In the original article, there was a mistake in Tables 1 and 3 as published. The authors reported cumulative percentages instead of valid percentages. The corrected tables appear below.
Table 1
| Pre-test “Extremely” | Post-test “Extremely” | Pre-test “Very” | Post-test “Very” | Pre-test “Moderately” | Post-test” Moderately | Pre-test “Slightly” | Post-test “Slightly” | Pre-test “Not at all” | Post-test “Not at all” | Pre-test total | Post-test total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifying challenges | 8.50% | 8.50% | 27.70% | 46.80% | 53% | 40.40% | 8.50% | 4.00% | 2% | 0% | 100% | 100% |
| Identifying opportunities | 2.20% | 10.60% | 4.30% | 38.30% | 47.80% | 38.30% | 37% | 12.80% | 8.70% | 0.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| Implementing strategies | 0.00% | 8.50% | 10.90% | 42.60% | 30.40% | 27.70% | 34.80% | 19.10% | 23.90% | 2.10% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| Overcoming barriers | 0% | 2.1% | 6.40% | 38.30% | 25.50% | 40.40% | 31.90% | 12.80% | 36.20% | 6.40% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| Identifying new ways to becoming engaged | 2.2% | 31.90% | 23.90% | 42.60% | 43.50% | 17.00% | 15.20% | 6.40% | 15.20% | 2% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
Knowledge measures.
Table 3
| Pre-test “Extremely” | Post-test “Extremely” | Pre-test “Very” | Post-test' “Very” | Pre-test “Moderately” | Post-test “Moderately | Pre-test “Slightly” | Post-test “Slightly” | Pre-test “Not at all” | Post-test “Not at all” | Pre-test total | Post-test total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifying challenges | 2.20% | 13.30% | 19.10% | 44.40% | 34.00% | 33.30% | 36.20% | 8.90% | 8.50% | 0% | 100.00% | 100% |
| Identifying opportunities | 2.20% | 8.90% | 10.60% | 48.90% | 36.20% | 33.3% | 40.40% | 8.90% | 10.60% | 0.00% | 100.00% | 100% |
| Implementing strategies | 0.00% | 4.40% | 13.30% | 37.80% | 31.10% | 44.40% | 31.10% | 11.10% | 24.50% | 2.20% | 100.00% | 100% |
| Overcoming barriers | 0% | 0% | 15.20% | 48.90% | 17.40% | 33.30% | 41.30% | 15.60% | 26.10% | 2.20% | 100.00% | 100% |
| Identifying new ways to becoming engaged | 2% | 17.80% | 25.50% | 48.90% | 34.00% | 20.00% | 27.70% | 13.30% | 10.60% | 0% | 100% | 100% |
Confidence measures.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated
Summary
Keywords
science communication, inclusion, inclusive science communication, public engagement with science, science education
Citation
Smith H, Menezes S, Canfield K, Guldin R, Morgoch M and McDuffie K (2020) Corrigendum: Moving Toward Inclusion: Participant Responses to the Inclusive SciComm Symposium. Front. Commun. 5:22. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00022
Received
31 January 2020
Accepted
19 March 2020
Published
09 April 2020
Volume
5 - 2020
Edited and reviewed by
Erika Check Hayden, University of California, Santa Cruz, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Smith, Menezes, Canfield, Guldin, Morgoch and McDuffie.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hollie Smith hollies@uoregon.edu
This article was submitted to Science and Environmental Communication, a section of the journal Frontiers in Communication
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.