Translating climate research into children's books: science communication learning in an undergraduate geoscience course

Fathel, Siobhan; Frey, Emily; Gangestad, Rhylee

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-3618

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3618

Preprints

10 Jul 2026

| 10 Jul 2026

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscience Communication (GC).

Translating climate research into children's books: science communication learning in an undergraduate geoscience course

Siobhan Fathel, Emily Frey, and Rhylee Gangestad

Abstract. This study evaluates a children’s book assignment in an upper-level undergraduate climate science course in which students translated peer-reviewed climate research into illustrated books for young audiences. The project examined whether this format supported science communication skills, audience awareness, and sustainability competencies often underdeveloped in content-heavy science courses, while also exploring students’ experiences with generative AI tools for image creation. A mixed-methods design was implemented across two cohorts of EENV-242: Climate and Global Change at Susquehanna University. Pre- and post-project surveys measured changes in student understanding, confidence, and engagement, and were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent-samples t-tests, and Cohen’s d. Student reflections were analyzed thematically to identify patterns in learning, communication challenges, audience awareness, and AI use. The largest gains were in science communication, particularly students’ confidence creating visuals that communicate science and combining text and images to tell a compelling story. These effects were statistically significant and replicated across cohorts. Agreement that storytelling effectively communicates complex scientific topics also increased, while climate attitude and understanding items showed ceiling effects due to high pre-project scores. Reflections most often emphasized audience awareness and translation decisions, suggesting that students were not simply simplifying climate science but rebuilding explanations around the needs of young readers. AI tool use appeared less frequently, suggesting that image generation functioned as a normalized part of the creative process rather than the central learning outcome. Together, these findings suggest that children’s book assignments can help students practice the difficult work of translating complex science for non-specialist audiences, while providing a widely applicable framework for audience-centered communication across climate, geoscience, and other STEM courses.

Received: 19 Jun 2026 – Discussion started: 10 Jul 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 855 KB)

Supplement (46425 KB)

Download & links

Siobhan Fathel, Emily Frey, and Rhylee Gangestad

Status: open (until 17 Oct 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-3618', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2026 reply
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?

Yes
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?

Yes. There is limited empirical evidence evaluating how production of audience-centered narratives affects undergraduate science communication confidence, visual communication, and translation decisions, particularly in climate/geoscience courses and in the context of generative AI.
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?

Yes. Description of limitations in the supplement were helpful.
One note of caution: First, the pre- and post-project surveys were anonymous and therefore analyzed with independent-samples t-tests. However, the samples are not truly independent if many of the same students responded at both time points. Anonymity prevents pairing, but it does not make the observations statistically independent. You might consider additional justification/sensitivity analysis or much more cautious treatment of the inferential statistics.
Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?

Yes. The manuscript is thoughtful about ceiling effects and acknowledges important limitations, including sample size, inability to match respondents, moderate automated-coding agreement, retrospective bias, and single-institution generalizability. The study can only demonstrate changes in self-reported confidence/perceptions and patterns in student reflections but cannot establish that the assignment itself caused objective improvements in communication skill or scientific understanding.
Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?

Yes
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?

I suggest rearranging the title to change the focus to science communication learning, which was the objective, while climate research in children’s book was the vehicle through which the objective was achieved:
Undergraduate science communication learning: translating climate research into children’s books.
Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?

Yes
Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?

Yes. The manuscript is well-structured and figures and tables are appropriate and helpful.
The Methods state that 19 Likert items were administered, while Figure 1 appears to display only a subset. This is okay but it might be worth mentioning.
Is the language fluent and precise?

Yes, the manuscript is well-written and concise.
Are the number and quality of references appropriate?

Yes

Major Comments:
On line 180, you mention refinements to the assignment across years. If substantive, could you describe those in greater detail in the discussion? It could also be nice to know a bit more about course instruction/format/content beyond the assignment (~1-2 sentences). Is the course lecture-based or seminar-style? What were some major topics that the course covered?

The SI shows that this was a semester-long, scaffolded, group-based project, with group formation, article selection, article summarization, storyboarding, writing/visual development, instructor feedback, public presentation, and individual reflection extending approximately from weeks 3–13. The main manuscript instead provides a relatively abbreviated description of the assignment. This additional context matters for interpretation. The observed changes cannot necessarily be attributed specifically to the "children's book format"; they may reflect the combination of extended project-based learning, group collaboration, repeated drafting, instructor feedback, public presentation, and structured reflection. I suggest that the authors move a concise description of this scaffolding into the main Methods section and temper statements attributing outcomes specifically to the book format. Please also report the number of groups/books and typical group size in each cohort, and clarify whether all 52 reflections were individual submissions. Because students collaborated on the central product, experiences of students within a group are not entirely independent, particularly for the qualitative analysis.

The Methods state that the survey included "19 items rated on a five-point Likert scale." But there seem to be a different number of Likert questions on the survey in SI. Why the discrepancy?

I am curious to know whether certain students were particularly effusive, resulting in a greater proportion of codes in their responses? Even just reporting the standard deviation on line 185 would be helpful. You may consider reporting median, SD/range of coded instances per reflection and, ideally, reflection word count. If total code frequency strongly correlates with reflection length, prevalence across reflections is probably the more meaningful metric.

The post-project items ask students whether "this project helped me..." or "this project improved my ability..." These are useful measures of student-perceived impact, but they are not objective measures of communication performance or content learning. Likewise, the reflection prompts explicitly ask students what they learned, creating an understandable expectation that students discuss learning. I therefore consistently distinguishing "self-reported confidence/perceived learning" from "skill gains" or "learning gains." This is especially important where the Discussion argues that multiple self-report measures demonstrate "genuine learning."

The “known limitations” section in SI 4.2 was helpful to read for greater context. Could you add those into the Methods section of the main text, briefly? Or even just mention that there were some limitations/assumptions, and cite the supplemental section 4.2.

The manuscript states that AI use was optional and that students who did not use AI could draw, use non-AI digital illustration, or create Canva-based collages. However, the assignment overview lists "AI-generated visuals" as part of the interdisciplinary learning goal. It would be useful to clarify whether AI generation was encouraged, expected, or simply permitted, and whether this differed between cohorts. For greater context on codes for AI tool use, can you describe how students engaged with AI for image generation? How many students actually used AI to generate images for their final story? Or maybe students iterated with AI images but chose not to use them for the story? I know you say there was “widespread engagement” but this isn’t very descriptive. Adding a bit more description would help give greater context for the number of AI-related codes that you found.

Minor Comments:
Lines 11–15: The abstract refers to “sustainability competencies,” but these do not appear to be directly assessed as outcomes in the study. Consider removing this phrase from the abstract.

Line 55 author needs to introduce PjBL as acronym for project-based learning. Or remove the acronym in the following line.

Line 73 is missing a period at the end of the sentence.

Line 97: “an impact of climate change to our natural world” to “an impact of climate change on the natural world.”

Lines 112-113: The manuscript states that “data were collected from three sources,” but then describes surveys and reflections. I assume the three sources are the pre-project survey, post-project survey, and reflections; consider stating these explicitly so the count is immediately clear.

Lines 221-223 are worded confusingly. Perhaps you mean: Consistency between high pre-project scores and retrospective self-assessment, combined with qualitative evidence of struggle and growth, suggest that the reported gains reflect genuine learning rather than measurement artifact.”

Line 228: “The literature has emphasized that narrative storytelling? supports comprehension….”

Line 322-323: “In this way, the assignment positioned communication not as an outcome separate from science learning, but as part of the learning process itself.”

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3618-RC1

Siobhan Fathel, Emily Frey, and Rhylee Gangestad

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3618-supplement

Siobhan Fathel, Emily Frey, and Rhylee Gangestad

Viewed

Total article views: 218 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
146	62	10	218	23	10	13

HTML: 146
PDF: 62
XML: 10
Total: 218
Supplement: 23
BibTeX: 10
EndNote: 13

Views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	111	39	6	156
Aug 2026	14	13	2	29
Sep 2026	21	10	2	33

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	111	39	6	156
Aug 2026	14	13	2	29
Sep 2026	21	10	2	33

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 125 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 125 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 11 Sep 2026

Short summary

Many science students understand climate change but have few chances to practice explaining it to the public. In this study, students turned climate research papers into illustrated children’s books. Surveys and reflections from two groups showed that students gained confidence in using visuals and storytelling to explain science. The assignment helped students practice making complex ideas accurate, clear, and meaningful for young readers, offering a model that can be adapted in other courses.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0