PREreview of More than a token photo: humanizing scientists enhances student engagement

This study attempts to determine which variables of relatability – shared visual elements (i.e., looks) and/or shared humanizing elements (i.e., values and experiences) – influence students’ engagement in quantitative biology activities that feature counter-stereotypical scientists (i.e., scientists who do not identify as white cis-men). To this aim, the authors implement treatments of varying levels of visual and humanizing descriptions of scientists followed by a survey that measures students’ relatability to the featured scientist and their engagement in the lesson. The effects of these elements are examined through quantitative (SEM and LMM) and qualitative (inductive coding) analyses. The authors highlight three key findings: 1) humanizing elements are essential for relatability, 2) shared excluded identities increase relatability, and 3) relatability leads to increased engagement. 

The reviewers appreciate the clarity of the research question and the inclusion of practical advice moving forward. Although this work is of significant interest to science education researchers and practitioners who are interested in the effects of broader representation within curricular materials on STEM engagement and retention, we have identified several questions and concerns that will need to be addressed prior to its final publication. Our concerns and suggestions are presented below.  

Major issues

• Overall 

  • Because the direct effect between treatment and engagement was insignificant (relatability was a mediator), you cannot conclude that the humanizing treatment increased engagement. We outlined below areas where this statement interferes with the manuscript interpretation. 

• Title 

  • Since relatability was a mediator, the reviewers recommend changing the title to accurately reflect the findings of the paper (i.e., humanizing did not directly affect engagement) 

• Results/Discussion 

  • The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would address the following limitations/concerns of their data analysis and interpretation:  

    • Since relatability was a mediator, the reviewers recommend providing justification for why photos are not enough to enhance student engagement (given that there is no treatment of humanizing descriptions without photos). 

    • Did students mostly relate to salient features of the scientists? If so, then this could be an effect of the images, not just the descriptions. General elaboration of these codes would be helpful. 

    • Visual elements (“that scientist looks like me”) could also be humanizing (e.g., dyed hair, tattoos, piercings). 

    • For students who are in the control treatment, what is their level of engagement? Did they indicate any relatability to the scientists even though they were not provided with an image or description of the scientists? If so, what were these codes and their frequency? Were students in the control treatment excluded from the analysis on relatability?  

• Conclusion 

  • The reviewers recommend elaborating on limitations to their study and alternative hypotheses or explanations to aid their argument. 

Minor issues

• Introduction 

  • The reviewers recommend stating and expanding on the theories that guided their research questions (i.e., Motivational Theory) and measures of engagement (ABC Model of Engagement) within the manuscript – paragraph 3 

  • The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors elaborated on their definition and criteria for visual vs humanizing elements as it relates to relatability and engagement. Some items to consider include: 

    • How do you define “humanizing”?  

    • How do you define “relatability”? 

    • Moving the definition of “engagement” from the supplemental to the main text. 

• Materials and Methods 

  • The reviewers would find it helpful if the following methods were clarified: 

    • For measures of engagement, was “activity” defined as both the Data Nugget activity and the scientist feature (if included)? Could it be possible that students found the feature (specifically) to be interesting and engaging but not the activity? 

    • Were there any instances in which scientists were mentioned outside of the feature?  

    • Some professors "humanize" their subjects already. How did the professors engage with each activity? Were they told to implement it in the same way? Did you test for differences among professors? 

• Results and Discussion 

  • The reviewers are interested to know if there was a difference in engagement between non-majors and majors as well as geographic areas. 

  • The reviewers recommend removing “humanized” from the second sentence to avoid confusion of relatability to scientists versus the humanized treatment - paragraph 1 

• Overall 

  • The reviewers believe that the manuscript would benefit from references on multicultural education, inclusive pedagogy, or related constructs as well as advertising literature. 

  • The reviewers suggest addressing the following points to aid the argument of the study: 

    • Excluded identities go beyond salient identities (white, cis man) to include ability status, sexual orientation, chronic illness, mental/psychological health. How might incorporating concealed identities aid the argument if humanizing information was more important than images of the scientists?   

    • The matching of the student-scientist demographics seemed counter to the idea that individuals can hold multiple identities (in reference to the White/Latine example).  

  Although not needed for publication, some follow-up ideas that we had related to the study include: 

  • At what point does/might engagement diminish? Would engagement be high for the Data Nugget that specifically included the feature and then drop for a follow up activity, or would students retain that level of engagement?   

  • Expectancy-value theory suggests that students’ engagement in activities may be linked to their perceived success and the value of the activity. How might you parse this out to ensure humanizing elements are what is leading to increased engagement? 

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.