This post continues the theme of diverse audiences and how to prepare your science communications for them. In this video, I describe the three types of learners and how you might use that knowledge in preparing your next video or other communication project (for best viewing, select the HD version and full-screen options (see menu bar at bottom of player window)):
Many of you may have seen the math lesson videos (e.g., by Khan Academy), which employ an electronic blackboard where the teacher works through a math problem, drawing onscreen, step by step (not sure what the Queen of England has to do with math, but whatever….).
Or you may have seen science videos that employed an electronic whiteboard, and the narrator draws text or images on screen while talking. The video below illustrates this approach, which can be effective at getting a science concept across in an entertaining manner.
Why do videos done with electronic blackboards or whiteboards work so well?
They engage the viewer. Seeing someone drawing or writing on screen makes the viewer feel as if there is more of a connection with the narrator, and the experience feels somewhat participatory. It’s almost as if we are looking over their shoulder as they explain the material to us.
They have constant movement. The continual movement of the electronic pen draws the eye and makes the viewer feel that something new is being revealed in a relatively rapid manner (which as we’ve discussed previously, is a key ingredient for a successful video).
They focus the viewer’s attention on the information being discussed. When the narrator appears on screen, the viewer may be distracted from what is being described. The viewer may be looking at how the person is dressed or their mannerisms, instead of the focus of the video. With the electronic white/black board, there is nothing to distract from the information, at least visually.
They are different from the traditional video. Not that many people have figured out how to do these or have decided they are worth the effort. Consequently, those who use this approach have a better chance of creating something unique.
I find the experience of watching such videos strangely satisfying….but then, I was always an attentive student who hung on every word my teachers spoke. The video narrator is anonymous (we can’t see them), yet the experience is very intimate, as if the narrator is talking only to us and showing us something really cool.
For the scientist videographer, doing a video with an electronic white board has several advantages, in addition to the one mentioned above about allowing you to create something different and that will stand out from other science videos.
One big advantage is the huge flexibility it provides in creating content for your video. You don’t need to worry about finding a public domain image or footage of the earth, the moon, and the sun to talk about tides, for example. Just draw three spheres on the white board and label them “earth” “moon”, and “sun”. You don’t have to travel to a seashore to film the tide moving in and out of a bay; just draw a shoreline and waterline on your white board. As the video above shows, it’s possible to illustrate a very complex topic drawing simple stick figures. So if that is the level of your drawing ability; never fear; you can still use a white board.
Another advantage is not having to find people for your film or convince them to appear on camera. Just draw a stick figure and label it. The viewer will accept it, as we saw in a previous post (Bully Triangles and Terrified Circles). If you have some talent at drawing (and many scientists do), then this technique can be really useful to you. Those of you who are professors or instructors are already accustomed to drawing on a real blackboard, even drawing elaborate illustrations of organisms and other biological objects. Engineers are especially capable of drawing diagrams, models, and other illustrations.
The electronic white board also allows you to remain off camera while narrating. Some of you may be reluctant to appear on camera or have a fear of the camera. Don’t let this stop you from participating in your own video. With a bit of practice, you can learn to narrate while drawing, especially if you have a script at hand (although I’ve found that once you get started, you stop relying on notes and simply become immersed in explaining your material). When you don’t appear on camera, you don’t have to worry about your appearance when creating your videos. You can do a video in your pajamas if you want.
The biggest drawback to the electronic white/black board technique is that it takes a bit more planning and practice at drawing and narrating at the same time. However, like everything else in videography, once you work out the method and apply it a couple of times, it becomes second nature. You may also need some software (Photoshop, Screenflow) and an electronic drawing tablet to make this method work smoothly.
The electronic white/black board approach won’t work for all science videos, but is just another tool in the scientist videographer’s toolbox. Even if your project can’t be done entirely with this approach, you might employ it to illustrate a specific concept within a larger video.
So exactly how do people create videos using a white/black board? In an upcoming tutorial, I’ll show a relatively easy way to do this.
Scientists sometimes have difficulty explaining their work in everyday language that most people can understand. How do you know if the language you are using in your videos or other science communication products are comprehensible by a 10th grader, for example?
Most word processing programs have an option that allows an assessment of the “readability” of the text in a document. The science videographer can make use of this tool to check and modify the language you plan to use in your video project….essentially tailor it to a target audience. This tutorial shows how to turn this option on and how to use it to revise a technical explanation so that it is understandable by a broader audience (for best viewing, select the HD version and full-screen options (see menu bar at bottom of player window):
View or download the entire script for the video here (click the arrow at the top of the document window for full page view):
Scientists are increasingly expected to participate in science communication, beyond what we’ve done in the past, which is essentially to talk to each other via technical articles and papers presented at scientific conferences. Science students are not taught in school to communicate with the non-technical audience, which sends the message that it’s not important to have the skills necessary to communicate with an audience beyond the scientific community. In fact, many scientists would argue that it is not their job to communicate their science to broader audiences, and they often balk at any suggestions that they do so.
Unfortunately, such an attitude puts you at a disadvantage in the competitive world of science.
Scientists also have a responsibility to promote the value of science to society, which helps combat anti-science groups and misinformation campaigns. However, I realize that most people will be motivated only by what will benefit them directly, such as research funding, publications, a good job, tenure, and general professional recognition. So I will focus on one of these: funding.
Scientists are increasingly expected (and required) to explain their research to non-scientists. Funding from government agencies, at least in the US, usually comes with a requirement to make the results available to the public and in an understandable format. Some funding agencies expect proposers to show how their project will make a broader impact. The National Science Foundation, for example, assesses proposals based on two criteria:
Most scientists have no problem understanding and addressing the first merit criterion, but are stumped by the second one. Many fail to grasp that NSF expects proposers to fully address both criteria in their proposals. In fact, here’s what NSF says with regard to this point: “Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary. We believe that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of broader impacts to NSF funded projects.”
Here are some of the specific questions NSF expects the proposal to answer in addressing the Broader Impacts criterion:
NSF is deliberately vague, however, about how to go about this because they do not want to stifle creativity. They do provide some examples on their website, but it’s mostly up to the individual PI to figure out a specific plan and write a convincing description of how they will meet the Broader Impacts requirement.
Even if your peer reviewers mainly focus on the technical merits of the proposal, the panelists at NSF will be instructed to carefully consider how well the proposal addressed the Broader Impacts criterion. Here is what NSF says that panelists should consider in assessing a proposal with respect to the Broader Impacts: “…the personal, professional, and educational experiences, the future plans and prior accomplishments in the integration of research and education, and the potential to reach diverse audiences and benefit society.”
I’ve been a co-PI on a number of NSF proposals, and my experience is that the second criterion is not taken seriously by quite a few PIs (and not surprisingly, their proposals fail to get funded). Not only should NSF proposals fully address the second merit criterion, they should provide examples of how the PI has successfully done this in the past, just as they demonstrate their technical expertise by listing their relevant publications. Do you have any examples of broader impacts to list in your proposals? If all you’ve got is “I trained x graduate students and x post-doctoral scientists”, you should be aware that you are competing with others who submit proposals with prior accomplishments such as involving K-12 teachers or students in their research; developing a series of videos, tutorials, and interactive websites to educate the general public about science concepts; or holding a series of workshops to teach graduate students the basics of science communication.
There are many other reasons to participate in science communication to broader audiences, but the desire to be successful in competing for grant funding should be sufficient motivation to get you started. If you are a student or new Ph.D. and have yet to land your first NSF grant, you should be working to develop an edge…not only in the technical aspects of your research, but in communication skills. If you are a more established scientist, but have not been very successful, especially with NSF or similar funding agencies, you might want to consider whether your proposals have successfully addressed the Broader Impacts criterion. If you can communicate with non-technical audiences and can list concrete examples to convince a review panel that you can meet the Broader Impacts criterion, you will be ahead of many people applying for grants.
If you seriously plan to develop outreach products or get involved in activities to reach diverse audiences, you first have to know who they are and how to talk to them. This series of blog posts is meant to provide some beginning guidelines and suggestions for you, the scientist, in communicating your science to diverse audiences.
The next post considers who the diverse audience is and how to connect with them.