linking a word to it […]: notices nonverbal signals, or encourages […], then you are more aware of oh this is how I listen attentively. [R2]

Actively observing peers with the help of the ALOS and witnessing their demonstration of active listening behaviors was regarded as the most effective method for fostering learning in this regard. Numerous participants underscored the informative nature of witnessing instances of proficient (or deficient) execution of items outlined in the ALOS:

 … by observing others and then kind of writing down how they’re doing on the base of the ALOS, […] I think we were able to learn a lot from each other that way by just witnessing good examples of things described in the ALOS. [R7]

Indeed, seeing active listening drawn up within the ALOS, including peer observation guided by the ALOS, facilitated students’ comprehension of the multifaceted essence of active listening, both in conceptual understanding and practical application. This approach enabled them to identify the specific behaviors integral to active listening as a skill and to recognize the particular behaviors they could engage in to actively listen themselves.

Recognizing multiple, specific active listening functions

Second, various segments within the transcripts, dispersed throughout and spanning across interviews, indicated that students had developed (more) insight into the function(s) of active listening. Moreover, most students demonstrated substantial diversity and/or specificity in this regard. For instance, R1 described experiencing that the ALOS items ‘listens attentively’ and ‘creates an open and safe atmosphere’ can encourage high-school students to engage in the conversation, as they perceived being genuinely heard. More specifically, R2 recalled that the example behavior ‘paraphrasing’ within the item ‘listens attentively’ had proven beneficial in assessing mutual understanding:

That paraphrasing, for instance, that was also very useful for us because then the high-school student could indicate whether we understood them correctly and if not, they could explain further. [R2]

Moreover, R6 recalled that the item ‘using exploring questions’ had contributed to balancing conversation and fostering deeper reflection on the topic at hand, thus making them less one-sided:

I found that exploring questions let them think more thorough about their answer. I often had that high-school students were very biased at first […], and then I said: what if the situation were like that, and, what if it [a genetic condition] ran in your family, for example. And then I got the impression that you could bring new insights to them, so that they were like oh you can look at it that way too. So there were really different angles in the conversation and, because of that, it just turned into a more extensive conversation, with more discussion points. [R6]

Therefore, through the practical application of active listening and experiencing its effects within conversation, students gained insight into the specific functions of individual and/or combined active listening behaviors. Although not explicitly mentioned, the ALOS seems to have played a supportive role in this regard, which is twofold. Firstly, by incorporating the ALOS into the (peer) observation process, participants were compelled to concentrate on various specific behaviors, facilitating the identification of specific effects within the conversation. Secondly, using the ALOS as a guide to train active listening skills compelled students to address numerous distinct, specific behaviors and thereby once more experiencing specific effects. This process may have fostered students’ understanding of the functions of individual items and/or example behaviors, as well as their grasp of active listening as a comprehensive skill.

In summary, seeing active listening drawn up within the ALOS and observing peers guided by the ALOS enhanced students’ active listening cognition. This specifically pertained to knowledge and understanding of which behaviors constitute active listening, their translation into actual behavior, and their specific functions.

Theme 2: The ALOS enhances enactment of active listening behaviors

Amongst participants, there was a notable consensus that active listening skills are most effectively acquired through practical application, namely, through experiential learning. Generally, participants attributed the highest value to the combination of (i) actively practicing active listening skills and (ii) receiving subsequent feedback. Some participants mentioned the act of observing peers and providing feedback to them as comparably or even more effective in enhancing their own performance. For example, R7 indicated to have learned a lot by just observing peers, analyzing their actions, and concurrently identifying areas for improvement or alternative approaches:

You have that list in front of you and you're closely paying attention, how does someone do it, and where should it improve, where should it be different. And the moment you start observing that with someone else, you will automatically do better yourself, I think, because it's just, those things are now in your head and you've seen other people do good things, and then you automatically take it over. [R7]

Therefore, the practical application of active listening skills coupled with receiving feedback based on observations, alongside the practice of observing peers and offering them feedback, were recognized as important ways for acquiring active listening skills. Upon closer examination of personal learning experiences, it became evident that the ALOS had provided students with additional support, further enhancing these learning methods. We identified three positive effects of the ALOS, each contributing to the optimization of the deliberate character of students’ experiential learning concerning active listening.

Setting specific learning objectives

During the Embryolab sessions, students were instructed to focus on two or three personal learning objectives per session, with at least one pertaining to active listening. In sharing their experience of working with the ALOS, we found that it played a substantial role in aiding students in selecting and delineating their active listening learning objectives. Almost all students mentioned that they had utilized the ALOS as a source of inspiration and/or a guidance to formulate their personal active listening learning objectives. Additionally, the ALOS was considered very helpful in deconstructing active listening into separate, tangible aspects, and operationalizing these aspects into specific behaviors for which students could establish specific learning objectives. For example, R3 mentioned experiencing challenges in formulating specific and measurable (SMART) learning objectives, and acknowledged benefiting from the example behaviors listed in the ALOS:

Like for me, let's say I wasn't very good at formulating SMART, […] while here, within those headings, it's already a bit more obvious, it's already divided into examples. [R3]

As mentioned in ‘Defining Listening’ section, an important condition for effective deliberate practice is that the task or practice activity possesses a defined performance goal. The development of clearer performance goals can go hand in hand with setting specific learning objectives. For instance, R10 reported focusing on the ALOS item ‘creates an open and safe atmosphere’. By deciding to operationalize this aspect of active listening, along with a general performance goal, into the more specific example behavior ‘allowing to fully express’, they established a more precise performance goal for themselves:

It was pretty clear like, ok I want to achieve this, for example […] that the high-school students feel safe, that there is a safe atmosphere in the classroom. And then it read several points, allows to fully express, welcomes every contribution, avoids unnecessary interventions […]. And then it was very easy to just say like ok, now I’m going to, for example, pay attention to, specifically, that I give high-school students more time to express. And by that thus, create a safe atmosphere. [R10]

Therefore, by helping students to set more specific active listening learning objectives, the ALOS had played a role in fostering the development of clearer performance goals. This, in turn, enhanced the deliberate practice of aspects of active listening encapsulated within these learning objectives.

Identifying areas for improvement

From the interviews, it was gleaned that a prevalent method for observing peers involved primarily concentrating on those items of the ALOS that were part of one or more of the observed individual's learning objectives. Nevertheless, many students mentioned their efforts to also record noteworthy observations, often of a negative nature, regarding ALOS items not related to the given learning objectives. Consequently, the ALOS had served as a screening tool to identify areas for improvement within active listening. Frequently, this guided students in their choice of generating new learning objectives. A good example of this is R1, who mentioned receiving valuable feedback on their facial expressions that they otherwise would have missed:

So, for example, what was shocking for me is that I had never paid attention to my facial expressions at all […] because I thought well that's going well, […] I found out anyway ow, actually I don't do that at all. So to me that was a positive thing. [R1]

Generally, deliberate practice focusses on those aspects of performance (e.g. skills, or skill components) in which a learner demonstrates deficiency, thereby aiming to improve overall performance (Ericsson et al., 2007). By using the ALOS as a screening tool, students identified areas in which their active listening performance was lacking. Consequently, they were able to concentrate their deliberate practice on those aspects requiring the most improvement, thereby enhancing their active listening competency comprehensively.

Making observation and feedback specific

For deliberate practice to be successful, it is essential that a learner receives constructive feedback. In our course, feedback consisted of both written observations and/or quotes, and feedback discussions. During the interviews, students mentioned a few characteristics of the ALOS that were indicative of its supportive role in the observation and feedback processes. For example, R1 indicated that the ALOS had facilitated structure in feedback discussions. Moreover, R6 remarked that the prompt accompanying each ALOS item to record example situations and quotes assisted in documenting such information effectively. Furthermore, R9 indicated that the scores assigned to each ALOS item had given them insight into their learning progression over time. Yet, one particular feature of the ALOS stood out distinctly in this regard. Nearly all students mentioned the significant benefits they derived from the example behaviors listed with each ALOS item. Mostly, these example behaviors helped students to focus their observations and feedback, thereby enhancing specificity. For example, R4 indicated that certain ALOS items were rather abstract, but that the example behaviors listed with these items provide helpful guidance to focus attention and be specific in feedback:

The ALOS obviously gives a nice guideline to give feedback. […] For instance regarding the first one: uses inviting body language, that is very open. But as an extension of that it lists a whole lot of examples such as raising eyebrows, smiling and support. So then you can pay very specific attention to those things and write down situations in which someone can do better. [R4]

Furthermore, R9 explained how the example behaviors enable one to distinguish between different aspects of the same ALOS item, which enhanced feedback specificity:

[…] very clear examples are included, which automatically makes for that feedback to become a bit more concrete. Because it is very easy to say, for example, well you did this well, but you could have focused a little more on this specific part. So I think that the ALOS helps a lot with that, that it more easily, more automatically, makes [feedback] a little more specific. [R9]

Generally, feedback specificity is positively associated with feedback informativeness (Scheeler et al., 2004). Therefore, the ALOS can be said to have enhanced feedback informativeness, consequently aiding in optimizing the deliberate practice of active listening skills.

In summary, the ALOS enhanced enacting active listening behaviors by optimizing deliberate practice of active listening skills in three key ways. First, it facilitated the establishment of more specific learning objectives, which in turn aided in developing clear performance goals. Second, it served as a screening tool to concentrate deliberate practice on aspects of active listening requiring the most improvement. Lastly, the inclusion of example behavior in the ALOS helped to make observation and feedback more specific, resulting in greater informativeness.

Theme 3: the ALOS enhances active listening affect

An important question we had, independent of the significance of the ALOS, pertained to whether students perceived value in prioritizing training for listening skills. Although we had anticipated a moderate level of comprehension, the insights gleaned from the interviews exceeded our expectations. Students unanimously conveyed genuine motivation to enhance their active listening skills. An important reason for this positive affect seemed to be that they had recognized active listening as key in fostering meaningful dialogue. We will elaborate on this aspect further in the corresponding subtheme below, including how the ALOS seemed to have bolstered this perception.

Recognizing active listening as key in fostering meaningful dialogue

For most students, the Embryolab marked their inaugural foray into engaging in dialogue with individuals outside their peer group about biomedical subjects and their associated socio-ethical implications. Many students commented that prior to this experience, they harbored reservations about their proficiency. However, they found solace in the framework of active listening, specifically in its application as delineated within the ALOS, offering them guidance on how to navigate the dialogue. For example, R4 described active listening as a ‘good guide’ for steering a dialogue effectively:

I think [active listening] makes students more aware of how to properly, say, run a dialogue. I think it is a good guideline. [R4]

Therefore, through their engagement in dialogue with high-school students aided by active listening and the ALOS, students honed their skills. As elucidated in theme 1, the utilization of the ALOS both for refining their own active listening abilities and for peer observation compelled participants to address or scrutinize various specific behaviors, facilitating the identification of their impact on the conversation. Consequently, as their overall active listening competency improved progressively, students likely gained insight into how active listening can positively shape the trajectory of a dialogue. Broadly, we discerned four effects of active listening, which will be delineated further below.

First, certain students noted that active listening empowered them to transition away from merely providing information and instead foster bidirectional communication. For instance, R1 mentioned that focusing on active listening helped to truly engage in listening, thus preventing them to approach the Embryolab as an educational activity:

I think that the function of active listening in the Embryolab is really about consciously creating a dialogue with the high-school students. And in that way not teaching, but engaging in a conversation with them about the topic. And that active listening is very important in that, because otherwise it will still become teaching. Since, consciously putting effort in listening to someone else, this will make that you do indeed listen. [R1]

Similarly, R8 emphasized that focusing on active listening had stimulated them to overcome their tendency to simply disseminate information and, instead, adopt a receptive stance conducive to learning:

That you listen carefully to what the high-school students say, and from there, that you can ask further questions or, just hear properly. That you refrain from, say, throwing out all sorts of information yourself. That you also, from that information, take things in yourself, and then be able to proceed from there. Or just, recording that information and then it ends, so to speak, that it is of use to you. [R8]

A second effect reported by students resulting from practicing aspects of active listening was its ability to encourage high-school students to participate in the conversation. Particularly, the ALOS item ‘creates an open and safe atmosphere’ was highlighted for its role in fostering this participation (see also theme 1). For example, R2 explained that simply by conveying an atmosphere where all ideas could be freely expressed, high-school students were already more inclined to participate:

 … that you just really let on like, everything can be said here, and that kind of thing, that was important. Because the moment we said you can say anything, and feel free to respond to each other and things, and don't hold back, then we also noticed that the conversation ran more smoothly. [R2]

Similarly, R6 recalled experiencing that creating a comfortable environment for high-school students often empowered them to express their opinions, even when they differed from those of their peers:

Often, I noticed that high-school students followed each other in their opinion, or maybe just had the same, really the same opinion […]. But by stimulating them, and putting everyone at ease, I think more of them dared to share their own opinion. And also, dared to step away from the opinion of the popular students that contributed anyway, things like that, so that you involve everyone. [R6]

A third frequently mentioned effect of practicing active listening was the perceived ability to deepen conversations. By prioritizing listening, students found themselves more engaged and capable of asking insightful follow-up questions, thus fostering deeper reflections on the discussed topics. As recalled by R6:

You listen, so you can respond meaningful to it, so that you also, on the spot, can think of questions that truly relate to the answer […]. So I think it is actually to go deep. [R6]

Similarly, R5 indicated:

So, through active listening, that you know what high-school students think. Finding out their opinion actually. By listening, but also by properly stimulating them to think it through. […] That you can thus really find out that opinion. That you listen like, ok what is it you think exactly, and then discover the deeper ground of it. [R5]

Finally, some students conveyed the idea that active listening served as a tool for building relationships. For instance, R9 noted that high-school students showed more enthusiasm when they felt genuinely listened to. Similarly, R10 suggested that active listening could empower individuals to feel more engaged with a topic and encouraged them to voice their opinions:

That you feel involved. And that you think, yes, my opinion is important too. A lot of people, I think, feel a bit as if they are powerless in what's going to happen for the future. And what you also hear now: “Well why should I vote, because it's just one of so many votes?” […]. And you break through that by actually saying: “Hey, I want to listen to your opinion. I think it's important what you think.” Then people will start to think about it. [R10]

In summary, throughout their deliberate experiential learning facilitated by the ALOS, students acknowledged the pivotal role of active listening in fostering meaningful dialogue. Within our course, students found that active listening facilitated their transition away from a purely informative role, encouraged dialogue partners to actively contribute, deepened conversations, and fostered stronger relationships. Collectively, these experiences resulted in an enhanced motivation to engage in active listening within the context of our course.

Conditions for optimal ALOS use

While our findings indicate the beneficial role of the ALOS in learning active listening skills, participants in our study also highlighted certain constraints associated with the instrument. First, many students emphasized the comprehensiveness of the ALOS. Attempting to focus on all 14 items simultaneously proved challenging, if not impractical, and consequently impacted the quality of observation. Second, students noted overlap between items. In certain cases, this made it challenging to discriminate between them when recording observations. Additionally, some participants highlighted a lack of clarity in certain ALOS items. For instance, they found it difficult to understand the criteria for defining an exploratory question within the item ‘uses exploring questions’. However, as the course advanced, students developed strategies to address these limitations. For instance, as discussed in theme 2, they utilized the ALOS as a screening tool or concentrated on no more than two ALOS items and only recorded observations that were particularly notable for other items.

Moreover, numerous students underscored the importance of feedback conversations as an essential follow-up activity to address observational notes or written feedback. These conversations were deemed invaluable for not only clarifying or expanding upon written feedback but also for posing questions, discussing differing perspectives, and offering suggestions for improvement. Similarly, most students noted that the scores assigned to each item were only meaningful when accompanied by observational notes or feedback conversations.

Based on the findings outlined above, we propose two recommendations for (future) education integrating the Active Listening Observation Scale (ALOS) to facilitate the training of active listening skills through deliberate experiential learning. First, to maintain student focus, it is crucial to utilize the ALOS either as a screening tool to pinpoint areas requiring improvement or to focus on observing no more than two items simultaneously. Second, while the ALOS can serve as a tool for assessing behavior through scoring, we strongly recommend integrating observational notes and feedback conversations as essential components for monitoring and guiding the development of active listening skills.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the ALOS in bolstering the development of active listening competency within the realm of science communication training. Within our training framework, we observed a positive impact of the ALOS across all three dimensions of listening competency. At the cognitive level, the ALOS facilitated students’ understanding of active listening as a nuanced skill encompassing various specific behaviors and functions. Regarding behavior, the ALOS contributed to the deliberate character of the experiential learning process. Finally, at the affective level, the ALOS aided students in recognizing active listening as a crucial skill for fostering dialogue. Before delving into the implications of our findings, it's essential to address the primary limitations of our study.

Study limitations

One primary limitation is the specificity of our investigation within a particular training context, which restricts the generalizability of our results to other settings. Additionally, our conclusions rely solely on student interviews, representing a form of self-reporting that may be subject to biases such as social desirability, potentially impacting the validity of our findings (Baldwin, 1999). Furthermore, our study's scope was limited to students’ self-reflections based on ALOS observations of their peers’ active listening skills. Incorporating the perspective of conversation partners would provide valuable insights. Future research could benefit from including data from ALOS-based observations conducted by high-school students themselves, thereby enriching our understanding of active listening in dialogue settings. Another limitation to consider is the dual role of the researcher as both course examiner and lecturer. Despite efforts to mitigate the influence of students’ grading dependency, there remains a possibility of social desirability bias in participants’ responses during the interviews. This bias could have resulted in students portraying the ALOS more positively than they might otherwise have done.

Implications and future outlook

Our study and its findings hold significance in the context of advancing science communication training programs aimed at fostering meaningful dialogue with society. Furthermore, our results offer insights to inform science communication training pedagogy. Despite the growing recognition of listening as a crucial skill in such endeavors (e.g. Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017b; Yuan et al., 2017), there remains a paucity of understanding regarding its specific role in science-society interactions, particularly in terms of practical integration within training programs.

Dudo et al. (2021) conducted interviews with trainers of North American science communication training programs, revealing that listening is predominantly associated with challenging scientists to move away from deficit-based views of science communication, wherein it serves merely to address knowledge gaps. However, the interviewees struggled to articulate the specific relevance of effective listening within this framework. Additionally, when discussing communication outcomes, they frequently emphasized the significance of listening in fulfilling the informing role. As the authors comment, this conflicts with propagating dialogue-oriented forms of science communication (Dudo et al., 2021). Yet, it may be exactly such inconsistencies in talking and thinking about science communication that mirror the complexity of changing the culture of science communication training.

The participants in our study highlighted the role of active listening in moving beyond the traditional informing role in science communication. They described how active listening facilitated encouraging contributions from others, deepening conversations, and fostering relations. However, it remains unclear how they specifically connected these positive effects to the broader goals and aims of science communication. Future research could delve into students’ beliefs regarding the components of effective science communication and how they perceive the role of active listening within this framework. In the meantime, it is crucial to ensure that students continue to recognize the significance of dialogue, including a willingness to learn, within the broader context of best practices in science communication.

Aside from that, we found it encouraging that participants associated active listening with building relationships, particularly in the context of public perceptions of power and voice (see also theme 3), which can in turn influence trust dynamics (Besley et al., 2021; McComas & Besley, 2011). In recent years, trust-related issues have garnered increasing attention in science communication research (see, e.g. Weingart & Guenther, 2016). Research in interpersonal communication has demonstrated that effective listening is linked to various positive relational outcomes, including the establishment of trust (Weger et al., 2014). Consistent with this, suggestions have been put forward in science communication training contexts to prioritize active listening as a learning objective aimed at fostering trust (Barel-Ben David & Baram-Tsabari, 2020). The findings of this study aim to encourage further exploration into the role of active listening in promoting constructive interactions between science and society, characterized by meaningful dialogue and strong relationships. As one of our participants aptly stated, ‘simply beginning to listen can quickly lead to positive outcomes’.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Netherlands Association for Medical Education (NVMO) Ethical Review Board, with dossier number 2021.5.2.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to Ruben van de Poppe for his valuable contributions to the data collection and transcription processes during his internship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Students enrolled in a biomedical sciences Bachelor program in The Netherlands are trained to become scientists. The biomedical sciences Bachelor program at our university is highly research oriented. Approximately 97% of students continue with a Biomedical Research Master after their Bachelor program.