Hi Chip,

For the research portion of the project, we are investigating change in scientists' motivation, perceptions, and self-efficacy. Our research instruments are based on on Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2005), assuming that increased self-efficacy in engaging with audiences may result from improved communication skills, ultimately changing scientists' outreach practice towards stronger interactive audience engagement strategies.

We are just launching the field tester part of the project after the initial design testing phase, which we used to develop both OTS tactics and the research instruments.

Let me know if you have other questions,

Kari

Hi Nancy, the tactics mentioned in the video include polling, drawing, modeling, kinesthetic activities, accomplish a task, think-pair-share and questioning. These are common engagement tactics, so the big challenge is to structure them to get useful feedback that will inform their next step, help to adjust vocabulary and complexity, or even adjust the goal of their presentation (simplify or go for it).
A good example in the video is the drawing tactic. The scenario that we stated for the participants, was imagine a researcher has been asked to give a presentation on some aspect of diet. They could start off by giving their audience the outline of a human form and asking the participants to draw the digestive system. If all they get back is a tube from the mouth to a sack (the stomach) and some squiggly bits to where the waste goes out the other end, then they know folks aren't sure about the complexity of it all and where other organs (liver, gall bladder) and glands come into play. So they've got to spend a little more time on giving context, but if people are including 6-10 components, then they've got an audience that is ready to dig into details and complexity.
Sometimes the tactic could be labeled multiple ways, for instance polling and building a model may be the same activity. If the goal is to see what your audience knows about the distances between objects, and you're in a virtual environment, you could put up a picture of the earth and ask everyone to use the stamp/annotate feature to put the moon at the same scale on the slide. Each participant is building a model of the Earth/moon system and you're taking a poll of the group based on their answers. Depending on the goal of the question, you could follow up with a request for what informed their choice or you might simply get a confirmation of a common preconceived notion that needs to be cleared up before you move on.
Both of these examples are of getting some feedback of current understanding before moving on.
Our OTSF guide has a deeper dive into each tactic with examples of how it might be used in a variety of sciences and examples of the goal of the tactic and what to do with the feedback you get.
Hope that helps,
Suzy

Hi Shihadah,
This is a great question, but we haven't done this specific analysis. I will say that we tried to make the training and materials not specific to any particular area of science, but applicable across fields. We did find that examples that were outside the participant's field of expertise were particularly great learning experiences, because it put the experts in the position of being the learner in a new content area. While training a bunch of astronomers, the examples of digestion, bird ID and immune systems had them all squirming and realizing what it is like to be an interested learner and not an expert. So, in the spirit of "know your audience" we tried to mix up our examples and use ones that were outside the content expertise of the participating scientists.
Best wishes,
Suzanne Gurton

We're early enough in the project, that I'll reach out to one of our research partners to supplement this answer. Part of their protocol is to observe an outreach event where they are applying our strategy and tactics. I can tell you that this is building on a workshop that we have done for the last 7 years at the American Astronomical Society and those participants have told us exactly that. They are misunderstood in their families and they struggle to explain in simple terms what they are doing in their research. We have always encouraged them to take a step back and provide context for what they are studying and what motivates them and they have great stories about how it has helped them relate what they are doing. It certainly isn't universal. Some simply talk about the value of astronomy and not their specific area of research since it is so narrow and specific.

We are investigating change in scientists' motivation, perceptions, and self-efficacy. Our research instruments are based on on Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2005), assuming that increased self-efficacy in engaging with audiences may result in improved communication skills and ultimately changing scientists' outreach practice towards stronger interactive audience engagement strategies .

Hi Shihadah, 

Absolutely! Many on our project team have led former lives as museum/informal educators, and quite a few are still active in these spaces. Our own experiences using On-the-Spot communication in museum/informal environments have definitely influenced our model and our thinking. We're also working with museum educators at several museums across the country to offer our workshop training to the scientists from their communities that they partner with for outreach. In the future, we're hope our finalized model and training materials will not only be of use to scientists interested in improving their public engagement, but also to museum/informal educators and others who are heavily engaged in sharing STEM with the public. 

Best,

Elysa

Great question! I'm excited to transfer these ideas into informal learning spaces when you all finish this phase. Thanks for the great work. It has been a joy to see it evolve into something maybe even more impactful with the pandemic changes.