---
id: "edwards-2026-communication-rubrics"
title: "Science communication tools: rubrics for generating posters and manuscripts that are authentic to the practice of science"
authors:
  - "Tamarah Lynne Adair"
  - "Swati Agrawal"
  - "Yesmi P. Ahumada-Santos"
  - "Regina Alvarez"
  - "Kirk R. Anders"
  - "Mauricio Antunes"
  - "Mary Ayuk"
  - "María Elena Báez-Flores"
  - "Dondra Bailey"
  - "Frederick N. Baliraine"
  - "Mitchell F. Balish"
  - "Christa Tobey Bancroft"
  - "Michèle Barmoy"
  - "Tonya C. Bates"
  - "Andrea Beyer"
  - "Suparna Bhalla"
  - "Dave Bollivar"
  - "Lisa M. Bono"
  - "Rebecca Bortz"
  - "Tejas Bouklas"
  - "Kristen Butela"
  - "Christine A. Byrum"
  - "Megan Carroll"
  - "Steven Michael Caruso"
  - "Nancy Castro"
  - "Kari Clase"
  - "Kristen Clermont"
  - "Sean T. Coleman"
  - "Pamela L. Connerly"
  - "Amaya M. Garcia Costas"
  - "Steven Gaines Cresawn"
  - "Tom D'Elia"
  - "Aimee Danley"
  - "Megan K. Dennis"
  - "Arturo Diaz"
  - "Erin L. Doyle"
  - "Iain Duffy"
  - "Dustin Cole Edwards"
  - "Elvira Eivazova"
  - "Eric Engstrom"
  - "Christy Fillman"
  - "Christine L. Fleischacker"
  - "Victoria J. Frost"
  - "Julie Torruellas Garcia"
  - "Bryan P. Gibb"
  - "Alyssa Mae Gleichsner"
  - "Sharon Gusky"
  - "Rebekah F. Hare"
  - "Danielle Heller"
  - "Lee E. Hughes"
  - "Jacob D. Kagey"
  - "Bridgette Kirkpatrick"
  - "Karen K. Klyczek"
  - "Kathryn P. Kohl"
  - "Hari Kotturi"
  - "Julia Y. Lee-Soety"
  - "Heather Lindberg"
  - "Bhaswati Manish"
  - "Sergei A. Markov"
  - "Matthew David Mastropaolo"
  - "James T. Melton"
  - "Jon Mitchell"
  - "Sally Dixon Molloy"
  - "Denise L. Monti"
  - "Tiara Perez Morales"
  - "María Alejandra Mussi"
  - "Holly Nance"
  - "Fernando Nieto"
  - "Imade Yolanda Nsa"
  - "Shallee T. Page"
  - "Ricardo Parra-Unda"
  - "Vipaporn Phuntumart"
  - "Brett E. Pickett"
  - "Richard Scott Pollenz"
  - "Sarah N. Reardon"
  - "Jessica Rocheleau"
  - "Ombeline Rossier"
  - "Naomi Smith Rowland"
  - "Adam D. Rudner"
  - "Elizabeth E. Rueschhoff"
  - "Viknesh Sivanathan"
  - "Martha Smith Caldas"
  - "C. Nicole Sunnen"
  - "Sarah J. Swerdlow"
  - "Kissaou Tchedre"
  - "Kara Thoemke"
  - "Deborah Tobiason"
  - "Sara S. Tolsma"
  - "Tara Turley-Stoulig"
  - "Quinn Vega"
  - "Patricia Waikel"
  - "Catherine Ward"
  - "Vassie C. Ware"
  - "Jackie M. Washington"
  - "Daniel Eric Westholm"
  - "Beth Wilkes"
  - "Daniel Williams"
  - "Elizabeth Williams"
  - "Ellen M. Wisner"
venue: "Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education"
year: 2026
date: "2026-04-30"
doi: "10.1128/jmbe.00313-25"
url: "/research/publications/10-1128-jmbe-00313-25/"
pdf: "/research/publications/10-1128-jmbe-00313-25/dustin-edwards-10-1128-jmbe-00313-25.pdf"
pmc: "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13130995/"
openAccess: true
license: "cc-by-nc-nd"
citedBy: 0
citedBySource: "OpenAlex, read 2026-09-12"
---
# Science communication tools: rubrics for generating posters and manuscripts that are authentic to the practice of science

Two rubrics for grading student posters and short papers in research courses, written by about 100 SEA-PHAGES faculty.

## Abstract

Traditional undergraduate science courses often prioritize content mastery over authentic engagement with the scientific process. Course-based research, also referred to as course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), addresses this limitation by immersing students in authentic scientific practice. In course-based research, assessment practices can also mirror the authentic scientific practice, where extensive formative feedback supports refinement of skills and understanding. Here, we present two rubrics designed to support the teaching and assessment of science communication in a way that reflects how scientists prepare to disseminate their research findings. One rubric is for creating scientific posters and another for writing short-format manuscripts. Developed by approximately 100 faculty members who collaboratively implement CUREs through the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Science Education Alliance (SEA) program, these rubrics outline the authentic steps scientists take when preparing to communicate their research and provide performance levels that clarify expectations for both students and instructors. Together, these tools aim to further align undergraduate science education and authentic scientific practice.

## Full text

Machine-extracted from the PDF linked above. It carries the artifacts that come with reading a typeset two-column page: running heads, figure captions in the flow of the prose, and words broken across line ends. The abstract above is the registry's deposit and is the authoritative text.

| Tips and Tools
Science communication tools: rubrics for generating posters and
manuscripts that are authentic to the practice of science
Tamarah Lynne Adair,1 Swati Agrawal,2 Yesmi P. Ahumada-Santos,3 Regina Alvarez,4 Kirk R. Anders,5 Mauricio Antunes,6 Mary
Ayuk,7 María Elena Báez-Flores,3 Dondra Bailey,8 Frederick N. Baliraine,9 Mitchell F. Balish,10 Christa Tobey Bancroft,11 Michèle
Barmoy,12 Tonya C. Bates,13 Andrea Beyer,14 Suparna Bhalla,15 Dave Bollivar,16 Lisa M. Bono,17 Rebecca Bortz,18 Tejas Bouklas,19
Kristen Butela,18 Christine A. Byrum,20 Megan Carroll,21 Steven Michael Caruso,22 Nancy Castro,11 Kari Clase,23 Kristen Clermont,24
Sean T. Coleman,25 Pamela L. Connerly,26 Amaya M. Garcia Costas,27 Steven Gaines Cresawn,28 Tom D'Elia,21 Aimee Danley,18 Megan
K. Dennis,29 Arturo Diaz,30 Erin L. Doyle,31 Iain Duffy,32 Dustin Cole Edwards,33 Elvira Eivazova,34 Eric Engstrom,35 Christy Fillman,36
Christine L. Fleischacker,37 Victoria J. Frost,38 Julie Torruellas Garcia,39 Bryan P. Gibb,40 Alyssa Mae Gleichsner,41 Sharon Gusky,42
Rebekah F. Hare,43 Danielle Heller,44 Lee E. Hughes,6 Jacob D. Kagey,45 Bridgette Kirkpatrick,46 Karen K. Klyczek,47 Kathryn P. Kohl,38
Hari Kotturi,48 Julia Y. Lee-Soety,49 Heather Lindberg,50 Bhaswati Manish,51 Sergei A. Markov,52 Matthew David Mastropaolo,53
James T. Melton,54 Jon Mitchell,55 Sally Dixon Molloy,56 Denise L. Monti,44 Tiara Perez Morales,57 María Alejandra Mussi,58 Holly
Nance,59 Fernando Nieto,60 Imade Yolanda Nsa,61 Shallee T. Page,62 Ricardo Parra-Unda,3 Vipaporn Phuntumart,63 Brett E. Pickett,64
Richard Scott Pollenz,65 Sarah N. Reardon,66 Jessica Rocheleau,67 Ombeline Rossier,68 Naomi Smith Rowland,69 Adam D. Rudner,70
Elizabeth E. Rueschhoff,26 Viknesh Sivanathan,44 Martha Smith Caldas,71 C. Nicole Sunnen,49 Sarah J. Swerdlow,72 Kissaou Tchedre,73
Kara Thoemke,74 Deborah Tobiason,75 Sara S. Tolsma,76 Tara Turley-Stoulig,77 Quinn Vega,78 Patricia Waikel,79 Catherine Ward,80
Vassie C. Ware,81 Jackie M. Washington,82 Daniel Eric Westholm,74 Beth Wilkes,83 Daniel Williams,84 Elizabeth Williams,70 Ellen M.
Wisner13
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS See affiliation list on p. 4.
ABSTRACT Traditional undergraduate science courses often prioritize content mastery
over authentic engagement with the scientific process. Course-based research, also
referred to as course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), addresses
this limitation by immersing students in authentic scientific practice. In course-based
research, assessment practices can also mirror the authentic scientific practice, where
extensive formative feedback supports refinement of skills and understanding. Here,
we present two rubrics designed to support the teaching and assessment of science
communication in a way that reflects how scientists prepare to disseminate their
research findings. One rubric is for creating scientific posters and another for writ
ing short-format manuscripts. Developed by approximately 100 faculty members who
collaboratively implement CUREs through the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)
Science Education Alliance (SEA) program, these rubrics outline the authentic steps
scientists take when preparing to communicate their research and provide performance
levels that clarify expectations for both students and instructors. Together, these tools
aim to further align undergraduate science education and authentic scientific practice.
KEYWORDS course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), science
communication, assessment rubrics, authentic scientific practice, scientific posters,
short-format manuscripts
Traditional undergraduate science courses frequently focus on the transmission of
content, coupled with assessments focused on the recitation of facts and demonstra
tion of laboratory skills. Such educational experiences have been criticized for failing to
capture the authentic practice of science and their limited impact on student engage
ment and persistence in STEM fields (1, 2). By contrast, course-based research aims
to engage students in the practices of professional science, where students leverage
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 1
Editor Melinda Tsaoying Owens, University of
California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
Address correspondence to Viknesh Sivanathan,
sivanathanv@hhmi.org.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Received 19 December 2025
Accepted 27 January 2026
Published 24 February 2026
Copyright © 2026 Adair et al. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

science content and skills to investigate questions with unknown outcomes, deal
with failure, iterate their work, collaborate, and disseminate their findings (1–3). As
modeled by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Science Education Alliance
(SEA) program, which coordinates two course-based research projects (SEA-PHAGES and
SEA-GENES) implemented at over 150 colleges and universities nationwide, assessment
in these courses also aligns closely with the practice of professional science (4). In
SEA course-based research projects, formal assessment early in the course focuses on
establishing foundational knowledge, skills, and expectations that prepare students
for subsequent research tasks. This is complemented by extensive ad hoc, informal
formative feedback throughout the research process, which guides student learning
and supports iterative improvement. Summative assessment at the end of the course
evaluates students’ mastery of core concepts, scientific reasoning, and research practices
(4).
Hanauer et al. (4) describe four primary assessment aims in course-based research: (i)
assessing laboratory work and scientific thinking, (ii) evaluating mastery of concepts,
quantitative thinking, and skills, (iii) appraising forms of scientific communication,
and (iv) promoting metacognition of learning (4). A survey of the literature suggests
that effective scaffolding of science communication in course-based research remains
underdeveloped (5, 6). To address this gap, faculty within the HHMI SEA program
developed resources to authentically model how scientists prepare to communicate
their science, in particular in preparing a scientific poster and a short-format manuscript
for publication. Over 100 SEA faculty participated in a collaborative, iterative process to
identify authentic scientific communication practices and translate them into perform
ance-based rubrics refined through consensus. The deliverables are rubrics that are
designed to teach students how scientists engage in science communication and to
support meaningful assessment of student learning. By using these rubrics, students
should be able to develop, refine, and communicate a coherent scientific message
supported by appropriate evidence, using practices that mirror how scientists prepare
posters and manuscripts for dissemination.
PROCEDURE
Using the rubrics for teaching and assessment
Both the poster and manuscript rubrics (Appendix 1 and 2) are designed to guide
students through the authentic steps of preparing for scientific communication, from
organizing ideas and data to presenting findings with clarity and accuracy. The rubrics
include performance levels (Aware, Emerging, and Proficient) for each step, reflecting
increasing levels of competence in scientific communication. For example, in the Develop
a Key Message criterion of the poster rubric, students are tasked with distilling the central
finding of their research into a concise statement understandable within five to ten
seconds. At the aware level, the message is unclear, overly long, or poorly supported
by the data, and scientific terminology may be inaccurate. At the emerging level, the
key message is present and generally supported by the data but may be wordy or lack
precision. At the proficient level, the key message is clear, concise, accurate, and easily
understood by the intended audience; it invites conversation and is well supported by
the presented data. When provided to students, the rubric serves as a transparent guide
that helps both students and faculty align their expectations.
While obtaining feedback is listed as a step in the rubrics, the rubrics are designed to
facilitate cycles of ongoing feedback and revision; instructors should not shy away from
providing iterative feedback that models for students the rigor and precision expected
in scientific communication, where constructive critique is given in service of both
the individual researcher and the advancement of science. For formative assessment,
the rubrics are most effective when used to provide targeted, constructive feedback.
Instructors should provide review and feedback on individual components of the work at
a time, such as background or key message, using the relevant rubric criteria. Feedback
should highlight strengths and provide concrete, actionable suggestions tied to rubric
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 2
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

descriptors. Both instructors and peers can provide formative feedback. For summative
assessment, instructors can use the performance levels to holistically assess the overall
quality of the work, recognizing both mastery and growth. Summative evaluation should
focus on how well students have incorporated feedback, improved clarity and accuracy,
and demonstrated scientific thinking. Indeed, the goal of ongoing formative feedback is
to support all students to reach proficiency. By combining formative use of the rubric for
iterative improvement with summative use for final evaluation, instructors can create a
coherent assessment approach.
Implementation tips and resources for preparing a poster
The rubric references several additional resources to enrich the teaching and learning
experience. A first set of resources introduces students to principles of strong scientific
communication using examples of well-designed posters. We recommend introducing
students to the #BetterPoster framework developed by Mike Morrison (osf.io/ef53g),
which emphasizes clear, minimalist design and rapid communication of key findings.
We also recommend teaching students accessible and inclusive design principles for
selecting color palettes, using adequate contrast between text and background, and
choosing readable font types and sizes. To support this, instructors can leverage widely
available guidance on inclusive design for scientific poster preparation, for example, as
suggested by the American Chemical Society (https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/
about/inclusion/accessible-science-communication-pdf-ready.pdf).
Once posters are drafted, a checklist (Appendix 3) is provided to help students to
systematically review each element of their poster—verifying that the key message is
clear, the figures and tables are appropriately labeled and support the key message, and
accessibility standards are met—before printing or presenting.
Finally, to also help students leverage the poster session as an opportunity for idea
exchange and professional growth, consider providing students with prompts for when
they engage with a poster presenter. Some examples of guiding prompts are as follows.
(i) What was the key message of the poster? (ii) How could the information in the poster
inform your own research? (iii) Was there something from your own research that could
help advance the presenter’s work? (iv) What poster design features might you take away
after visiting this poster?
Implementation tips and resources for writing a short-format manuscript
Course-based research projects are often focused on well-defined research outputs
that contribute meaningfully to the scientific community, even when the scope of the
research is relatively narrow. Within the SEA-PHAGES program, for instance, students
isolate novel phages from environmental samples and manually annotate sequenced
phage genomes. Such discrete research outcomes are suited for concise manuscript
formats such as a Genome Announcement. The rubric described here was designed to
guide and assess the preparation of this particular type of manuscript, although its
structure can readily be adapted to other short-form research publications.
The rubric references several resources to facilitate manuscript preparation and good
research practices. Chief among these is the Data Collection Template (Appendix 4),
which helps students compile and organize all relevant experimental information before
writing begins. This template should be introduced early in the research process so
that students can record critical information, such as software versions and databases
accessed, at the time of use. Because such tools and resources evolve rapidly, document
ing them as they are used ensures that the research remains reproducible and that the
original data are complete, traceable, and readily available should there be a need to
revisit the raw data after the students have finished the course.
A second resource, the Manuscript Template (Appendix 5), provides section-by-sec
tion guidance on what content belongs in each part of the manuscript. The template
features examples and cues about discriminating between necessary and extraneous
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 3
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

information, how to structure paragraphs, and how to maintain clarity and brevity
consistent with short-format publications.
A final resource is the Checklist (Appendix 6), which assists instructors and students
in verifying that all essential components are accurately included and formatted prior to
submission.
CONCLUSION
These rubrics were developed by SEA faculty and reflect the instructional and assess
ment practices in SEA course-based research, where assessments of student outcomes
have demonstrated significant gains in science identity, self-efficacy, and project
ownership, all of which are linked to increased persistence in STEM (3, 4, 7). More
over, existing research suggests that integrating structured communication tasks into
course-based research enhances students’ confidence, communication skills, and ability
to think like scientists (5). It is worth noting that these rubrics have been evaluated
implicitly through authentic scientific dissemination. For example, the manuscript rubric
has been used to guide students in developing nearly 100 genome announcement
manuscripts that have successfully undergone external peer review and been published
in scientific journals. This outcome is not intended to serve as causal measures of
student learning; rather, it provides externally validated evidence that the communica
tion practices scaffolded by the rubrics meet the professional standards of the scientific
community.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all SEA faculty who contributed to the development of these resources
and David Hanauer for feedback on the manuscript. Versions of the resources pre
sented here have been deposited at the Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Edu
cation and Synthesis platform, QUBES, with digital object identifiers https://doi.org/
10.25334/6E1G-5H14 and https://doi.org/10.25334/ZGX3-Q420 to enable sharing of the
resources among the SEA faculty community for field-testing and resource iteration.
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
1Biology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA
2Biology, University of Mary Washington College of Arts and Sciences, Fredericksburg,
Virginia, USA
3Unidad de Investigaciones en Salud Pública Dra. Kaethe Willms, Facultad de Ciencias
Químico Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
4Dominican College of Blauvel, Orangeburg, New York, USA
5Biology, Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington, USA
6University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA
7Biology, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA
8Coppin State University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
9Biology & Kinesiology, LeTourneau University, Longview, Texas, USA
10Department of Microbiology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA
11University of Southern California, Culver City, California, USA
12Allegany College of Maryland, Cumberland, Maryland, USA
13Department of Biological Sciences, UNC Charlotte Department of Biological Sciences,
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
14Richard Bland College, South Prince George, Virginia, USA
15Mount Saint Mary College, Newburgh, New York, USA
16Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
17Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
18Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
USA
19University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 4
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

20Biology, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
21Department of Biology, Indian River State College, Fort Pierce, Florida, USA
22Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA
23Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
24La Salle University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
25Biology, Wartburg College, Waverly, Iowa, USA
26Biology, Indiana University Southeast, New Albany, Indiana, USA
27Biology, Colorado State University Pueblo, Pueblo, Colorado, USA
28Biology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
29Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA
30Biology, La Sierra University, Riverside, California, USA
31Biology Department, Doane University, Crete, Nebraska, USA
32Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida, USA
33Biological Sciences, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas, USA
34Columbia State Community College, Columbia, Tennessee, USA
35Biology, Monmouth College, Monmouth, Illinois, USA
36University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
37Department of Biology, University of Mary, Bismarck, North Dakota, USA
38Biology, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA
39Biological Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
40Biological and Chemical Sciences, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New
York, USA
41Biological Sciences, SUNY Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, New York, USA
42Connecticut State Community College – Northwestern Campus, Winsted, Connecticut,
USA
43Biology, Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington, USA
44Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA
45Biology, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan, USA
46Collin College, Plano, Texas, USA
47University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Falls, Wisconsin, USA
48West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, Lewisburg, West Virginia, USA
49Biology, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
50Virginia Western Community College, Roanoke, Virginia, USA
51Metropolitan Community College, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
52Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA
53Sciences, Neumann University, Aston, Pennsylvania, USA
54Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
55Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota, USA
56Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA
57Department of Biological, Physical, and Health Sciences, Roosevelt University College of
Arts and Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, USA
58Centro de Estudios Fotosinteticos y Bioquimicos, Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
59Natural Sciences, College of Coastal Georgia, Brunswick, Georgia, USA
60SUNY Old Westbury, Old Westbury, New York, USA
61Microbiology, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
62College of Health and Natural Sciences, Franklin Pierce University, Rindge, New
Hampshire, USA
63Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
64Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
65Molecular Biosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
66Biology, Culver-Stockton, Canton, Missouri, USA
67Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
68Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
69Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 5
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

70University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
71Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
72Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Greensburg, Greensburg, Pennsylvania,
USA
73Austin Community College District – Eastview Campus, Austin, Texas, USA
74The College of St Scholastica, Duluth, Minnesota, USA
75Carthage College, Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA
76Biology, Northwestern College of Iowa, Orange City, Iowa, USA
77Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana, USA
78Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA
79Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA
80Durham Technical Community College, Durham, North Carolina, USA
81Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
82Empire State University, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA
83Natural Sciences, NHTI-Concord's Community College, Concord, New Hampshire, USA
84Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina, USA
AUTHOR ORCIDs
Tamarah Lynne Adair http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4656-6769
Kirk R. Anders http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3372-1379
María Elena Báez-Flores http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1389-3568
Frederick N. Baliraine http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4054-2467
Mitchell F. Balish http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2606-5481
Christa Tobey Bancroft http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7359-954X
Lisa M. Bono http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5404-0946
Kristen Butela http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-5288
Christine A. Byrum http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6653-7922
Steven Michael Caruso http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9166-9137
Kari Clase http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2749-6440
Sean T. Coleman http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3609-1402
Amaya M. Garcia Costas http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8500-5489
Steven Gaines Cresawn http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2162-562X
Tom D'Elia http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2601-3128
Arturo Diaz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4174-8950
Dustin Cole Edwards http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6409-8041
Victoria J. Frost http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4929-0873
Bryan P. Gibb http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2094-344X
Lee E. Hughes http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6357-2696
Jacob D. Kagey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6994-1795
Karen K. Klyczek http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7882-0429
Julia Y. Lee-Soety http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9667-3175
Sergei A. Markov http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-4539
Matthew David Mastropaolo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8148-4742
Sally Dixon Molloy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0478-1209
María Alejandra Mussi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4168-3624
Imade Yolanda Nsa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5606-268X
Shallee T. Page http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3557-4122
Ricardo Parra-Unda http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5291-6879
Brett E. Pickett http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7930-8160
Richard Scott Pollenz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8891-6053
Jessica Rocheleau http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1088-7277
Elizabeth E. Rueschhoff http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8268-0905
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 6
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

Viknesh Sivanathan http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7163-4543
Sara S. Tolsma http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2687-4457
Vassie C. Ware http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1604-5628
Jackie M. Washington http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4287-8615
Daniel Williams http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7900-480X
Ellen M. Wisner http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0733-0021
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Tamarah Lynne Adair, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing |
Swati Agrawal, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Yesmi P.
Ahumada-Santos, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Regina
Alvarez, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Kirk R. Anders,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Mauricio Antunes, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Mary Ayuk, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | María Elena Báez-Flores, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Dondra Bailey, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – review and editing | Frederick N. Baliraine, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – review and editing | Mitchell F. Balish, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing
– review and editing | Christa Tobey Bancroft, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing –
review and editing | Michèle Barmoy, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review
and editing | Tonya C. Bates, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing
| Andrea Beyer, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Suparna
Bhalla, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Dave Bollivar, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Writing –
original draft | Lisa M. Bono, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing
| Rebecca Bortz, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Tejas
Bouklas, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Kristen Butela,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Christine A. Byrum, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Megan Carroll, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Steven Michael Caruso, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Nancy Castro, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Kari Clase, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing
– review and editing | Kristen Clermont, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review
and editing | Sean T. Coleman, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and
editing | Pamela L. Connerly, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing
| Amaya M. Garcia Costas, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing
| Steven Gaines Cresawn, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing |
Tom D'Elia, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Aimee Danley,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Megan K. Dennis, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Arturo Diaz, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft
| Erin L. Doyle, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Iain Duffy,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Dustin Cole Edwards, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Elvira Eivazova, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Eric Engstrom, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Christy Fillman, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft | Christine L.
Fleischacker, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Victoria J.
Frost, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Julie Torruellas
Garcia, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Bryan P. Gibb, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Alyssa Mae Gleichsner, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Sharon Gusky, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Rebekah F. Hare, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Danielle Heller, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – review and editing | Lee E. Hughes, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing –
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 7
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

review and editing | Jacob D. Kagey, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review
and editing | Bridgette Kirkpatrick, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and
editing | Karen K. Klyczek, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing
| Kathryn P. Kohl, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Hari
Kotturi, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Julia Y. Lee-Soety,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Writing
– original draft | Heather Lindberg, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and
editing | Bhaswati Manish, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing |
Sergei A. Markov, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Matthew
David Mastropaolo, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | James
T. Melton, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Jon Mitchell,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Sally Dixon Molloy, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Denise L. Monti, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft
| Tiara Perez Morales, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | María
Alejandra Mussi, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Holly
Nance, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Fernando Nieto,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Imade Yolanda Nsa, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Shallee T. Page, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Ricardo Parra-Unda, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Vipaporn Phuntumart, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Brett E. Pickett, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – review and editing | Richard Scott Pollenz, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Formal analysis | Sarah N. Reardon,
Data curation, Writing – review and editing, Formal analysis | Jessica Rocheleau, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Ombeline Rossier, Data curation,
Writing – review and editing, Formal analysis | Naomi Smith Rowland, Data curation,
Writing – review and editing, Formal analysis | Adam D. Rudner, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Elizabeth E. Rueschhoff, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Viknesh Sivanathan, Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing | Martha
Smith Caldas, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | C. Nicole
Sunnen, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization,
Writing – original draft | Sarah J. Swerdlow, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing –
review and editing | Kissaou Tchedre, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and
editing | Kara Thoemke, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing |
Deborah Tobiason, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Sara S.
Tolsma, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Tara Turley-Stoulig,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Quinn Vega, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft
| Patricia Waikel, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Catherine
Ward, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Vassie C. Ware, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Jackie M. Washington, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Daniel Eric Westholm, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Beth Wilkes, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing | Daniel Williams, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – review and editing | Elizabeth Williams, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – review and editing | Ellen M. Wisner, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing –
review and editing
ADDITIONAL FILES
The following material is available online.
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 8
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.

Supplemental Material
Appendix 1 (jmbe00313-25-S0001.docx). Designing an accessible scientific poster
rubric.
Appendix 2 (jmbe00313-25-S0002.docx). Writing a genome announcement rubric.
Appendix 3 (jmbe00313-25-S0003.docx). Poster checklist.
Appendix 4 (jmbe00313-25-S0004.xlsx). Data collection template.
Appendix 5 (jmbe00313-25-S0005.docx). Manuscript template.
Appendix 6 (jmbe00313-25-S0006.docx). Genome announcement checklist.
REFERENCES
1. Brownell SE, Kloser M, Fukami T, Shavelson R. 2012. Undergraduate
biology lab courses: comparing the impact of traditionally based and
research-based courses on student experiences. J Coll Sci Teach 41:36–45.
2. Auchincloss LC, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, Hanauer DI,
Lawrie G, McLinn CM, Pelaez N, Rowland S, Towns M, Trautmann NM,
Varma-Nelson P, Weston TJ, Dolan EL. 2014. Assessment of course-based
undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report. CBE Life Sci Educ
13:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
3. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, Arnold RJ, Ayuk MA, Balish MF, Beyer AR, Butela
KA, Byrum CA, Chia CP, Chung H-M, et al. 2022. Instructional models for
course-based research experience (CRE) teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ
21:ar8. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-03-0057
4. Hanauer DI, Zhang T, Graham MJ, Adams SD, Ahumada-Santos YP, Alvey
RM, Antunes MS, Ayuk MA, Báez-Flores ME, Bancroft CT, et al. 2023.
Models of classroom assessment for course-based research experiences.
Front Educ (Lausanne) 8:1279921. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.127
9921
5. Teter K. 2023. Science communication from a course-based undergradu
ate research experience. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 51:370–376. https://doi.o
rg/10.1002/bmb.21728
6. Korkor E, Darner R. 2025. The CURE-comm framework: a guide for infusing
CUREs with science communication. J Coll Sci Teach 54:319–327. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2025.2472145
7. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, SEA-PHAGES, Betancur L, Bobrownicki A,
Cresawn SG, Garlena RA, Jacobs-Sera D, Kaufmann N, Pope WH, Russell
DA, Jacobs WR Jr, Sivanathan V, Asai DJ, Hatfull GF. 2017. An inclusive
Research Education Community (iREC): impact of the SEA-PHAGES
program on research outcomes and student learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 114:13531–13536. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718188115
Tips and Tools Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
April 2026 Volume 27 Issue 1 10.1128/jmbe.00313-25 9
Downloaded from https://journals.asm.org/journal/jmbe on 26 July 2026 by 156.146.253.207.