D7.1 Evaluation summery report

“Let’s talk about science”

A Project conducted by the Radiofabrik Salzburg in co-operation with the

Austrian Federation of Community Radio Stations (VFRÖ), the German

Federation of Community Radio Stations (BFR) and the University of

Salzburg. January 2007 – February 2008.

Project no.: 036652 – LETS!

Project acronym: LETS!

Project full title: Let’s talk about science

Date of preparation: March 2008

Period covered: from 01/01/2007 to 29/02/2008

Section for Audio-Visual Communication at the Department

of Communication, University of Salzburg

Editors: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ingrid Paus-Hasebrink, Mag. Christina Ortner

Contributor: Samuel Unterkircher, Bakk. Komm.

2

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Research Design 6

3 Evaluation of the project outputs 9

3.1 Findings of the product analysis 10

3.1.1 Analysis of the radio shows for children 10

3.1.2 Analysis of the radio shows for adolescents 17

3.2 Findings of the focus groups 23

3.2.1 Focus groups with children 23

3.2.2 Focus groups with adolescents 28

4 Evaluation of the project activities and progress 35

4.1 Dissemination 35

4.2 Project progress 42

5 Recommendations 45

Annex 50

A: Guideline for the qualitative content analysis – main aspects 50

B: Guideline for the qualitative content analysis – special aspects 51

C: Supplementary questionnaire on media use 53

D: Guideline for focus groups with children 55

E: Guideline for focus groups with adolescents 57

F: List of codes – focus groups with children and adolescents 59

G: Evalutaion sheet “Let’s talk about science” 60

H: List of codes – questioning of project partners 62

3

1 Introduction

About the project „Let’s talk about science“

To awaken children’s and young people’s interest, curiosity, astonishment and enthusiasm in

dealing with scientific issues, to encourage them to consider a scientific carrier and to

communicate scientific questions, approaches and results in an understandable and

entertaining way through radio shows – these are the main objectives of “Let’s talk about

science”, a project co-ordinated by the Radiofabrik Salzburg. It lasted from January 2007 to

February 2008, was conducted in co-operation with the Austrian and German Federation of

Community Radio Stations (VFRÖ and BFR) and the University of Salzburg and financed by

the 6th Framework Programme “Science and Society” of the European Commission.

Within the project period eleven radio shows for children on a wide range of different

scientific issues were produced. Each of them lasts 29 minutes and 25 seconds and consists of

a radio play and a studio talk with children. The shows were produced by the Radiofabrik

Salzburg in co-operation with Gottfried Tichy who designed the concepts for the radio plays

and participated in four of the subsequent studio talks. Gottfried Tichy is Professor emeritus

for Geography and Geology at the University of Salzburg and author of several children’s

books. The remaining eight studio discussions were moderated by Eveline Karl, a certified

biologist working with children in the field of science communication since six years.

For the target group of young people the Radiofabrik Salzburg produced eleven radio shows

on scientific questions also lasting 29 minutes and 25 seconds each. Seven of them are in

German language and three in English. The concepts for the shows were written by Christina

Ortner, a communication scientist working at the Department of Communication, Section for

Audio-Visual Communication at the University of Salzburg, and Ingrid Paus-Hasebrink,

Professor for Audio-Visual Communication at the University of Salzburg with a research

focus on media socialisation of children and adolescents.

To make the radio shows available for as many people as possible and to provide a discussion

platform for the interested public, a bilingual website was constructed by the Radiofabrik

(http://www.talk-science.eu/). On this site information on the project, the project partners and

the production, the content and the transmission of the radio shows can be found.

Furthermore, there is the possibility to download the 22 shows or listen to them via streaming.

News around the project and additional links are provided in the ”Talk Science Blog” which

is integrated in the project website and allows readers to comment on the articles. All the texts

are available in German and in English.

Further dissemination activities including the transmission of the radio shows via FM,

informing local media and contacting schools, universities and other initiatives involved in

science communication were done by the Austrian and German Federation of Community

Radio Stations (VFRÖ and BFR) with support by the Radiofabrik Salzburg. In the area of

Salzburg the Radiofabrik broadcasted the serial “Let’s talk about science” daily between

11.02.08 and 22.02.08. In addition, eight Austrian, 14 German, two Swiss and two Irish radio

4

stations put the shows on air within their transmission area. Dissemination efforts are still

going on and there will presumably be more radio stations broadcasting the shows in the near

future.

About the evaluation study

The project “Let’s talk about science” was evaluated by Ingrid Paus-Hasebrink and Christina

Ortner with support of Samuel Unterkircher at the Section for Audio-Visual Communication,

Department of Communication, University of Salzburg.

Evaluation is generally understood as „the description, analysis and appraisal of traditional or

innovative products, processes, contexts and all associated arrangements of activities”

(Zimmer 2006: 109; translation by authors).1 It “is primarily concerned with determining the

merit, worth or value” (Owen/ Rogers 1999: 3)2 of a project and helps to make general

statements on it’s conditions, processes and success to provide science-based

recommendations for decision makers (Zimmer 2006: 109).3

The evaluation study at hand is a summative evaluation that analyses and reviews the

activities and outputs of “Let’s talk about science”. In opposition to formative evaluation

studies it was carried out at the end of the project and did not provide feedback during the

project to take measures or arrangements for improvement (Haubrich/ Holthusen 2005: 2).4

The intention of this evaluation rather is to assess the quality and relevance of the project

based on empirical findings in a most impartial way.

The study focuses on two different aspects: the project activities on the one hand and the

project outputs on the other hand. The main question is, if the distribution and dissemination

activities and the outputs generated by the project are appropriate the meet the project goals.

Are distribution and dissemination strategies adequate to reach children and youngster? Are

the products attractive for children and young adults and suitable to awaken interest, curiosity

and enthusiasm in dealing with scientific issues? Do they enable dynamic interaction and

exchange of information and knowledge between young people, scientists and the civil

society?

Therefore, the emphasis is not on the impact of the project but on the question if the activities

and products have the potential to evoke the desired effects. To provide findings on outcomes

or impact would assume to measure, if changes have taken place and if they are caused by the

project (Haubrich/ Holthusen 2005: 3).5 This was not possible in this case because the radio

shows have not been broadcasted at the time of the evaluation and the dissemination activities

were not finished. Both are preconditions for effects on the target audience or the general

1 See Zimmer, Gerhard (2006): Evaluation [evaluation]. In: Tsvasman, Leon R. (Ed.): Das Grosse Lexikon

Medien und Kommunikation. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, p. 109-111. 2 See Owen, John M./ Rogers, Patricia J. (1999): Program Evaluation. Forms and Approaches. International

edition. London/ Thousand Oaks/ New Dehli: Sage Publications. 3 See footnote number one. 4 See Haubrich, Karin/ Holthusen, Bernd (2005): Evaluation – einige Sortierungen zu einem schillernden

Begriff. In: DJI Bulletin 72 Plus, p. 1-4. 5 See footnote number four.

5

public. Another focus of the evaluation study is the analysis of the project progress to find out

the key success and failure factors and propose measures that will improve effective project

delivery in future partnerships.

6

2 Research Design

To assess the quality and relevance of the project activities and outputs the study is based on a

research design consisting of overall four steps referring to different objectives of the

evaluation. The most challenging task of the study is to determine if the project products – in

particular the radio shows – are suitable to reach and attract children and young adults and

enhance discussion on scientific issues. To gain a solid empirical basis to answer this question

the following two research steps were carried out.

Qualitative content analysis of the radio shows

To valuate the quality of the radio shows it is important to have a close look on their structure,

content and style which has been done by means of a qualitative content analysis.

In a first step all the 22 radio shows were analysed according to a guideline covering main

issues like the topic, the scientific disciplines, the design or the participating persons in the

shows. Moreover, the way the radio shows refer to the field of science on the one hand and to

the life-world of children and adolescents on the other hand was described. In a second step

selected radio shows were analysed in more detail concerning special aspects that are

important for the intelligibility and attractiveness of the shows like language, rhetoric,

storytelling and the utilisation of music and noises.6

As this procedure is quite extensive not all 22 shows could be considered for the second part

of the analysis. Therefore, five shows for the target group children and five for young adults

were selected. The main criterion for choosing the shows was plurality regarding the topics,

the scientific disciplines, the gender, age and number of actors, the language and the intensity

the shows refer to science and to the everyday life of children and teenagers. To guarantee

unbiased findings Samuel Unterkircher conducted the analysis of the radio shows for young

adults because he is the only member of the evaluation team who was not involved in the

production of these shows.

Focus groups with children and adolescents

In combination with the product analysis focus groups with children and young people build

the core of the study. This method provides major findings because it enables to take the

perspective of the target groups into account.

Therefore, the evaluation team conducted two discussions with children and two with

adolescents in December and January. The children are between eight and ten years old

because this is the age the style and content of the shows fits best for. One of these

discussions with eleven kids was carried out in a rural area in an institution taking care of

children after school. The second focus group discussion with 25 children took place in an

elementary school in town. In both groups educational background of the parents and gender

varied. For the first focus group a radio show with little reference to children’s everyday life

6 For the guidelines of both the analysis of main aspects and the detailed analysis of special aspects see annex A

and B, page 50 and 51.

7

and high linkage to science was chosen; the second group listened to a show with a topic close

to children’s experience and few links to scientific issues.

As fourteen year olds highly differ from 19 year olds two distinct age-groups were defined

concerning teenagers; moreover, two classes with different educational backgrounds were

selected. Therefore, one focus group discussion took place in the last class of a secondary

school7 which means that the 27 participants were between 17 and 18 years old and well

educated. They listened to an English radio show on careers in science. Another discussion

was carried out with 20 teenagers between 13 and 15 years attending a compulsory school8

with a low educational standard. Because of their rudimental English skills a German show on

a specific scientific field (robotic) was presented to them.

First the kids had to fill in a questionnaire9 on socio-demographic data and their media use

that provides important context information. Then the kids were listening to the radio show

while one of the evaluators noted their behaviour by means of an observation protocol.

Afterwards the participants set in a circle for a discussion. The interviewer started with a

general question to make the children or teenagers talk freely about their impressions. When

nothing would be said one more he directly asked for their opinion on specific aspects of the

show.10 The discussions lasted between 34 and 56 minutes, were recorded, written down and

analysed via the software MAXQDA according the method of thematic coding11 (Flick 2006:

271-268).12

All the research steps described up to now are linked to the evaluation of the project products.

To address the project activities and progress further work was done.

Documentation of dissemination activities

All the dissemination efforts as well as the reactions to these activities were documented

throughout the project period and fineally reflected against the background of the project

goals. Possible reactions are the distribution of the radio shows on other radio stations, links

to the project website or reporting on the project on the internet, in newsletters, in newspaper,

in magazines or on radio. Moreover, the dissemination activities can lead to different forms of

co-operation with initiatives in the field of science communication, schools, youth centres,

7 In Austria the name for this kind of school is Gymnasium which is a school that does not teach any skills for

specific jobs but prepares for university or further education. At the end of a Gymnasium the pupils get a degree qualifying for university entrance (Matura).

8 The original term is Hauptschule. At the age of ten children in Austria can choose between a Hauptschule and a Gymnasium. In rural areas, where few villages can afford to run a Gymnasium, many people attend a Hauptschule, but in towns nearly every child with acceptable marks decides for a Gymnasium. As the discussion took place in a town this means that the participants had a low level of education.

9 The evaluation team explained the questions to them and helped them when they had problems in understanding. Some younger children needed help and filled in parts of the questionnaire together with an adult. The questionnaire can be found in annex C, page 53

10 The guideline for the focus groups with both children and adolescents are located in annex D and E, page 55 and 57.

11 The list of codes is also attached in annex F of this report, page 59. 12 See Flick, Uwe (2006): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

8

universities or political organisations responsible for questions concerning youth, childhood

or science.

Questioning of all project partners

To find out key factors for the success or failure of the project and possible ways of

improvement, representatives of all project partners were interviewed. A questionnaire

consisting of open questions13 on project activities and progress, the co-operation with other

partners and the results was sent to the following persons via E-Mail at the end of January:

Elke Zobl and Mirjam Winter (Radiofabrik), Ingrid Paus-Hasebrink, Christina Ortner and

Gottfried Tichy (University of Salzburg), Helmut Peissl (Austrian Federation of Community

Radio Stations) and Stefan Tenner (German Federation of Community Radio Stations). The

answers were also analysed with the help of MAXQDA according the method of thematic

coding14 (Flick 2006).15 In opposition to the project products and the dissemination activities

the project progress is evaluated from bottom up which means that the criteria for the

valuation are not created by the evaluation team but result from the answers of all project

partners.

13 The evaluation team decided not to use standardised questions to give the project partners the opportunity to

express their concerns in their own words and as extensive as they want. The questionnaire can be found in annex G, page 60.

14 The list of codes can be found in annex H of this report, page 62. 15 See footnote number 12.

9

3 Evaluation of the project outputs

In the following chapters the findings of all research steps related to the evaluation of the

project products will be presented and discussed against the background of the project goals.

Therefore, a set of evaluation criteria has been derived from the objectives described in the

proposal of “Let’s talk about science”.

The main goal of the project is to awaken interest, fun, curiosity and enthusiasm in dealing

with scientific issues. Therefore, the radio shows must have a clear relation to scientific issue,

the content must be relevant for the target group, the shows must be attractive and

entertaining for children or teenagers and should contain unusual information. Furthermore,

they must provide new information for the audience on the one hand and leave some

questions open on the other hand to raise curiosity.

To impart knowledge on science in an understandable way the radio shows first of all must be

intelligible for the target group. It is moreover necessary that they comprise information on

various issues related to science like questions, topics, methods and findings of different

scientific fields as well as stories on famous scientists, the history of science or conditions of

scientific work.

Another objective of the project is to enhance the understanding of the relevance of science

for society, for future developments, for the solution of global problems and for everybody’s

life. This is only possible if the radio shows discuss applications and impacts of scientific

knowledge and the role of science in modern societies. To demonstrate the importance of

scientific work for daily life, the radio shows must point out interrelations between science

and the life-world of children respectively teenagers.

The project moreover intents to encourage children and young adults – in particular girls –

considering a scientific career. Therefore, the radio shows should give new insights in

motivations, experiences and working conditions of scientists. To reach girls and young

women it is necessary to discuss gender specific aspects concerning scientific careers, to

break up gender stereotypes and to include persons feminine listeners can identify with.

Finally the project aims to initiate interaction among children and young people on science

and enhance dynamic interaction and exchange between young people, scientists and the civil

society. This can be achieved through bringing together scientists, young people and

representatives of NGOs in the studio for discussions. Furthermore, the project weblog could

serve as an interaction platform for all these groups. To introduce this possibility to the target

groups, the radio shows should refer to the project website.

10

3.1 Findings of the product analysis

3.1.1 Analysis of the radio shows for children

Structure of all radio shows16

The serial “Let’ talk about Science” consists of eleven single shows that are similar in their

structure but do not refer to each other and can be broadcasted in any favoured order. Eight of

the radio shows focus on a specific issue related to one or more scientific fields; the rest of the

shows tell stories concerning famous scientists and the history of science. The latter are radio

show number seven and eleven dealing with the biography of Albert Einstein and Karl Popper

and show number six discussing the fate of important scientists like Aristotle, Galileo Galilee

or Johannes Keppler who were persecuted due to there work and ideas.

The eleven shows do not only cover a lot of topics but also various scientific fields.

Altogether the serial is related to eleven different disciplines most of them only appearing in

one of the shows. Only Physics is dealt with three times and Ecology, Philosophy and History

are alluded to twice. A closer look shows that natural sciences are dominant: They are

represented through seven disciplines17 in nine radio shows while social sciences and

humanities are only discussed in two shows each. The following figure gives an overview

over topics and disciplines covered by the serial “Let’s talk about science”.

Nr. Title18

Topic Scientific discipline

1 A rainy day Emergence of rain, snow, hail and rainbows Physics

2 Just a can Production and recycling of cans and paper Physics, Ecology, Chemistry

3 The human zoo Parasites in the human body Biology

4 A lot of stones for just one man

Historical monumental buildings Archaeology, History

5 Shadows on the soul Depression Psychology

6 Can knowledge be dangerous

Persecution due to new scientific cognition History of natural science, Philosophy

7 A thick skin Biography of Albert Einstein History of natural science, Physics

8 The Easter Island War and human destruction exemplified by the history of the Easter Island

History, Ecology, Sociology

9 Compass for the past Identification of age and origin of stones Geology

10 Phases of the moon Phases of the moon, lunar and solar eclipses Astronomy

11 Carpenter-apprentice and philosopher

Biography of Karl Popper History of science, Philosophy

16 This chapter briefly reports the findings of the first step of the qualitative content analysis focusing on

structural elements of all eleven radio shows for children as well as on their reference to science and the target group children. For more information see page 6.

17 Psychology can be conceived as both natural science and social science. In this report it is seen as a discipline of natural science because at the University of Salzburg Psychology is located at the faculty of natural sciences.

18 The radio shows were produced in German. For a better understanding the titles were translated for this report.

11

The structure of the radio shows is nearly identical: All of them start with two jingles, one on

the serial “Let’s talk about science” and one on the radio play “Minitalk”. This takes about a

minute before an episode of the radio play with corbie Habakuk and piggy Schnüfferl follows.

The play is told by a narratress, lasts between approximately nine and 14 minutes and ends

with some instrumental music. Another jingle, that is very similar to the jingle at the

beginning, signalises the subsequent studio discussion with kids that picks up the topic of the

radio play.

Seven discussions are moderated by Eveline Karl and four by Gottfried Tichy.19 Eveline is

introduced with her first name while Tichy is addressed by his full name and as professor.

Moreover, it is remarkable that the radio shows with Gottfried Tichy have a stronger relation

to science.20 In every talk between two and four children of different age21 are invited into the

studio. Except for Silvia, who is guest in the first discussion, all the kids are boys. As nearly

all of them take part in more than one discussion – two of them even in eight – the repertoire

of children is rather limited.22

After the studio discussion, which lasts between nine and an half and 13 minutes, a song

terminates the show. Depending on the length of all the other parts the song takes at least

three and at most seven minutes. In the last minute of the song a woman gives information on

the production and financing. Additional links or remarks concerning to the project website

are missing.

The reference to the field of science is not equally intense in all eleven radio shows.

Moreover, the radio shows are linked to science in different ways. The first way is to mention

the word “science” or terms that are associated with this field. In every show this is at least

the case in the jingle at the beginning and in the middle when the name of the serial “Let’s

talk about science” is read out in English and German. In addition, five of the shows mention

few words connected to science and threes use such words quite often (between 50 and 83

times). These are show number six, seven and eleven dealing with the biography or fate of

influential scientists. All in all, scientific disciplines – in particular Physics and Philosophy –

are mentioned most frequently followed by words related to scientific careers, institutions or

honours. Furthermore, terms from the field of research and academic teaching as well as the

names of famous scientist are used. In most of the cases such words are mentioned by

Habakuk and now and then by the moderators of the discussion.

The second way how the radio shows refer to science are explanations of specific disciplines,

methodical issues, scientific careers or the impact of scientific knowledge. In half of the

shows such comments are totally missing, the others have at least one and at most three text

19 Eveline is present at most of the studio talks moderated by Gottfried Tichy but does not engage in the

discussion. 20 On the one hand Tichy himself refers to scientific issues more often and explicit than Eveline on the other

hand the radio plays of the shows Tichy is participating in are also linked closer to science. 21 The radio shows do not inform about the age of the kids. Two boys mention that they are seven and twelve. 22 Children often are quite shy when they first talk into a microphone especially when their statements are

broadcasted via radio. For this reason it was easier to work with a limited number of children who after one or two studio discussions got used to the situation.

12

passages referring to science in this way. Most prevalently methodical issues like how to

measure long distances, find out the age of stones or draw conclusions from remains of past

cultures are discussed. Four times Habakuk or Tichy explain what Philosophy or Physics are

about and the impact of scientific knowledge is discussed in three radio shows. All this

information is either communicated by Habakuk or Tichy, never by Schnüfferl, the narratress,

Eveline or the studio guests.

Three of the radio shows neither use terms related to science nor offer explanation. Their

reference to the field of science only lies in the fact that parts of the content are based on

questions, findings and knowledge provided by research. This is true for radio show one, five

and ten.

The ways how the target group children is addressed by the radio shows are more various but

less explicit. First of all, the text in the jingle at the beginning and in the middle of the show

says that this radio show is a production for children. Furthermore, the main topic or parts of

the content of six radio shows are relevant for children. This is especially true for radio show

five when Schnüfferl tells a story on his depressive school friend and the children in the

subsequent discussion talk about sadness, bad mood, disappointment and how to deal with it.

Another example is radio show seven on Einstein who was poor in school but in the end

became successful. The studio talk in this show is a lot on school careers, bad marks and the

relationship between teachers and pupils.

Few shows also refer to children by means of childhood stories of scientists or other adults or

by mentioning books, serials or characters favoured by kids. Moreover, objects of daily life

like windows, glasses or balls are used for explanations in four radio shows.

One of the main characters in the radio play (Schnüfferl) is a child and has a lot of potential

for identification. Moreover, many of the settings in the radio plays are familiar to children.

The studio talk also provides possibilities for identification because the studio guests are

children. In six radio shows they talk about their own experiences; in doing so they link the

topic of the radio show to the life-world of kids.

Special aspects23

All five radio shows analysed in detail are clearly focussed on a specific topic which is

discussed very broadly by dealing with various aspects. Most of these aspects are already

brought up in the radio shows. The studio discussions take them up and sometimes add new

issues that do not always have a clear connection to the main topic.

23 In this chapter special aspects concerning intelligibility and attractiveness will be described based on the

results from an in depth analysis of five selected shows. These are show one “A rainy day”, show two “Just a can”, show four “A lot of stones for just one man” and show eleven “Carpenter-apprentice and philosopher”. In selecting the radio shows we paid attention to the fact that at least one show related to natural sciences, to social science and to humanities was considered. Furthermore, both a show on a specific scientific issue and a show on the biography of famous scientists were chosen. Another selection criterion was that minimum one discussion moderated by Tichy and the only radio show with a feminine studio guest were taken into account.

13

The main characters in the radio play are Habakuk and Schnüfferl. Habakuk is a male24 adult

raven who is wise, eloquent and erudite. He usually behaves patiently, balanced and sober and

answers all the questions Schnüfferl asks him. He is an important person in Schnüfferls life

with whom the piggy shares both her problems and pleasures. In the first instance Habakuks

statements have the purpose to explain complex phenomena or to inform about facts. The

information density in his comments is very high and he talks much more than the piggy.

Schnüfferl is a girl25 attending school and living together with Habakuk. She is very curious,

inquisitive and enthusiastic, sometimes impatient and very emotional. In the first radio play

she behaves naive while later on she proves that she is quite quick and willing to learn.

Everyday Schnüfferl asks Habakuk a lot of questions; in doing so she structures the radio

play. Sometimes these questions already include information. The female narratress in the

radio play talks rather little. Her statements describe appearance, mimic, gestures, cadence

and behaviour of the characters and informs about their feelings and thoughts. Furthermore,

she communicates the plot and describes the surrounding and ambiance. Very rarely her

comments include information on the topic of the radio show.

The radio plays are located in the presence and except for the first minute of episode number

one the duration of the play is congruent with the time passing in the story. The majority of

the tales are situated in the living room, now and then the characters walk out in the garden or

somewhere in town. The plot consists of activities typical for everyday life like shopping,

reading or going for a walk and does not have a climax or any dramatic turning points.

The central persons in the studio talks are the moderators Eveline and Tichy. While Eveline

pursues a pedagogical approach Tichy acts like a scientific expert.26 Eveline guides and

structures the discussion by asking the children questions and helping them to work out the

answers on their own. Sometimes she conducts easy experiments with the children or uses

information material. Eveline does not bring in her own knowledge but she decides which

aspects are discussed or left aside. In opposition to that Tichy asks the kids what they would

like to talk about. As his answers are often detailed, long and go beyond the questions he

dominates the discussion and talks much more than the kids in the studio.

Both the characters in the radio play and the participants in the studio discussion mainly use

everyday speech. While the way of speaking in the studio talks is similar to natural dialogues

the language in the radio plays is rather geared to written than to spoken language. In most of

the plays Habakuk uses between ten and 20 different foreign words and several technical

24 A man reads his text and the narratress uses masculine forms when she talks about him. 25 Schnüfferl has a female voice and the narratress uses female forms when she addresses Schnüfferl. 26 Eveline studied Biology at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University of Frankfurt and therefore also has a

scientific background. Yet, her title, scientific status and competences are not mentioned in the radio shows with the result that the audience can not perceive her as a scientific expert. It is remarkable that even the kids in the studio think Tichy has more expertise than Eveline. During the studio talk in radio show four the children are wondering how a diamond can be made out of the ashes of a dead person. As they are not satisfied with Evelines answer one of the kids says: “We should have asked this question to professor Tichy”.

14

terms;27 only one of these is explained in each show. In the studio talks difficult words are

rarely mentioned and more often explained. Although the shows are in German in some of

them English words or names are mentioned. If this is the case in the studio talk they are often

translated. In the jingle at the beginning and in the middle of the show the title of the serial is

also read out in English.

The sentence structure differs according to the characters and persons speaking. Schnüfferl

and the children rather use short and simple sentences; to some extent this is also true for

Eveline. Tichy, Habakuk and the narratress sometimes use more complex and longer

sentences. In general extensive statements with height information density tend to be more

demanding regarding the syntax. Schnüfferl, Habakuk and the narratress seem to be spoken

by professional actors because the articulation is loud and clear, the intonation is diversified

and the tempo rather slow. On the opposite the children in the studio often sound uninflected

or inarticulate and speak quietly particularly at the end of a sentence, at longer statements or

when they are insecure.28 Tichy and Eveline appear more engaged but the latter has problems

in pronouncing words with “s”.29

Apart from some short comments on own experiences of the children and a humorous tale

told by Tichy narrative elements are missing in the radio shows. Examples are used more

often especially by the kids in the studio talks; in the radio plays they are rather rare. A good

instance for an illustrative analogy can be found in radio show number two were Habakuk

explains that a man could shave his face a whole year long with the energy that is needed for

the production of a single can. Unfortunately, analogies like that are not common in every

show. Very demonstrative are the small experiences Eveline conducts with the children in the

studio in some of the shows. Jokes or riddles30 do not appear at all but in two of the radio

plays several humorous situations results from the fact that Schnüfferl misunderstands

Habakuks explanations. Apart from two statements of the narratress and an appeal of Tichy

the audience is not directly addressed.

Very professional is the way music and noises are included in the radio plays. While

Schnüfferl and Habakuk are talking there are always some muted noises like birds, a ticking

clock, the sound of rain or a crackling fireplace in the background. Furthermore, a lot of short

noises illustrate parts of the text,31 give information on the place where the story is located or

characterize Schnüfferl and Habakuk. The piggy often grunts and squeaks when it is exited,

27 This is not true for radio show number one were only one foreign word is used. In radio show two Habakuk

mentions all in all 25 foreign words. 28 They are not used to the situation in the studio and therefore often behave shyly. Moreover, they are not

trained in articulating clearly. To get this problem under control the production team decided to work with a limited repertoire of children who after one or two shows get used to talking on the radio.

29 This is because of a hearing defect that forces her to use a hearing device. 30 In radio show number eleven the story is somehow similar to a riddle because Habakuk does not tell

Schnüfferl who he is talking about when telling the biography of Popper. In the middle of the radio play the piggy guesses the right answer.

31 For example, you can hear a truck when Habakuk explains that Bauxite must be transported, wind when he is talking about exhaust air or the noise of a factory and clanking crystal when he gives information on the production of glass bottles. In every single radio show there can be found many examples like that.

15

enquiring or sad and now and then you can hear the raven quack. Prevalently, actions like

closing a door, putting something on the table or sawing wood are expressed through noises.

Nearly all of these activities are additionally described by the narratress. Sometimes short

parts of instrumental music illustrate the text or express the feeling of the characters.

Music is not only important for the radio plays but is also used for jingles. Furthermore, in

every show there are some minutes of instrumental music32 between the radio play and the

studio talk and a song at the end. The melody of the last song is always chanted by one or two

women with bright voices who are often supported by kids. Sound, tempo, atmosphere and

lyrics are very different and several times the text fits to the topic of the radio show.33

A close look on the proportion of text and music shows that at least two-third of the time is

clearly dominated by text. Although the radio plays are enriched with noises and music their

main element is the dialog between Habakuk and Schnüfferl and the studio talks consist of at

least ten minutes without any additional sound. All together the three jingles, the music

between the radio play and the subsequent discussion and the song at the end last at most ten

minutes. Furthermore, the majority of the music is located at the end of the show with the

result that there is a long part where the audience has to listen attentively.

Conclusions

As a pre-condition for awakening interest and curiosity in dealing with scientific issues the

radio shows must have a clear relation to science which is more or less the case in all eleven

radio shows. In three of them the reference to science is limited to the title of the serial “Let’s

talk about science” and to the fact that parts of the content are based on scientific findings. If

the topic moreover is closely linked to everyday-life some children may fail to associate the

show with science. However, most of the shows contain a lot of detailed information on

various scientific aspects so that probably every child can find something new. As natural

sciences dominate the topics the image of science communicated may be slightly biased.

In addition to questions and results of research the shows now and then explain specific

disciplines and theories or discuss methodical issues. Impacts of scientific cognition are also

mentioned; to enhance the understanding of the relevance of science this should be

intensified. Scientific careers are dealt with in the form of biographies of famous scientists.

As these stories took place in the past they do not imply insights in today’s working

experiences and therefore are only partly suitable to encourage children to become scientists.

As this decision is still far away at this age this may not be the prior goal of the shows.

Interactions among children as well as between children and scientists occur in the studio

32 Usually you can hear flutes, guitars, bowed instruments and percussion. The melodies are rather simple and

express different kinds of atmosphere. 33 For example, the radio show on the emergence of rain, snow, hail and rainbows is terminated by a song on the

beauty of rainbows and the song at the end of the show on depressions is about a star that feels lonely and useless in the universe but in the end finds meaning in life. Similar thematic consonances between the topic of the radio show and the last song can be observed in radio show number three, eight and nine.

16

talks. However, the plurality concerning both the kids and the experts is rather limited. For the

enhancement of further exchange the shows should refer to the project website and weblog.

To spark interest in the content of the radio shows children should feel addressed, attracted

and entertained by the way the shows are designed. Fictional stories like the radio play

“Minitalk” are a good way to reach this goal. Unfortunately, the shows at hand do not exploit

the possibilities of story telling. The plot is simple, told in real-time and any form of action or

dramaturgical elements are missing. The locations where the story takes place are usual and

little diversified. Moreover, the narratress who communicates background information on the

surroundings and the characters does not speak much and humorous dialogues are rare. In

fact, Habakuks long statements, that provide plenty of detailed information, dominate the

story. However, the characters – in particular Schnüfferl – have a lot of potential for

identification and many situations in the radio play are familiar to kids. Also quite

entertaining is the versatile intonation of the characters and the imaginative way music and

noises are included.

The kids in the subsequent studio talk also provide possibilities for identification though in

the vast majority of the shows this is only true for boys because girls are not participating.

Moreover, all the stories on famous scientists are on men and unlike Gottfried Tichy Eveline

Karl does not act as a scientific expert but rather as a pedagogue. Little attractive seems to be

the fact that the studio talks consist of at least ten minutes dialogue without any noises, sound

or music. In general the parts dominated by text are much longer than the rest with the result

that listening to the radio shows demands a lot of attention.

Narrative elements, examples and analogies could be used more often to illustrate the content.

The experiments conducted by Eveline and the children in the studio seem to be helpful as

well. Moreover, the noises in the radio play support the text spoken by the characters. For all

the persons engaged in the radio shows mainly use everyday speech and rather simply and

short sentences the shows seem to be intelligible. Only long statements with high information

density are often more demanding. This should be avoided as well as foreign words and

technical terms especially when they are rather common and could easily be replaced by

German words. If such terms are inevitable they should be explained what is rarely done in

the radio shows. Furthermore, the children probably have problems in understanding English

words even if they are only few. While the characters in the radio play speak loud, clear and

slowly the statements of Eveline and the children are inarticulate and soft-spoken from time to

time and therefore harder to understand.

17

3.1.2 Analysis of the radio shows for adolescents

Structure of all radio shows34

Like the radio shows for kids the serial for adolescents also consists of eleven single shows

discussing diverse topics related to scientific work. The vast majority focuses on a special

research field or question and the people dealing with it. Radio show two and eight address

aspects concerning science as a working field.35 As the shows do not refer to each other the

order is not fixed and every one can be broadcasted without sending the others. This is

important because show number two, six and nine were produced in English and will also be

broadcasted as single shows in English-speaking countries.

All in all, the eleven shows refer to 15 different disciplines and some interdisciplinary

research areas; except for Biology and Sociology they all appear only once. While natural

sciences36 are dealt with in five and social sciences in four shows, humanities and technical

sciences are only discussed once. The figure below gives an overview on the radio shows,

their topics and the disciplines they are related to.

Nr. Title37

Topic Scientific discipline

1 A Career in Science Insights in being a scientist: Activities, motivations and experiences of scientists

Philosophy, Theology, Biology

2 Safer Internet Research on risks of using online media and how to deal with them

Communication science

3 Green Keys The relevance of nature in towns for climate, plants, animals and human beings

Geography, Ecology

4 Dyslexia and its Causes How to live with dyslexia and how research tries to help

Psychology, Neurology, Genetics

5 Robot Systems Robots, their range of applications and research on working together with them

Informatics, Robotic

6 Young Immigrants and Work

Research on job problems of young immigrants Sociology

7 Alpha-Risks Risks of permanent radioactive alpha radiation Physics

8 Women in Science The situation of women in science and what is being done to foster them

Gender studies, Sociology, Biology38

9 Autoimmune Diseases Personal experiences of a multiple sclerosis patient and forward looking research results

Biology

10 Poverty and Poverty-research

Causes and consequences of poverty and what could been done about it

Sociology, Ethics

11 Democracy and Public in Europe

Research on European democracy and the role of youth in this context

Political science

34 This chapter is based on the results of the first step of the qualitative content analysis focusing on structural

elements of all eleven radio shows for adolescents. For more information see page 6. 35 While the first gives insights in activities, motivations and experiences of scientists the second concentrates on

the situation of women in research. 36 Psychology was considered as a discipline of natural sciences because the radio show dealing with Psychology

focuses on neurological aspects. 37 Except for show number two, six and nine all the radio shows were produced in German. For a better

understanding the titles of these shows were translated for this report. 38 One of the interview partners, A.o. Prof. Dr. Fatima Ferreira, who works in the field of allergy diagnosis and

therapy, talks about her work.

18

All of the shows last about 30 minutes and are similar concerning their structure. They start

with a jingle of 30 seconds that consists of music, the title of the serial and a remark that the

shows are produced for adolescents. Afterwards the topic is presented by a young moderator.

Two of the shows are presented by a couple,39 in another two shows a woman leads through

the content, the rest of the moderators are young men. It is remarkable that women do not

only appear less frequently in this role but also tend to present shows related to social not to

natural sciences.

After the introduction the radio shows are structured by several parts of pre-recorded personal

or telephone interviews combined into thematic bundles and connected through the

moderation text. Few shows also include common journalistic forms like reportages, short

features, studio discussions or opinion polls. The different parts of the show are interrupted by

music. References to sources for further information are only provides in radio show number

one and the project website is mentioned twice. Most of the interview partners in the radio

shows are scientists although – except for two shows – at least one additional expert is

consulted.40 The vast majority of interview partners sound conspicuously older than the

moderators (40 to 50 years). In addition, teenagers and young adults are interviewed in ten of

the shows. All in all, women and men are equally represented in the role of experts and

adolescent interview partners.

Unlike the radio shows for children the serial for youngster refers to the field of science very

explicitly. In the first part of every show basic knowledge on the main topic is broadly

explained so that the audience gets all the information that is important for understanding.

Later on motivations for research in this field, specific methodical issue as well as possible

impacts of the findings are discussed. Several radio shows moreover report on specific

research projects most of them financed by the European Union. While in some shows like “A

Career in Science“ or „Safer Internet“ the parts referring explicitly to science are rather long

others have an emphasis on the discussion of research results. As both providing information

on findings and dealing with methods or impact of research is mainly done by means of

interviews with scientists there is a clear reference to science during the whole 30 minutes of

every radio shows.

Links to young people and their life-world can also be found in all eleven shows. Similar to

the shows for children the text in the jingle at the beginning says that the following production

was made for young adults. Unfortunately, in four shows children are also mentioned in the

jingle and the moderator in radio show number one talks about online risks for children and

youngster. In some of the shows the main topic is closely linked to adolescents because the

interviewed scientists are working in the field of youth research. This is especially true for

39 These are show number one “A Career in Science” and show number ten on poverty research. In the on

scientific careers the male moderator has the main part although the woman also plays an important role. In the show on poverty research it is the other way round.

40 Examples are a speech therapist in radio show four on dyslexia, a landscape architect in the show on green corridors in towns, the head of the initiative Saferinternet.at in the radio show on the risks of online media or an expert on radiation protection in the radio show on risks of alpha radiation.

19

radio show number two dealing with internet usage of teenagers and show number six on

problems of young immigrants in getting appropriate jobs. A more frequent mode to address

adolescents is through the moderation text. In nearly every show the moderator points out in

which ways young people can be affected by the discussed problem. This is the first thing

they do after introducing the topic at the beginning. In some shows they also mention

professions that could be interesting for youngsters or talks about films or characters that are

familiar to the target group.

Moreover, teenagers or young adults are participating in nearly every show as interview

partners. Most frequently they are asked about their knowledge, opinion or experiences

related to a main issue of the radio show without being an expert are having any special

interest in this topic. In half of the shows young people who are directly concerned by the

problems discussed get the opportunity to articulate their view. In both the show on dyslexia

and on autoimmune diseases young victims talk about their life with their illnesses and about

hope for new ways of treatment. A teenager from Nicaragua describes his worries in the radio

show on poverty and in the show on migration and work young immigrants report on their

experiences in Austria.

The way young people are integrated in the radio show on women in science is a singularity

because this is the only show where students are discussing the problem in the studio.

Unfortunately, scientists or politicians are not taking part in this discussion. Only in radio

show number seven on risks of alpha radiation adolescents do not participate at all. Little

reference to the target group can also be found in the show on green spaces in town because

neither topic nor moderation text are related to young people’s concerns.

Special aspects41

Although the five radio shows analysed in detail discuss their topic broadly they are all

focused and well structured. Nearly all of them start with an explanation of what the show is

about and give an overview on the different aspects that are discussed later on. So the

audience knows what it can expect and how the show is structured. Moreover, all the issues

covered are directly linked to the main topic and some of them are mentioned several times

and therefore enable recognition. Within the five radio shows analysed in detail there is only

one example for an excursus which still has a clear link to the main topic of the show.

Not only the structure but also the language is quite comprehensible. In all five shows the

moderators set foreign words and technical terms aside and mainly use everyday speech.

Moreover, they frequently summarize and recapitulate statements and lead over to new issues.

41 This chapter is based on the findings of the second step of the qualitative content analysis. In this research step

five selected radio shows for young people were analysed in detail according to special aspects concerning attractiveness and intelligibility of the shows. For more information see page 6. In choosing the radio shows we paid attention on plurality. It was important that at least one show in English, one show on science as a working field and one show particularly addressing girls were considered. Furthermore, we choose one radio show on natural sciences, one on social sciences and one on technical sciences. The five selected shows therefore are “Safer Internet”, “A Career in Science”, “Green Keys”, “Robot Systems” and “Women in Science”.

20

As the audience is often directly addressed and many different rhetorical forms are used it is

easy to concentrate on listening to them. In the radio show on robot systems the moderator

puts himself in the place of the audience and leads through the show as if he was a listener

without any information on the topic. Furthermore, he brings several examples from famous

films and literature. The latter is also true for the moderator in the show on safer internet

issues who moreover tends to illustrate facts by means of creative analogies or metaphorical

phrases. The moderator of the show on career in science convinces with humorous statements

like a comical description of common images of scientists or a funny story on a couple of blue

mice he smuggled out of the laboratory. However, the text is obviously written down before

the show and not spoken freely but read aloud. Moreover, the intonation and tempo of some

moderators are rather unvaried with the result that they sound monotonously. This is

especially true for the show on green spaces in urban areas because the moderator in addition

talks very slowly. Yet, an exception is the lively moderator in the radio show on careers in

science.

The interview partners in the radio shows, who are mostly scientists, use a more complex

language than the moderators. They express themselves through longer and more complicated

sentences and tend to use foreign words and technical terms. In particular Peter Kopacek and

Jürgen Breuste two scientists interviewed in the radio shows on robots and on green spaces

mainly use technical language. However, the majority of these words can either be derived

from the context or are explained by the moderator or the experts themselves. Moreover, most

of the interview partners talk rather slowly with the result that they are comprehensible. Yet,

this can also lead to the effect that they sound uninflected. This is not true for Clemens

Sedmak who talks very fast, loudly and enthusiastic about his experiences as a scientist in

radio show number one on career in science. The majority of the experts seldom address the

audience, tell stories or jokes or use illustrating examples and analogies. As they rather tend to

list figures and facts listening to them may demand a lot of concentration.

The teenagers who are interviewed in nearly every radio show on the contrary liven up the

shows with short and concise statements. Many of them seem to have fun in being

interviewed; they often laugh and give spontaneous sometimes even quixotic answers.

Frequently they quote examples, use narrative elements and talk about their experiences or

future plans. However, this is not true for the radio show on green spaces in town where the

interviewed adolescents sound little interested. The young adults participating in the

discussion on women in science are also rather serious but nevertheless involved and

concerned by the topic.

As the radio shows intent to impart knowledge on scientific issues they are all clearly

dominated by textual elements. In the majority of the shows the diverse thematic parts are

separated by music, at the average by three different songs. These are either electronic or rock

21

songs many of them with vocal melodies and lyrics that fit to the topic of the show.42 In the

radio show on green spaces in urban areas and in the show on poverty segments of only one

song are used throughout the whole show alternating with textual parts.

Music is moreover important for the jingle of the serial “Let’s talk about science” and as

background sound while people are talking. The statements of the moderators are in many

cases underlayed with low and unexcited instrumental music which is mostly interrupted

when experts are interviewed. At the average every show uses two different songs that are

similar in sound and melody and often remind of the jingle at the beginning.

Compared to music noises are of little importance for the radio shows for young people.

However, remarkable is the beginning of the radio show on safer internet issues because it

consists of a montage including noises of an internet modem, typing on a keyboard and music

from the serial Star Trek. Interesting is furthermore the radio show on careers in science. In

this show the sound of the last word in the sentence “cognition is a kick” is modified through

deceleration and reverberation and repeated several times in the show mainly together with

music. In addition, you can hear the mice in the laboratory peeping now and then. All the

other shows sporadically use noises that more or less fit to the content.

Conclusions

To awaken interest in dealing with science, the radio shows first of all must have a clear

reference to scientific issues and should contain miscellaneous information. As the serial

broadly discusses various topics related to overall 15 disciplines it seems to fulfil this

precondition. Apart from research findings and methodical questions applications and

possible impacts of scientific knowledge are dealt with. In several shows victims of illnesses

or social inequality illustrate the relevance of science for society and everybody’s life. Two of

the radio shows explicitly deal with science as a working field, one of them providing insights

in personal experiences of scientists and the other one focussing on the situation of women in

research. Both shows provide information that can be helpful for young adults – in particular

young women – who consider a scientific career. The majority of the shows highlight the

topic from the perspective of many different interview partners and therefore bring together

the concerns of scientists, young people and the civil society. Unfortunately, there is only one

studio talk where adolescents discuss about scientific questions personally. To enhance

interaction such talks should be conducted more frequently. Moreover, researchers, politicians

and representatives of civil initiatives should be invited. To initialise further examination and

discussions references to other sources of information or the project website should also have

been provided more often.

If adolescents shall be reached, it is important that they feel addressed by the shows. First of

all the jingle text says that the serial is produced for young people. In two radio shows

children are also included; as an effect teenagers may distance themselves because they do not

42 Good examples are the European hymn in the radio show on democracy in Europe or a song on living together

with people of different origin in the radio show on young immigrant and work.

22

want to be put on the same level with kids. Several shows are thematically linked to teenagers

due to the main topic or marginal aspects like online pornography or robots playing football.

Such issues related to the life-world of adolescents could have been strengthened. The

majority of the radio shows try to address the target group through the moderation text which

is especially successful in the show on risks of alpha radiation. In addition, the moderators are

rather young but predominately male which both is not true for the experts. Teenagers, who

may have potential for identification for young listeners, are frequently interviewed in the

shows. Yet, it is important to choose youngsters who really have to say something to the

topic. If this is not the case their statements are unsubstantial or they sound uninvolved like in

the radio show on green spaces in town. Very effective are the two shows that are designed

around the story of young victims of illnesses. As the perspectives of these teenagers, their

experiences, worries and hopes are a main aspect in the shows the audience can easily identify

with them.

At least 20 minutes of every show are clearly dominated by text, and all in all, the information

density is high. The audience has to concentrate for a long period which may lead to

inattention. Elements that liven up the shows like statements of teenagers or montages of

noises and music or often located at the beginning but rarely in the middle or at the end when

it is getting harder to concentrate. Moreover, the background music is quite similar all over

the show which on the one hand enables recognition on the other hand sounds monotonic.

Therefore, various kinds of music, sounds and noises should be integrated more often all over

the shows. However, most of the moderators use many different rhetorical forms like

narratives, examples, analogies, metaphors or jokes and are quite entertaining. Unfortunately,

this is not true for experts and scientists, and humour only plays an important role in one of

the shows. In addition, both the moderators and the interview partners tend to rather low

intonation and little variation concerning tempo and volume. This is only partial true for the

shows moderated by a couple because the alternation between a feminine and masculine voice

bewares of monotony. Therefore, this form of moderation could have been chosen more often.

As the moderators lead through the different parts of the shows and explain difficult

statements the serial all in all is quite comprehensible. The shows are all well structured and

do not presume any knowledge. The language of the moderators and teenagers is rather

simple concerning both diction and syntax and apart from few interview partners everybody

speaks loud, clearly and not to fast. The language of scientists and experts is more complex,

they frequently use foreign words and technical terms and their statements are full of

information, facts and figures. Nevertheless, there statements are mostly understandable in

particular when the difficult terms are explained.

23

3.2 Findings of the focus groups43

3.2.1 Focus groups with children

Enthusiasm on the one hand disinterest on the other one

The first focus group discussion with kids was conducted on the 11th of December in a rural

village in an institution taking care of children after school. Eight boys and four girls between

eight and ten years participated in the discussion. Half of them have parents who are not from

Austria; many of these kids only have basic German skills. Most of the parents work in jobs

that require just primary school or a professional training. This is not true for Benedict;44 his

parents are working as a teacher and a scientist.

From all the media the kids use books are most important to them followed by CD players,

computer games and the internet. Nevertheless, they use TV most often preferring shows for

children. Although some of them regularly listen to the radio it is least relevant to them, just

like newspapers. More than the half does not even know a radio station and when they turn on

the radio they only want to hear to music.

Together with these children the evaluation team listened to the radio show „Just a can“ on

the production and recycling of cans and paper.45 At the beginning the children seem

concentrated although many of them start drawing. Later on a couple of children becomes

disquietingly and can hardly stay seated.46 In the subsequent discussion these kids behave

quite inattentive. They do not want to talk and if they are directly addressed they answer with

few words expressing that they were bored and do not like the show. Unfortunately, they are

not able to give reasons for that.47 Several other kids keep calm while listening to the show.

Most of them play an active part in the following discussion and declare that they like the

radio show very much. They call it fascinating, exciting and really interesting and would like

to hear further shows of the serial. In addition, few kids are somewhat interested but far away

from being enthusiastic.

For the children the main topic of the show is not the production and recycling of cans and

paper but environmental protection. All the information in the show is in their opinion first of

all important because it enables to act responsible. For the same reason many of them

consider the topic as important. Jennifer moreover establishes relations to her own

experiences. In addition, the kids are convinced that the show is closely related to science

although they can not explain in which way.

43 The following chapters briefly report the findings of four group discussions that were conducted with children

and adolescents. For further information on this research step see page 6 and 7. 44 To assure the anonymity of the kids this report does not use the real names of the children. 45 This show was chosen because of its clear reference to science. 46 Remarkable is the behaviour of Georg who unfortunately had to leave after listening to the show. From the

beginning he articulates that he is not interested, the show makes him fall asleep and he would prefer sitting in a plane for four hours to listening to this show.

47 Either they simply don’t want to say more or they can’t because they did not really listen to the show.

24

Some of the facts communicated by the show are already known by the kids; nevertheless,

they all learn something new. While listening to the show some children react astonished

when they hear how many cans and paper are produced every year. Later on they say they

were surprised that this figure was so high. For some kids it is also new how much electricity

is needed to produce a single beverage can and which harmful substances result from that.

Celine is astounded that only half of the cans are recycled. Few kids say that the radio show

made them curious and they would like to learn more about this topic but others disagree.

The kids who are in favour of the radio show do not only regard it as informative but also as

entertaining. Above all they are fond of the characters in the radio play which is even true for

Damian who was bored by the show. Habakuk appeals to the kids because he knows a lot and

acts reasonable and Schnüfferl in their opinion is cute and facetious. Moreover, their names,

behaviour and way of speaking seem funny to the children. Two kids can also identify with

the children in the studio talk because they sound inquisitive and fascinated. While Jennifer

would appreciate if the participants were not only boys the sex of the moderator seems of no

matter. Benedict is fond of the experiments in the studio and would like to hear more of them.

The way music and noises are included in the radio show is also attractive for the kids. In

their opinion it fits to the content and sounds pleasant. Even Yasmin who does not like the

radio show appreciates it. Especially appealing are the jingle at the beginning because it make

curious and the song at the end due to its funny and lovely melody. Damian is the only one

who would prefer rock music. The children do not agree upon the question if there should be

more or less songs; yet, all of them would prefer some music in the studio talk. Only few can

remember any noises. However, these kids appreciate them and would even like to hear more.

For some children the radio show is comprehensible others have problems in understanding

but all of them agree that the show is too short for that big amount of information. Even the

kids who are enthusiastic and had no difficulties in understanding declare that it is too fast and

many things should be explicated more extensively. Moreover, they are annoyed by the fact

that foreign terms are mentioned without any explanation and one boy is bothered by the way

Eveline pronounces words with “s”.48

All in all, the children are split in two groups: Some of them listen carefully, talk a lot in the

discussion and are in favour of the show. The others behave inattentive, dislike the show but

do not want to talk about it. For the latter all come from families with foreign origin and have

problems in speaking German missing language skills could be the reason.49 This assumption

is strengthened by the fact that two of these kids say they stopped listening to the radio show

48 As already mentioned Eveline has problems in pronouncing this letter because of a hearing defect. 49 This is not true for Georg who was quite bored while listening to the show (see footnote 46). He was born in

Austria and speaks perfect German. Unfortunately, he could not participate in the discussion and therefore could not express why he disliked the show.

25

because it was too difficult. Gender, educational background of the parents, media usage and

the importance of radio only seem to have influence on some of the kids.50

Creative ways of dealing with the show

The second discussion took place on the 20th of December in an elementary school in an

urban area with eleven girls and 14 boys between eight and ten years. Except for two kids

with Serbian parents they all come from Austria. Supposable these two children were also

born here because they speak perfectly German. Most of the parents are employed in jobs that

require a specific professional training; several others work in areas where higher education is

common. Only few are at home or earn their money with unskilled labour.

Concerning media these children consider books as by far most relevant followed by music

and video players, television and computer games. Nevertheless, most frequently used is TV

although books are also read quite frequently. However, still more than the half turns on the

radio several times a week. Apart from few kids who also hear news or weather they prefer

listening to music. About a third does not know a radio station; the others frequently mention

Ö3 which they like most. Nearly all kids have an own radio set in their room so they can turn

it on whenever they want.

This group of kids listened to the show “Shadows on the soul”51 on depressions. At the

beginning they all seem attentive although several kids start drawing. In the middle of the

show some begin to banter with their neighbours. During longer parts of music many children

move to the rhythm with the result that they quiet down for a wile after the music stopped.

The subsequent discussion is very lively because nearly every child wants to say a lot.

The vast majority of the children like the show although none of them is as enthusiastic as

Benedict, Jennifer and Celina in the first focus group discussion. Yet, in this group there is no

child that really dislikes it. First of all the kids appreciate the radio play while the studio talk

in their opinion is boring due to too much talking and a lack of noises.52

For the children the main topic is not depression but friendship and helpfulness. In their

opinion the show has nothing to do with science; Daniel is even convinced that the more

scientific parts on hormonal reasons for depression do not fit to the rest of the show and

should be left out. Therefore, it is not surprising that the children can’t remember any

information on depression but talk a lot about emotional sequences. One scene in the radio

play was discussed quite intensely: When Habakuk explains possible consequences of

depression he also mentions suicide. Schnüfferl reacts appalled because he fears his

depressive friend could die. Many children consider this as very sad, some would prefer if it

was cut out and two boys suggest the term “suicide” should be replaced with “severe illness”.

50 For example, Benedict who appreciates the shows also likes to watch shows on scientific content on TV.

Furthermore, his father works as a scientist in a research institute. However, similar reasons can not be observed concerning the rest of the kids who like the show.

51 This show was chosen because – unlike the show presented in the first focus group – it has only few references to science and the way the topic is discussed links the show closely to the everyday-life of children. Therefore, different reactions could be expected.

52 Daniel several times suggests that the show should only consist of the play.

26

As Schnüfferls reaction is overstated and his words are given a boost through reverberation,

suspenseful music and disharmonious sounds few kids do not take it seriously but rather

consider it funny. Mario furthermore is concerned by a story of a kid in the studio who talks

about the death of his uncle. This reminds him of his own granduncle who died three month

ago. However, all in all the children appreciate that the radio show is very emotional although

for some the happy end of the story is very important.

Showing emotions and being willing to help others are the main features the kids attribute to

the characters in the radio play. These are also the dominant reasons why they like them.

Furthermore, the children appreciate that Schnüfferl and Habakuk are animals. Many kids are

especially fond of the piggy because of its excited behaviour, its funny voice, its way of

speaking and the noise it makes when it grunts. The corbie appeals to them due to the sound

of his voice and the way it speaks to Schnüfferl. However, Markus suggests he should also

make funny noises and Stefan dislikes that he talks so much. It is interesting that some kids

are not sure if Schnüfferl is female or male. Schnüfferl therefore seems to have potential for

identification for kids of both sexes.

The children express many ideas how to improve the radio play. First of all they wish there

were more characters. These could be friends or parents in the shape of a cat, a cow, a

hedgehog, a crow with fledglings, a reindeer or above all a dog. Philip would appreciate if

Schnüfferls friend appeared in the play and Daniel wants the characters to speak dialect.

Secondly the children wish that the play took place at a more interesting location for example

in school or on a farm with a dunghill, a haystack, a tractor and a doghouse. Furthermore, the

story should in their opinion not be told in real time but cover longer periods. In general they

prefer a more complex plot and more action. Two girls dislike the end of the story because it

leaves open if Schnüfferl succeeds in helping his friend. The narratress does not make a

strong impression on the kids because some of them do not remember her and want the story

to be told by a man who uses phrases like in fairy tales. All in all, the kids consider the radio

play as funny; nevertheless, they want humour to play a bigger role.

The participants in the studio talk do not appeal to the children at all. Some boys say it is

annoying that Eveline repeatedly uses words like “right”, “well done” or “great” and several

children dislike the sound of her voice which they describe as throaty and boring. Dominik

moreover is bothered by the children in the studio who know much more than he does.

However, half of the kids appreciate that children appear in the radio show although several

girls wish the guests were not only boys.

Concerning the music the children have different opinions but most of them do not like it.

They call it boring and bothersome and wish it was funnier. Some suggest rock or even

operatic music. As it does not appeal to them for many kids the music in the show rather is a

distracting intermission than a welcome diversification. Markus even compares it to

advertising. Nevertheless, the kids are not sure if there should be more or less music in the

show. Apart from the sound Schnüfferls makes when he grunts they can not remember any

noises but the grunting appeals to them very much.

27

The majority of the children have no problems in understanding the radio play although a boy

says Schnüfferl talks to fast. Furthermore, some words like hormone or melanin are not

familiar to the kids. According to Daniel an explanation would not help anything. He rather

wants the characters to use words everybody knows. The studio talk seems less intelligible

than the play because several children say the content was too difficult. Many others have

problems in understanding Eveline and the children because in their opinion they talk too

inarticulate, quietly and much to fast. Furthermore, several kids are bothered by the English

words in the jingle because they are not able to understand them even if they listen carefully.

All in all, the radio show appeals to the majority of the children although they have a lot of

recommendations how to improve it. About the half of the group – in particular girls – would

also listen to the show at home. Some boys would only do this if it was modified in the way

they suggest. Nevertheless, all of them want to know if and when the serial “Let’s talk about

science” can be listen to on the radio. Sandra above all is attracted by this kind of show

because stories and plays are rarely broadcasted on radio; nearly the whole class agrees to

hear. However, many children would prefer to see a serial like this on television.

Conclusions

The first radio show on depression appeals to the majority of the kids who listened to it and

several children react fascinated, astonished and curious to the second show “Just a can”.

Therefore, both shows have the potential to arouse interest at least in some children. However,

there are also kids who dislike the second show on recycling of cans and paper.

While one of the shows contains new and astonishing information on the recycling of cans

and paper which the children moreover regard as closely linked to science and important for

responsible behaviour the kids in the second focus group discussion cannot remember any

facts provided by the show. This show on depression is rather perceived as a story on

friendship with no relation to science, and the main interest of the kids does not concern

information on depression but the story of the radio play. Therefore, “Shadows on the soul”

seems less suitable to impart knowledge on scientific issues.

As “Just a can” provides a lot of facts the information density is quite high which leads to the

effect that many children perceive the show as too short and fast. Moreover, the large number

of unexplained foreign words and technical terms causes difficulties. Therefore, some kids –

especially migrants – have problems in understanding. The second show seems to be more

intelligible although the children are bothered by some English words in the jingle and the

fast, inarticulate and quiet way of speaking in the studio talk. Nevertheless, both shows are all

in all comprehensible for the majority of the kids and therefore more or less appropriate to

communicate information in an understandable way for children between eight and ten years,

at least if their mother tongue is German.

To reach children with the serial „Let’s talk about science“ the shows must be attractive and

entertaining for the target group. Concerning “Just a can” this is true for about half of the kids

while „Shadows on the soul“ appeals to nearly all children that listened to it. The kids mainly

28

like the radio play while except for the experiments in the studio the subsequent discussion

does not appeal to them. The funny and emotional characters with which both girls and boys

can identify with attract to them most. The boys in the studio are only enjoyable for two

children and therefore seem to have limited potential for identification especially for girls who

wish female guest would also have participated. Concerning style and length of music the

children in both discussions have various opinions. The kids who listened to „Just a can“

rather enjoy it while the majority of children in the second discussion dislike the songs. The

noises included in the radio plays attract nearly every child in both groups; moreover, they all

wish some music was integrated in the studio talk. All in all, the shows – in particular the

radio plays – seem to some extent be suitable to address and entertain children although the

kids have a lot of ideas how to improve them. Above all they wish humour played a bigger

role and the full potential of storytelling was tapped. However, there are a couple of children

who were quite bored by the radio show on recycling. Yet, it this has probably something to

do with the fact that these kids had difficulties in understanding.

The radio show on recycling seems to polarise more than the show on depression. On the one

hand it bores and alienates a couple of kids probably due to difficulties in understanding on

the other hand it fascinates others. Concerning the latter the show succeeds in raising interest

and enthusiasm for scientific issues, in producing astonishment and curiosity as well as in

addressing and entertaining the listeners. The second show on depression altogether is

received better than „Just a can“. The vast majority of the children are somewhat attracted and

entertained by the show and none of them really dislikes it. However, unlike the show on

recycling of paper and cans „Shadows on the soul“ does neither fascinate or astonish the kids

nor does it initiate interest in further information. In addition, the way the show is designed

seems to make it difficult for kids to perceive the scientific knowledge provided by the show.

3.2.2 Focus groups with adolescents

Lack of interest among young teenagers

Concerning the focus groups with adolescents two different age groups with disparate

educational background were selected. The younger teenagers interviewed in the discussion

on the 22nd of January are between 13 and 15 years old and attend a Hauptschule in an

Austrian town. In urban areas this form of school is mostly chosen by children who do not

plan to attend any further schooling after finishing compulsory education. The majority of the

parents of these nine girls and eleven boys have jobs were a professional training is needed;

others earn their money with unskilled work or stay at home. Only few are employed in

professions that require higher levels of education and none of them has a university degree.

About the half of the overall 20 teenagers are children of migrants. Most of them come from

former Yugoslavia or Turkey. Some were already born in Austria, and except for a French

speaking girl from Congo none of them has difficulties with the German language.

29

Concerning media the internet is by far most relevant for the young people in this class

followed by music players, TV and DVD players; nevertheless, they use television most

frequently. The Internet is primarily important for entertainment (games, videos, pictures,

music download) and for communication (mails, chats and SMS). Apart from few kids all of

them have internet access at home and even more than the half have TV sets in their own

rooms. On TV they prefer American serials, sport and music which they mainly watch on the

Austrian public service programme ORF1 or on Pro7, a private TV station in Germany.53

Radio is of little importance; so are newspapers, magazines and books. Only the half of the

class turns the radio on regularly mainly to hear music; some of them also listen to news,

sports or weather. They all know few radio channels; most frequently listed is Ö354 which is

very popular among them. It is remarkable that about the half of the class do not have a radio

set in their own room. Yet, some kids also listen to radio on the internet.

Together with the evaluation team this group of adolescents listened to the radio show ”Robot

Systems”.55 All in all, the class seems quite concentrated during listening although some

teenagers talk to their neighbours or exchange pieces of paper. In the last minutes of the show

many of them start behaving disquietly which increases until the end. In the subsequent

discussion they do not talk much which is why it does not last very long.56 Most reactions

result from the question what they can remind of while the answers are short when their

opinion is asked. At the end of the discussion some kids start talking with each other loudly

and giving silly answers so that it is hard for the interviewer to bring up all his questions.

The vast majority of the participants do not like the radio show because they find it boring and

uninteresting. Only few enjoy specific sequences like the interviews with teenagers, the part

when the moderator mentions famous films with robots or when he talks about robots playing

football. Concerning the latter a couple of kids – both girls and boys – would appreciate more

information. In addition, several adolescents like the way the moderator introduced Dr. Dr.

Peter Kopacek, a scientist specialised on robotic, because in their opinion his foreign name

sounds funny in combination with his titles. However, even the kids who enjoy some parts all

in all do not like the show, and none of them would listen to it at home or is interested in

further episodes of the serial “Let’s talk about science”.

One of the reasons why the kids do not like the show is the main topic. Although they attend a

school focusing on technical skills they are not interested in robots and do not esteem this

issue as relevant. The teenagers declare that they would prefer listening to shows on fashion,

53 In Austria nearly 90% of the population receives German programmes via satellite or cable. 54 Ö3 is the most popular radio channel in Austria. Although it is a public service channel it is mainly financed

by advertisement. Originally the target group were adolescents but meanwhile people of nearly all ages listen to this channel which plays recent hits as well as hits from the last two decades.

55 Unlike the show “Career in science” which was presented to teenagers in the second group discussion this show was produced in German and has little reference to the life-world of adolescents. The difference to the show “Career in Science” concerning these aspects was the main reason why it was chosen for the focus group. Furthermore, this show is on technical issues and the adolescents it was presented to attend a technical school. Therefore, it may fit to the interests of the participants in the discussion.

56 While the other discussions lasted between 41 and 55 minutes this discussion was already finished after 34 minutes.

30

music, soccer, aliens, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex or violence. Few are also interested in

nature, animals and life under water. Apart from the latter these topics have nothing to do

with science. In spite of their disinterest several adolescents can remind of many facts

mentioned in the show. They are able to repeat dates, single statements of different persons or

the content of specific sequences. In particular Johannes knows a lot about the show although

he dislikes it and behaves quite unresting while listening to it. Many teenagers say a big

amount of the information in the show is new to them but they perceive it as unimportant.

The majority of the class has no problems in understanding the radio show. However, Lena

does not grasp the content of several sequences and Victoria has great difficulties in following

the show because she came from Congo to Austria half a year ago and recently started

learning German. Most comprehensible are the statements of the teenagers interviewed at the

beginning of the show. While many kids say that Astrid Weiß, a scientist working in a

research project on teamwork with robots, is also quite intelligible some have problems in

understanding Peter Kopacek due to his complex and inarticulate way of speaking. A difficult

sequence is when the moderator watches a video on robots together with Astrid Weiß who

explains what she can see on the screen; most of the teenagers say they can not reconstruct

what the video is about. Foreign words and technical terms seem to be no problem because

none of the teenagers complains about them. When directly asked only Tanja reacts; she does

not bother about these words although she did not understand all of them. On the contrary, in

her opinion they make Peter Kopacek sound erudite and therefore more interesting.

Concerning the amount of music in the show different opinions can be observed though the

majority of the class would prefer more songs. However, all agree that the music in the show

is not attractive and should be replaced by recent hits, hip hop, house, RnB (Rythmn&Blues),

punk or rap music.57 In addition, some teenagers complain that the show is too long, Peter

Kopacek and the moderator talk too much, the latter sounds boring and monotonous and the

interview partners are too old. The teenagers who talk about robots at the beginning of the

show do not appeal to all participants either. While several kids find their statements

interesting others perceive them as stupid, unrealistic and childish for which reason they

suggest people younger than 1358 should not be interviewed. Moreover, the majority of the

class agrees that the show was more appealing and easier to understand if it was produced for

TV not for radio because television in their opinion is more appropriate for discussing such

topics.

Well educated young adults demand highest quality

Another discussion with older adolescents was conducted on the 7th of January in a class of a

secondary school with 21 girls and five boys between 17 and 19 years. As this kind of school

called Gymnasium does not teach any skills for specific jobs and finishes with a degree

57 This was not possible because the radio shows are available on the internet for free for which reason

copyrighted songs could not be included. 58 This is there own age therefore they suggest people younger than themselves should not be interviewed.

31

qualifying for university most of these teenagers will afterwards probably start studying.

Nearly all of them have at least one parent with higher educational background; some parents

even have a university degree. Except for Tamara from Germany and Shirin from Azerbaijan

all the teenagers come from Austria. Shirin supposable was born here because she speaks

perfect German with a slight Austrian accent.

From all media these adolescents perceive music players, internet and books as most

important. Yet, concerning media usage TV plays the biggest role. Radio is only considered

as relevant by the half of the participants; nevertheless, about two third turn on the radio

several times a week. Apart from music they also listen to news, weather or traffic

information and some are interested in radio shows on specific topics. All in all, the teenagers

know a lot of different channels, some even mention Radiofabrik Salzburg. Their favourite

programmes are FM459 or Ö3. On TV they prefer American serials which they mainly watch

on ORF1 or on Pro7. A relevant part of the class also mentions Arte or MTV as their favourite

TV channel. The internet, which they all have access to at home, is used for various different

purposes like reading news, watching pictures or videos, listening to music or radio, shopping

or downloads. Most important are communication tools (E-Mails, social networking sites) and

the search for information.

The evaluation team presented the English show “A Career in Science”60 to this class. Apart

from some teenagers who talk to their neighbours or exchange small letters once in a while

they are all very attentive while listening. Even when the school bell rings to signalize a break

they keep calm. Afterwards some teenagers say their concentration decreased in the middle of

the show. In the subsequent discussion they keep concentrated until the end.

Although they listened well most of the teenagers do not like the show; several others say it is

somewhat interesting but not good enough to voluntarily listen to it in their spare time. Yet,

some can imagine turning it on to improve their English skills. The main reason why they

dislike “A Career in Science” is the topic which they consider as uninteresting and boring.

Only Melanie perceives it as relevant because all of them will soon have to decide what to do

after school. In the first instance the participants criticise that the show is not focused enough

but discusses science very broadly and superficially. In their opinion it is not primarily a show

on scientific issues but on job experiences and on planning personal future. The majority of

the class would rather prefer shows on specific research fields especially concerning societal

questions or foreign countries, cultures, religions or languages. When they get to know the

topics of the other ten shows of the serial “Let’s talk about science” they consider them as

more exciting. Especially “Robot Systems”, “Women in Science” and “European democracy”

appeal to them.

59 FM4 is an Austrian public service channel especially designed for young people who are not only interested in

actual commercial hits but above all in alternative music. It covers a wide range of different music styles like hip hop, electronic, world music, pop, rock, punk, reggae, hard rock or heavy metal. Moreover, it provides news in German, English and French and broadcasts a lot of shows with rather long spoken parts.

60 This show was chosen because it is English and the topic has a close relation to teenagers at this age. They attend their last year at school and afterwards have to decide on their future jobs or on further education.

32

The teenagers are bored by the fact that the show does not contain much new information or

insights. Most of the content is already familiar to them for which reason they perceive the

show as little sophisticated and wish it provided more stuff for reflexion. Therefore, it is not

surprising that the show does neither change their knowledge on science nor arouses curiosity

or interest in further information. Working in science seemed boring and difficult to them

before listening to the radio show as well as afterwards.

They agree that all in all the radio show is too long. Concerning the amount of music they

have different opinions but none of them likes the songs which they describe as strange,

spiritual, esoteric, nerve-racking or terrible.61 Karin compares it to advertisement for a

wellness bath. Although they all would prefer some other kind of music they can not express

how it should sound like.

Nevertheless, there are also some aspects the adolescents appreciate. First of all the

moderators – a man and a woman – appeal to the majority of the class primarily due to their

convenient way of speaking which in their opinion is smooth without sounding monotonous.

Some participants are convinced that it is easier to listen to a couple than to a single

moderator because of the different pitches of the voices. Some boys are also attracted by the

humorous statements the male moderator makes from time to time.

Concerning the interview partners Peter Hammerl and Geja Oostingh are most attractive for

the teenagers. Erich Hamberger and Daniel Bischur do not leave a strong impression and

Clemens Sedmak does not appeal to them. On the contrary, they even make fun of his

enthusiastic and lively way of speaking. Anna criticises that age and academic position of the

interview partners are left open and Christoph states that four men and only one woman are

interviewed. He thinks this reflects the real proportion of women in science which according

to Shirin should be avoided because it strengthens gender stereotypes.

The statements of the pupils who are interviewed at the beginning of the show seem irrelevant

to some adolescents. Others like them because they liven up the show; they perceive them as

funny due to the unskilled way of expressing themselves in English. All agree that in general

they appreciate young interview partners in such shows as long as they have something

essential to say. The majority would therefore prefer young students who already have some

experience concerning university and science.

Moreover, the adolescents are bothered by the fact that the mother tongue of the interview

partners is not English but German. All the interviewed scientists are able to speak fluently

and express themselves quite well. Yet, the teenagers wish they spoke perfect English without

any accent. In their opinion an English radio show in the first instance has the purpose to

improve the English skills of the audience which according to them is not the case concerning

this show.

As the teenagers have only few difficulties in understanding and are all able to grasp the main

issues the English language is no problem for them. On the contrary many of them appreciate

61 As the shows can be downloaded on the internet for free copyrighted music could not be used for wich reason

the repertoire on songs which were available for the production was rather small.

33

it.62 Clemens Sedmak is the only person the teenagers do not understand well. They criticise

his unsteady way of speaking which in their opinion results from the fact that he sometimes

speaks too loud.They say he also talks inarticulate and too fast because he tries to

communicate too much information in too short time. All in all, the radio show seems to be

quite comprehensible for this group of adolescents. Only Anna says she would prefer a

German radio show. In her opinion the English language may frighten off listeners especially

because the show is on scientific issues which are difficult anyway.

Regardless of the differing appraisals of the show none of the teenagers would listen to “A

Career in Science” at home. The main reason for this is the way they use radio in their daily

lives. The majority never turns on the radio to listen to a specific show but simply wishes to

hear music while doing something else. Some even have problems in concentrating on spoken

words without seeing the speaker. They would prefer similar shows in TV because this

medium provides both acoustical and visual stimuli. However, there are some adolescents in

this class who generally appreciate news, reportages or other informative shows on radio.

Nevertheless, they would not voluntarily listen to “A Career in Science” either, not because it

is on science but due to the lack of information that is really new to them.

Conclusions

Neither the first radio show on “Robot Systems” nor the second show “A Career in Science”

seems to be able to arouse interest, enthusiasm or curiosity in dealing with scientific issues –

at least not concerning the teenagers participating in the focus group discussions. Several

older adolescents who listened to the show on scientific careers find it somewhat interesting

but the majority of the class considers it as boring. The younger teenagers who listened to the

show on robotic are not interested either even though they attend a school with an emphasis

on technology. Therefore, it is not surprising that none of the participants of both focus groups

would voluntarily listen to the show or wishes to get more information on the topic. While

some of the older teenagers are generally interested in radio shows on scientific issues and can

image to listen to other episodes of the serial “Let’s talk about science” the younger pupils are

not curious to hear similar radio shows at all.

One of the reasons why they dislike the radio shows is that they fail in entertaining them. The

way the radio shows are designed bores them above all due to the topic, the kind of music and

the lack of potential for identification and humorous sequences. Nevertheless, both shows

contain some parts that appeal to the youngsters mostly because they consider them as funny

although this is not intended by the show.63

Unlike the children only few teenagers have difficulties in understanding the show presented

to them. If there are problems they mainly result from the fact that some interview partners

speak too loud, fast and inarticulate or use too complex sentences; foreign words or technical

62 It has to be considered that the class listened to the radio show at a time when they usually have English so

they were prepared for dealing with this language. 63 For example they laugh about Peter Kopacek’s name and titles, about the lively and enthusiastic way Clemens

Sedmaks speaks or about the English skills of the interviewees.

34

terms are unproblematic. Even the vast majority of adolescents with parents from foreign

countries comprehend the shows quite well so both “Robot Systems” and “A Career in

Science” seem to be intelligible for the target group. Yet, it has to be considered that the

young adults who listened to the English show have advanced English skills due to their age

and education. Younger teenagers with less competence in English may have problems in

understanding this show.

While the radio show on robotic provides much new information for the teenagers the content

of the show on career in science is already familiar to the listeners. Although the younger

adolescents are bored they can remember a lot of different facts for which reason the radio

show on robotic seems to be capable to impart new knowledge on scientific issues at least

concerning teenagers between 13 and 15 with low educational level. However, the youngsters

consider the content of the show as irrelevant. Therefore, it’s a moot question whether they

will keep it in mind for more than a few days. The show “A Career in Science” does not seem

to be suitable to communicate information on science to young adults between 17 and 19 with

higher education because it does not contain much new insights for them. This may not be

true for younger teenagers or less educated kids.

As the first show on robotic bores the teenagers it is probably not able to encourage them to

consider a scientific career. Yet, the second show does not achieve this aim either although it

has an emphasis on working as a scientist. The majority of the class is not inspired by the

show because they do not obtain new insights that could change their perception of this

profession. On the contrary the possible frustrations that are discussed at the end of the show

confirm them in considering this job as quite difficult.

The results from the group discussions with adolescents may lead to the appraisal that the

shows are only partly appropriate to evoke the desired effects. The reason for that can not

only be found in the way the shows are designed but also in the interests and media usage

pattern of the interviewed adolescents. The discussion with younger teenagers with low

education shows that these kids are not interested in scientific issues in principal and perceive

radio as quite unimportant for their daily lives for which reason it is extremely difficult to

reach them and moreover arouse interest in scientific topics through radio.

Although radio plays a bigger role for the older teenagers with high education most of them

also turn it on to listen to music while doing something else. They are not frightened off be

scientific topics but prefer such shows on television. Nevertheless, there are some pupils that

express general interest in radio shows with scientific content but do not appreciate “A Career

in Science”. They demand shows of highest quality that are clearly focussed on a specific

issue and contain a lot of detailed and consolidated facts that are new to them. The interview

partners should speak perfect English without any accent and must provide essential

information. According to these young people “A Career in Science” does not meet these

demands.

35

4 Evaluation of the project activities and progress

4.1 Dissemination

In the following chapter the dissemination activities conducted by the Austrian and the

German Federation of Community Radio Stations (VFRÖ and BFR) with support of the

Radiofabrik Salzburg are described in the form of a brief overview64 based on information

provided by the Radiofabrik in form of a report that documents all dissemination efforts in

this project. The activities and their results are then reflected against the objectives described

in the proposal.

The main aim of the dissemination is to address children and adolescents with the radio shows

because this is the precondition for attaining all the other project goals. As this requires

persuading as many radio stations as possible to put the serials on air, community and student

radios in German- and English-speaking countries are an important target group. Besides that

the shows are made available online. To reach children and adolescents both the broadcast via

FM and the possibility for free download must be widely communicated. Therefore, the

dissemination activities aim to raise public awareness through radio jingles, websites,

newsletters, articles in magazines and newspapers and informing initiatives dealing with

science communication or working with children and teenagers.

The evaluation report cannot detect if all these aims were finally achieved but it will assess if

the dissemination activities have the potential to lead to the desired effects. Therefore, the

question is if the activities are suitable for addressing children and young adults and making

the project and its outputs widely know.

Dissemination activities and results

Although some dissemination activities were already done throughout the first months of the

project period the main work started in November and December when the production of the

radio shows was finished. As the distribution of the serials through radio transmission is

crucial for reaching children and teenagers one of the main tasks was getting into contact with

radio stations in German- and English-speaking countries. All in all, the serials for children

and adolescents were offered to 136 different radio stations – 97 community radios, 38

student radios and one children’s channel. About half of them are located in Austria, Germany

or the German-speaking part of Switzerland, the other half in Great Britain or Ireland.

Concerning community radios the degree of acceptance was quite high especially in Austria

and Germany. Overall 26% of all contacted community radios agreed in broadcasting the

shows; in the German-speaking countries the acceptance rate is even 50%. Only in Great

Britain the dissemination activities were not successful.65 In total 50 British radio channels

64 For a more elaborate description of the dissemination activities see Deliverable 7 “Dissemination Report”. 65 Maybe the radio stations in Great Britain were not interested because only three radio shows for adolescents

are produced in English language so they can not put on air a consistent serial but only single shows. Moreover, the project partners unlike in Austria and Germany are not known in Great Britain and had no

36

were addressed but none of them was interested in integrating the English shows in their

programme. The following figure shows how many stations were contacted in Austria,

Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and Ireland and how many of them agreed to put the

shows on air.66

Contact Acceptance Country

Total Community radios

Student radios

Children’s channels

Total Community radios

Student radios

Children’s channels

Austria 19 13 6 0 9 8 1 0

Germany 44 27 16 1 14 13 0 1

Switzerland (Germ.) 6 6 0 0 2 2 0 0

GB 50 36 14 0 0 0 0 0

Ireland 17 15 2 0 2 2 0 0

Total 136 97 38 1 27 25 1 1

All in all, 25 community radios, one student radio67 and one children’s channel took over at

least some of the shows. Yet, some of the radio stations were not interested in all the 22 radio

shows. Only 17 stations agreed to broadcast the complete serials for both children and

adolescents; the others transmitted parts of the offered programme. Apart from the two Irish

channels that could only make use of the three English shows a Swiss, an Austrian and more

than the half of the German stations decided for a partial transmission.

While the radio broadcast directly addresses the audience the distribution of the serials via

internet targets children and adolescents as well as radio stations who may be interested in

taking over the serials. Since the beginning of January68 all the radio shows produced by the

project are available for download and can be listened to online via streaming. They are

located at a server of the “Cultural Broadcast Archive” (cba.fro.at) and will be provided for

free download as long as this platform exists. CBA is an internet portal for programme

exchange between community radios in Austria and therefore suitable to reach Austrian radio

stations. To additionally address German radio channels a link to the download via CBA was

placed at a similar German platform called “Freie Radios.net” (www.freie-radios.net). As the

download area of CBA is also directly linked to the project website (www.talk-science.eu) the

shows are available to everyone else who is interested. The following figure shows how often

the single radio shows were downloaded or listened to online until 27th of February.

Unfortunately, these data do not contain information on the users. There are many different

groups who could be interested in listening to the shows including journalists, employees of

personal contacts to British radio stations before the project. This is also true for Irish radio stations that did not react much more interested either.

66 The figures are based on the dissemination activities and its results until the end of February. 67 A possible reason for this is the lack of air time many of these initiatives have at their disposal. Moreover, a lot

of student radios have a specific thematic focus, address an older target group or are designed for training future journalists for which reason they only send shows the trainees have produced.

68 At the beginning of January the last radio show – “Democracy and Public in Europe” – was made available online. Most of the other shows were online since September or October and the radio show “Safer Internet” was even uploaded in spring 2007.

37

the project partners, members of the contacted radio stations or organisations, persons

interviewed in the shows or involved in the focus groups. Last but not least the figure includes

audience in a narrow sense. Yet, it is impossible to detect how many of the shows were

downloaded or listened to by children or young adults.

Radio shows for children Radio shows for adolescents

Title Total Downloads Streams Title Total Downloads Streams

A rainy day 126 31 95 A Career in Science 129 40 89

Just a can 96 27 69 Safer Internet 108 32 76

The human zoo 54 17 37 Green Keys 73 25 48

A lot of stones fur just one man

69 17 52 Dyslexia and its Causes 93 35 58

Shadows on the soul 80 22 58 Robot Systems 78 24 54

Can knowledge be dangerous

75 20 55 Young Immigrants and Work

90 24 66

A thick skin 79 21 58 Alpha-Risks 74 16 58

The Easter Island 73 18 55 Women in Science 86 19 67

Compass for the past 76 20 56 Autoimmune Diseases 70 14 56

Phases of the moon 72 18 54 Poverty and Poverty-research

80 22 58

Carpenter-apprentice and philosopher

108 22 86 Democracy and Public in Europe

79 18 61

908 233 675 960 269 691

As the figure demonstrates the radio shows for children were downloaded and streamed less

often than the shows for youngsters; yet, the difference is not remarkable. All in all, single

shows of one of the serials were selected 1.868 times.69 In addition to the possibility of

download and streaming the shows were offered in the form of podcasts children and

youngsters could subscribe to. To distribute these podcasts the serials were registered in

overall ten different German and Austrian podcast providers.70 Moreover, the World

Children’s Radio Network, an internet radio channel for children, put the shows online.

To raise awareness among children and young adults, community radio stations, initiatives in

the field of science, science communication or youth work and the broad public, the

Radiofabrik established a bilingual project website containing information on the project and

its outputs. It went online in February 2007 and will be open to the public for the next five

years. Until 25th March the statistics count 7.155 visits on the website most of them in

January and February. More detailed information is only available for the last two month of

the project.

69 Unfortunately, there is no information on how many users aborted the download or streaming process or

listened to more than one show. 70 Data on the number of subscribers is not available.

38

January February

Visits71 193 376

Total unique visitors72 109 229

Average page views73 4,93 4,64

Average visit time74 7:40 min 5:36 min

Bounce rate75 32,12% 31,8%

In both months the site was in total visited 569 times by about 109 different persons in

January and 209 in February. Yet, it must be considered that about 32% of the visitors opened

the site and immediately closed it without clicking at any other than the front page. Moreover,

this figure includes all the visits of employees of the Radiofabrik, the project partners and

other people who were involved in the production of the shows. Therefore, the number of

persons who informed themselves about the project via internet seems to be rather low. The

fact that the majority of the visitors opened the site by tipping in the complete address in their

browser window and must have known the exact URL of the site strengthens this assumption.

Moreover, a relevant part opened the site through clicking on a link on the website of the

Radiofabrik. On average the visitors looked at four or five different pages of the site and

stayed for 7,5 minutes in January and 5,5 minutes in February which is not very long but time

enough to get the main information. The vast majority of the visitors come from Austria

followed by Germany. In addition, several people visited the site from computers located in

Switzerland.76 To enable discussion on the radio shows, their topics and content, a weblog

that allows readers to comment on the articles was integrated in the project website.

Unfortunately, this instrument was not accepted by the users which may result from the fact

that the comment function was established quite late and the possibility for discussion was not

sufficiently communicated.

To make “Let’s talk about science” widely known the project partners tried to raise awareness

via radio jingles, information on websites, newsletters and articles in newspapers or

magazines. Some time before broadcasting the serials the Radiofabrik put promotion jingles

on air to inform the audience. All in all, six different jingles were produced in English and

German – three for the overall project, two for the serial for teenagers and one for the radio

plays for children. Radio stations that agreed on taking over some of the shows have the

possibility to download the jingles via CBA and put them on air in their transmission area. At

71 This category indicates the number of individual sessions initiated by all visitors of the site. As one person

may initiate more than one visit this does not say much about the amount of people who visited the site. 72 This describes the amount of individuals who have viewed the site. Multiple visits from one person are

considered. As visitors are identified by means of information stored on their computer they are count twice if they use two different computers to visit the site. Additionally, this figure does not consider that more people can use one computer.

73 This describes the average number of different pages within the site viewed during one visit. 74 The “Average visit time” is the time clients on the average stay on this site. 75 This indicates the average percentage of visitors that open the first page of the site and immediately close it

without viewing any other page. 76 Users from other countries are very rare. Moreover, they visited the site for only few moments or immediately

closed it again.

39

the end of January newspapers and magazines were informed about the serials “Let’s talk

about science” with the results that the “Salzburger Monat” published a long article and the

“Salzburger Nachrichten” reported on the project twice. Announcements of selected shows

were furthermore published in the “Salzburger Fenster” and the “Salzburger Bezirksblätter”.77

In addition, information on the project was provided on the internet sites of the project

partners, on the website of IREN (International Radio Research Network) and on Salzblog

which is a weblog for political discussion among youngsters living in Salzburg. By means of

16 newsletters sent out by 14 organisations different groups interested in radio, science or

youth work were reached. Seven of these newsletters target community radios, six were

distributed by initiatives working with children or teenagers and three address people

interested in science or research. Most of the newsletters have regional or national scope; yet,

two of them address international scientific networks.

Initiatives dealing with science communication and organisations working with children or

adolescents were directly contacted by the Radiofabrik in order to build up co-operation. Most

interesting are the numerous “Kinderunis” organised by different Universities in German-

speaking countries. For a specific period – mostly few days – kids can come to University and

participate in courses especially designed for them. All in all, 44 “Kinderunis” or Children’s

Departments of Universities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein were

contacted but only the “Kinderbüro” at the University of Salzburg and the “Kinderuni” at the

University of Krems agreed to include information on the project in their newsletter. Further

interesting initiatives in the field of science communication like “Science in Radio

Broadcasting” (SCIRAB), the “European Science Week”, the “Long Night of Research” or

the “Day of inventors”78 unfortunately were cancelled or did not take place in 2007. To

establish contacts to scientific networks, four international associations dealing with radio

research were informed about the project with the effect that two of them promoted it in their

newsletter. Moreover, contacts to the Educational Authorities, Youth Advisory Councils and

organisations working with children or teenagers were established. The result of these efforts

once again was the distribution of project information via some newsletters. To find classes

who want to participate in the focus group discussions the evaluation team sent letters to 40

schools in Salzburg informing about the project. Especially the teaching staff of elementary

schools and several principals or teachers of grammar schools were highly interested in the

shows.

77 “Salzburger Monat” is a monthly magazine published by the public authorities of the province and the city of

Salzburg informing on what is going on in this region, the “Salzburger Nachrichten“ is a daily newspaper that is distributed all over Austria but mainly read in the region of Salzburg and “Salzburger Fenster” and “Salzburger Bezirksblätter” are both weekly regional newspapers. All of these print media have a rather regional scope and inform their readers about the transmission of the serials in the region of Salzburg. Unfortunately, there is no information about the media work of other radio stations broadcasting the serials in their transmission area.

78 The original German names are „Lange Nacht der Forschung” and „Tag der Erfinder“.

40

Conclusions

The main objective of the dissemination activities was to reach children and young adults

with the radio shows. One way to meet this goal was to broadcast the serials in as many radio

stations as possible. All in all, the dissemination activities were very effective concerning the

distribution of the serials „Let’s talk about science“ among radio channels. 27 of the 136

contacted stations agreed in integrating the serials into their programme with the results that

the shows could be received in various regions in Austria and Germany and in few parts of

Switzerland and Ireland. The aim of the dissemination activities was to persuade 25 stations to

put the shows on air which was easily reached. As the vast majority of the stations that

broadcasted the shows are community radios there is no information on the structure of the

audience for which reason it is hard to say how many children and teenagers listened to the

shows. However, all of the radio stations are alternative media and apart from two channels79

not especially designed for children or young adults.

In addition to radio transmission the internet was used to distribute the serials to children and

adolescents. All the 22 radio shows produced by the project can be downloaded, listened to

via streaming or ordered in the form of a podcast. Unfortunately, there are no statistics on the

subscriptions to the podcasts but we know that single radio shows were downloaded or

listened to 1.868 times. It has to be considered that a relevant part of downloads may result

from people working for the project partners, the evaluation team, community radios or

interview partners. Nevertheless, about 40 to 90 downloads or streams per radio show seem to

be initiated by people who were not involved in the project including journalists, teachers,

parents, member of the initiatives contacted by the project team or people who were simple

interested in the shows. Yet, it is impossible to say how many children or adolescents listened

to the shows.

As both the community radio stations that put the shows on air and the websites providing

links to the download area are probably only familiar to a limited part of the target group it

was important to make the project known by means of further dissemination activities.

Therefore, the Radiofabrik broadcasted promotion jingles, provided permanent information on

websites, distributed reports via newsletters and informed local newspapers and magazines.

These various instruments target many different groups of persons and organisations. By

means of radio jingles, information on websites and in newsletters community radios in

German-speaking countries and their audience were informed. Scientists, university staff,

students and people interested in research or academic education were reached through the

internet site of the University of Salzburg and through newsletters of two international

scientific associations. Some further newsletters aimed to contact parents, schools and other

institutions working with children or teenagers and three major articles and announcements of

79 The target group of the student radio in Salzburg are young adults and Radijojo is a radio channel especially

addressing children.

41

the radio shows in the local press addressed the broad public.80 Unfortunately, the project

website was not able to raise as much public awareness as expected. Until 25th March the

statistics counted 7.155 instead of 10.000 visits; yet, this figure will probably be reached in

summer. Detailed information on the user behaviour in January and February suggest that a

relevant part of the visitors already knew the project before visiting the site.81 The weblog

which was integrated into the website to initiate interaction among children, young people,

scientists and the civil society was not accepted by the users.

Nevertheless, the dissemination activities seem to be suitable to address many different people

who may have a special interest in the project and to some extent the broad public in the

region of Salzburg. However, they are not especially designed for reaching young people or

children. Some organisations working with children and youngster distributed information on

the project via newsletter but these are supposedly rather read by teachers, parents or people

working in this field than by children or adolescents themselves. Moreover, only one of the

six website linked to the project site explicitly addresses young adults. The reports in the local

press seem quite suitable to reach the target group as the articles in the “Salzburger

Nachrichten” were located at special sites for children and adolescents. All in all, it is hard to

say if the dissemination activities finally addressed kids and teenagers yet, it has to be

mentioned that this is quite difficult as there are hardly any local media offers or platforms

especially designed for this group.

80.These magazines and newspaper are read by a relevant part of the population in Salzburg. Yet, the articles

were all published during a short period. 81 The majority opened the site by tipping in the address in the browser window and therefore most have known

the site before. Another relevant part came to the site by clicking on a link on another internet site, mostly at the site of the Radiofabrik. Only few found the site by using search engines. Moreover, the bounce rate was rather high. About 30% of the visitors opened the site and immediately closed it again.

42

4.2 Project progress

The last step of the evaluation study is the questioning of representatives of all project

partners82 to valuate the project progress and find out possible ways of improvement. Four

organisations were involved in different tasks and periods. The Radiofabrik Salzburg83 was

responsible for the planning, the co-ordination, the overall management and the production of

the radio shows. Moreover, it supported the project partners in nearly every working step.

From January until August 2007 Elke Zobl was responsible for the co-ordination of the

project, then Mirjam Winter took over this task. All in all, 15 employees of the Radiofabrik

worked for “Let’s talk about science”. The University of Salzburg84 participated with four

employees of two Departments. A team headed by Ingrid Paus-Hasebrink of the Department

of Communication developed the drafts of the radio shows for adolescents and conducted the

evaluation study and Gottfried Tichy85 from the Department for Geography and Geology

wrote the scripts for the radio plays addressing children. Finally, the Austrian and the German

Federation of Community Radio Stations86 (VFRÖ and BFR) were responsible for the

dissemination activities especially for the distribution of the shows among community radios.

Five employees of the BFR and two of the VFRÖ were engaged in this work.

All over the project period there was a lively exchange between the Radiofabrik and the

partners on the content and design of the radio shows, on the state of the project, on aspects

concerning the dissemination or evaluation and on financial or organisational questions.

Intensive communication was necessary at the beginning and the end of the project. Most of it

was carried out via E-Mail or telephone. The Radiofabrik organized two project meetings in

Salzburg, one in June 2007 und one in March 200887 and several smaller meetings took place

between members of the Radiofabrik and the evaluation team. In addition, Stefan Tenner

(BFR) once visited the Radiofabrik. According to the answers in the questionnaire all project

partners are highly satisfied with the communication and co-operation within their own teams

as well as within the consortium. The collaboration is described as co-operative,

uncomplicated and professional. As questions were always answered quickly and in a

competent way the communication facilitated the effective solution of problems. Tichy, Paus-

Hasebrink and Ortner from the University of Salzburg who were involved in writing the

concepts of the serials suggest that some exchange with the producers, moderators or

82 For more information on the questioning see page 8 of this report. 83 As representatives of the Radiofabrik the project co-ordinators Elke Zobl and Mirjam Winter filled out the

questionnaire. 84 One questionnaire was filled out by Ingrid Paus-Hasebrink and Christina Ortner and a second by Gottfried

Tichy. 85 He did not participate in the project as a partner but via subcontract. 86 As representative of the VFRÖ Helmut Peissl was interviewed and Stefan Tenner filled out the questionnaire

for the BFR. 87 At the first meeting the employees of the VFRÖ were not able to come and at the second meeting Stefan

Tenner from the BFR did not travel to Salzburg but was connected via internet for some time.

43

spokesmen of the shows could have been fruitful; yet, they do not consider it as necessary.88

According to Peissl from the VFRÖ the change of the project co-ordinator was communicated

a bit late and the team of the University of Salzburg would have preferred earlier information

on financial issues.89

The project proceeded quite well for to all partners with only few difficulties that could be

solved with some efforts. The work is considered as interesting, successful and enriching. Yet,

the time schedule was too tight for the evaluation of the project90 and according the Peissl

(VFRÖ) and Tenner (BFR) a longer dissemination period would have been more effective.

The outputs of the project are also valuated very positively. The radio shows appeal to all

partners and are described as interesting, innovative, professional and adequate for the target

group. According to Peissl and Tenner they are an enriching extension of the programme of

community radios and Zobl (Radiofabrik) is convinced that the serials could be useful for

schools. She moreover appreciates that some shows are in English and therefore

comprehensible for an international audience. In her opinion the website is appealing and

informative; yet, Winter (Radiofabrik), Paus-Hasebrink and Ortner (University Salzburg) miss

discussions in the blog although some interaction could still develop in the future. The

dissemination activities are also considered as successful because the reactions of community

radio stations, the local press and different networks or initiatives contacted by the project

partners were quite positive and many groups were addressed. Among German radio stations

the project initiated discussions on integrating specific radio shows for children and

adolescents in the programme of community radio stations more often. However, Tenner

thinks the acceptance in Germany could even have been better if the shows lasted 60 instead

of 30 minutes as this fits better to the programme schedule of German community radios.

As the satisfaction with the project progress and the results is quite high among the partners it

is not surprising that there are only few ideas for improvement. According to Winter, Paus-

Hasebrink and Ortner it could have been fruitful to involve children and adolescents in the

conception of the radio shows to get a better idea of what they are interested in, which music

they appreciate and what they perceive as an appealing radio show.91 Peissl moreover thinks

the collaboration with print media could have been more extensive.

To tap the full potential of the project Winter, Zobl, Paus-Hasebrink and Ortner suggest going

on with dissemination activities especially with updating and promoting the project website

88 Once there was a meeting between Christian Schernthaner who produced the show on „Safer Internet“ and

Christina Ortner. As it took place after the concept was already written it did not help much in designing the show but resulted in a set of ideas for the production.

89 First information on financial issues was communicated in June at the first project meeting. Yet, some of the facts would have been important for the contracts of the project staff which were signed at the beginning of the project in January.

90 The period of two months was too short for the evaluation of the project. Although the team started one month earlier it was not possible to finish the work until the end of February. The activities had to be extended until the beginning of April and could only be managed with the help of Samuel Unterkircher who plans to write his master thesis in the field of science communication and therefore agreed to join the team.

91 However, this is quite extensive and takes a lot of time and therefore would not have been possible within the time schedule and budget of this project.

44

(including download) which will be available for another five years. Moreover, they

recommend contacting schools or youth centres and offering the shows to teachers for

educational purposes. Zobl would be pleased if the partners worked together in further

projects based on the results of “Let’s talk about science”. She could imagine a project that

establishes permanent editorial offices producing shows on scientific issues for kids and

teenagers in different community radio stations in Austria and Germany. Peissl also thinks the

continuous production of such shows would be reasonable because long-term serials can be

integrated in the programme of community radios much easier; moreover, they fit better to the

habits of the audience.

45

5 Recommendations

Overall appraisal of “Let’s talk about science”

Recapitulating the results of all research steps of the evaluation study the project „Let’s talk

about science“ can be considered as successful although there is still potential for

improvement concerning both the design of the radio shows and the dissemination.

Successful project progress

The co-ordination, the management and the co-operation between the partners was

extraordinary successful for which reason the project proceeded well. Although the time

schedule was very tight all tasks described in the proposal were fulfilled in the planed time.

The serials for children and adolescents were produced with much expense and know-how.

They discuss various scientific issues from many different perspectives, are quite intelligible

for the target group and have the potential to awaken interest, curiosity and enthusiasm in

dealing with science at least concerning some children and young people. Several shows were

produced in English for which reason they are comprehensible for an international audience.

Diverse dissemination of the shows

The serials were broadcasted by numerous radio stations especially in Austria and Germany

and all the shows were available online for free. This possibility was regularly made use of

although the number of visits on the website was lower than expected. The dissemination

activities addressed a lot of different groups that may be interested in the project and caused

many positive reactions. In addition, the project is considered as beneficial by many radio

stations and provoked discussions on establishing permanent editorial offices producing

shows for kids or on scientific issues in German community radios.

Potential for the future

As the content of all radio shows is timeless the serials can be used in diverse contexts in the

future e.g., for educational purposes, for further FM broadcasts or for events addressing

children. Moreover, the website including the possibility for download will be activated for

another five years and guarantees long-term availability of the serials. Therefore, the project

activities are sustainable especially if the project partners realise the plan to continue with the

dissemination of the project results.

Suggestions for further projects

As the project successfully addresses the important challenge to impart knowledge to children

and teenagers and arouse interest in scientific issues the evaluation team suggests to further on

facilitate similar projects as well as efforts based on the results of „Let’s talk about science“.

Longer project period

The experiences made in this project suggest a longer project period with the objective to

establish structures that enable community radio stations the produce long-term instead of

terminated radio serials. As this fits better to the programme schedules of the radio stations

46

and the listening habits of the audience this would be more effective. Considering the

conventions of German community radios the length of the shows should be discussed; yet,

shows lasting 60 instead of 30 minutes may be too demanding for the target group.

Extended dissemination activities

To generate long-term effects the dissemination activities should be conducted continuously

over a longer period instead of being cumulated within two months. As the activities in the

area of Salzburg were most effective further projects should try to expand this successful local

work to other regions. Therefore, they should provide financial and organisational conditions

that enable similar dissemination effort in other regions were the serials are put on air.

Considerations to directly address the target group

Moreover, it is recommendable to think about possibilities to inform children and adolescents

more directly. One way to achieve this could be intensive collaboration with organisations in

the field of science communication that go beyond distributing information via newsletters.

Concrete ideas must be developed how the project or its products could be integrated in the

activities of such initiatives (e.g., presentation of the project at events, a radio lounge were

visitors can listen to the shows or work shops at “Kinderunis”). In addition, close co-

operations with schools may be fruitful. The experiences in the project show that many

teachers are interested in using the radio shows for their lessons. Therefore, it could be

beneficial to think of ways the shows fit into the official curriculum and systematically offer

them to schools as educational material.

Tips for the production of further shows

The project „Let’s talk about science“ does not only provide experiences for further projects,

the results of the evaluation study are moreover useful for everyone who produces radio

shows on scientific issues targeting children and adolescents. Therefore, this chapter will give

some pieces of advice that should be considered in the production of such shows.

Plurality concerning scientific disciplines

To meet the interest of as many children and adolescents as possible and to communicate an

adequate image of science in our society, it is first of all important to assure plurality

concerning topics and scientific disciplines. Natural sciences, which dominate the public

perception of modern science, should not be overstated and the diversity of research that

ranges from historical, social, cultural, linguistic, economic, technical, juristic to

philosophical and theological disciplines should be represented. If scientists are engaged in

the conception of the shows, they should beware of highlighting topics that are related to their

own work.92

92 Both serials have an emphasis on disciplines familiar to the people engaged in the conception of the shows.

The shows for children are dominated by natural sciences as the scripts were written by Tichy who is a professor for geography and geology. The serial for adolescents concentrates on both natural sciences and social sciences; it was designed by Paus-Hasebrink and Ortner who work in the field of social sciences. In both serials humanities as well as cultural, technical, economic or juristic research efforts are rarely discussed.

47

Sensibility for gender aspects

Also important is the equal representation of man and women which above all results from the

selection of interview partners, moderators, participants in studio discussions and spokesmen

or -women in radio plays. In deciding for people involved in the show gender aspects should

always be considered. This is especially important concerning kids or teenagers participating

in the shows otherwise possibilities for identification are not equally provided for both sexes.

A gender bias concerning scientists – above all in the field of natural or technical sciences – in

turn could reinforce stereotypes. An easy solution concerning moderators is to decide for a

couple leading through the show together. This does not only assure equal representation of

both sexes but prevents the show from sounding monotonously. If fictional characters appear,

animals are a good choice as they seem to appeal to both boys and girls. Finally, women and

men should be introduced in the same way concerning their first name, second name and title,

and biographical stories should not be constricted to the lives of male scientists.

Young voices attract children and teenagers

Another crucial point is the age of people participating in the radio shows. In general nearly

all children and adolescents in the focus group discussions welcome interviews or studio

discussions with children respectively teenagers. Yet, for adolescents this is only true if the

interviewees contribute something really essential. If this is not the case they perceive the

statements as extraneous and irrelevant. A good way to assure that interviewed teenagers

really have to say something to the topic is to choose kids that are concerned e.g., victims of

illnesses, social inequality, poverty or other problems the show deals with. Furthermore, it is

important that the interviewed teenagers are not younger than the target group as several

adolescents do not appreciate that. Scientists, experts and moderators in turn should not be too

old because listening to 50 year old people is considered as boring by several youngsters.

Clear reference to science in children’s shows

In children’s shows the relation to science should be very clear especially when the main topic

is closely linked to the everyday life of kids. If this is not the case it may happen that they do

not perceive the show as scientific at all with the result that scientific knowledge can hardly

be imparted. In fictional plays information based on research should be of utmost relevance

for the dramaturgy of the story especially when the tale is very affective. Otherwise children

draw their attention to emotional sequences and tend to ignore factual information or even

consider it as distracting.

Fictional stories should exploit their possibilities

To attract children, fictional narrations should tap the full potential of story telling which

means that the repertoire of characters should be large, the settings should be various and

interesting, the tale should not be told in real time and – above all – the plot should exploit

dramaturgic elements and include some action scenes. As the narrator tells the plot and

provides information that stimulates imagination and livens up the play his statements should

not be too short. Another important aspect is the design of the characters. Characters like

48

Schnüfferl who has a lot in common with children or Habakuk who behaves like a father or

grandfather are quite adequate to address kids. Moreover, the children in the group

discussions appreciate the emotional and caring behaviour of the animals. In general emotive

sequences seem to attract children’s attention especially when they are related to their own

experiences. Yet, to avoid listeners being unsettled, sad stories should always have a happy

ending.

Adequate language complexity facilitates understanding

To guarantee comprehensibility the language complexity must be adequate for the target

group concerning both vocabulary and syntax. Difficult words should be avoided or

explained, in shows for children English words must be eliminated and the sentences should

be simple and short. If scientists or experts are interviewed it may be helpful to inform them

about the age of the audience and ask them to adapt their way of speaking. Simple language is

especially important for longer statements with high information density because such

sequences are hard to grasp anyway. The moderation text or dialogues that are not freely

spoken but read out should not sound too much like written but rather like spoken language as

this is easier to understand.

Further ways of improving intelligibility

Another way to facilitate comprehension is to use illustrative comparisons, analogies,

examples or narrative elements. They are remembered well and therefore important for

imparting knowledge. Explanations by means of objects of daily life, experiments in the

studio, sound effects that acoustically reflect the text or explaining recapitulations provided by

the moderators are also highly recommendable. In general the shows should presuppose as

little knowledge as possible so that everyone can follow. In addition, it is important that

everyone speaks clear, loud enough and not too fast which is especially difficult if the

interview partners are children. If sequences of interviews or discussions are shortened before

going on air the cutter should beware of leaving too short breaks between the statements.

Balanced relation between concentration and recreation

All in all, the statements of single persons or characters should never last too long because

this demands high concentration. On the contrary there should be much alternation concerning

people talking in the show. Additionally, sequences dominated by text should be frequently

interrupted or complemented with sound effects or music. If the shows are produced for

young kids, both textual and musical parts should be rather short considering the limited

attention span of children. A varied speech melody of the persons talking in the show is also

conducive for concentration. Equally important are humorous and ironical statements, jokes

or a funny plot because they liven up the shows and allow the audience to relax for a while.

Detailed knowledge about the preferences of the target group

Concerning adolescents’ shows special attention must be paid to the selection of songs

because teenagers attach much importance to the right kind of music. However, it is quite

difficult to meet the preferences of young people as they are very diverse. The biggest

49

consensus may be reached with current hits of the charts yet, there are many adolescents who

refuse popular commercial songs and prefer alternative music of different kind (e.g., hip hop,

rap, house, hard rock, heavy metal or alternative pop or rock). Similar problems arise from

attempts to address teenagers by integrating popular books, films and characters or by linking

the content to topics many youngsters are interested in (e.g., sports). These efforts to target

young people are very important but presuppose detailed knowledge about their preferences.

This is also important concerning the style of moderation, the selection of topics, the decision

for interview partners and the information density of the show.

Smaller target groups and integration of teenagers

As there are great differences among young people that can not only be explained by socio-

demographic factors like age, gender or education but also result from disparate interests and

media usage patterns it will not be possible to address all teenagers with the same programme

offer.93 Therefore, it is recommendable to constrict the target groups to smaller parts of

adolescents and design the radio shows with regard to their special wants and needs.

Moreover, it is advisable to involve teenagers at a very early stage of the conception and

production of the shows to be better able to meet their preferences.

93 For example in the class of the grammar some adolescents – unlike their classmates – do not only listen to

music on the radio but are highly interested in informative shows like news or reportages. In opposition to other teenagers they ask for high relevance, information density and news value, a clear thematic focus and perfect English. Shows like that fit perfectly to their interests but would supposedly be to demanding or boring for younger teenagers with low educational level or for adolescents who usually listen to radio while concentrating on something else.

50

Annex

A: Guideline for the qualitative content analysis – main aspects

Main topic of the radio show

Main scientific disciplines

Structure of the radio show - Forms of presentation

o Jingle o Radio play o Discussion

� Live discussion � Pre-recorded discussion

o Reportage o Moderation of the show o Structured contribution o Interview o Report o Song

- Structure of the show (sequence and duration of the forms of presentation)

Further references - To other sources about the topic - To the project website

Persons/ characters - Sex - age - Function/ role in the show94 - Discipline95

References to science - Explicit - Implicit96

Relevance for children/ adolescents97 - Explicit

o Participation of children/ adolescents � As interview partners � As participants in the discussions � As moderators, reporters, producers of the show

o In the moderator’s text o In the statements given by interview partners or participants in the discussions

- Implicit98

94 For example, expert, politician, group representative. 95 Only relevant for scientists. 96 Topics that are closely related to science, without this being directly stated. 97 The guidelines for children and adolescents were kept as identical as possible. When referring to this category,

however, only the specific target groups shall be kept in mind, i.e., when analysing the children's shows only the aspects relevant to children will be investigated, when analysing the adolescents' shows only aspects relevant to adolescents will be recorded.

98 Topics that are closely related to the daily lives of children/ adolescents, without this being directly stated.

51

B: Guideline for the qualitative content analysis – special aspects

Topics of the radio show - Main topic

o Aspects of the main topic - Side topics

o Relation to main topic

Language - Language complexity

o Vocabulary choice � Standard language � Foreign words � Technical language

o Word explanations o Syntax (simple/ complex) o Sentence length (short/ long)

- Language (English/ German) - Intonation - Volume - Articulation (clear/ unclear) - Speech rate - Pitch (high/ low) - Dialect

Figures of speech99 - Narrative100 - Example - Comparison - Line of reasoning - Appeal - Joke - Riddle - Humorous utterance - Enumeration - Direct address of the listeners - Experiment in the studio - Use of information material

Narrative form in the radio play101 - Plot, dramaturgy102

o Opening situation o Sequence of events (turning points – climaxes) o Conclusion of the narrative

- Setting - Time, jumps in time

99 As this list is not complete there are sentences which cannot be categorised as a particular figure of speech.

Here only those categories are listed that are important for the evaluation (with respect to the intelligibility and adoption of a critical stance towards science).

100 In contrast to the category "narrative in the radio play", this category does not pertain to longer stories but to short narrative passages, which are used by individual characters or persons in order to exemplify or liven up things.

101 This aspect was only investigated in relation to the children's shows. The adolescents' shows did not contain fictional sections, for which this aspect would have been important.

102 Since the plot is linear, includes only few events, hardly exploits any dramaturgic elements and does not contain any subplots, it does not seem to be fruitful to analyse the narrative form more detailed.

52

Characters in the radio play103 - Sex - Age - Personality - Relationship to other characters - Character development - Language - Figures of speech - Content of utterances

Real characters - Sex - Age - Function/ role - Language - Figures of speech - Content of utterances - Discipline und position104 - Origin

Use of music and sound - Sequence and duration of stretches of music, text and mixed forms - Stretches consisting of music only

o Duration o Type of music105 o Relation to text/ content

- Stretches of music and text (mixed forms) o Duration o Type of music o Relation to text/ content o Characterisation of a character o Characterisation of a place o Representation of an action

- Sound effects o Type of sound effect o Relation to text/ content o Characterisation of a character o Characterisation of a place o Representation of an action

103 Also this aspect is relevant only in the children's shows, since the adolescent shows only present real persons. 104 Only relevant for scientists. 105 For example, pop music, rock music, children's songs, classical music, instrumental music.

53

C: Supplementary questionnaire on media use

Dear participants,

the following questionnaire is anonymous, which means that nobody will get to know your answers to

the questions. This questionnaire is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers will

not be graded either. Yet, we kindly ask you to read the questions carefully and then select the answer

which you find applies most to you.

Identification: 1… (consecutive numbers)

Are you a girl or a boy? girl boy

How old are you? years

Which country are you from? _

What is your mother's job? _

What is your father's job? _

How important are the following media for you? very important important unimportant TV radio internet newspapers, magazines books tape-recorder, CD player, mp3 player video-recorder, DVD player computer games, Play station, X-Box, Game boy

How often do you use…? daily several times

a week once a week rarely never

TV radio the internet newspapers, magazines books tape-recorder, CD player, mp3 player

video-recorder, DVD player computer games, Play station, X-Box, Game boy

Do you have a radio at home? I have my own radio in my room. I do not have my own radio, but we have one at home, which I can use. We do not have a radio.

What do you like to listen to on the radio? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

When do you listen to the radio? often sometimes never early morning during the morning at noon in the afternoon in the evening

54

Which radio stations do you know? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

Do you have a favourite radio station? No Yes, my favourite radio station is ______________________________

Do you have a favourite radio show? No Yes, my favourite radio show is _______________________________

Do you have a TV at home? I have my own TV in my room. I do not have my own TV, but we have one at home, which I can use. We do not have a TV.

Do you have a favourite TV channel? No Yes, my favourite TV channel is ______________________________

Do you have a favourite TV show? No Yes, my favourite TV show is ________________________________

Do you have internet access? No. Yes, at home. Yes, at school. Yes, at my friends' place.

What do you do in the internet? _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

How often...? often sometimes never don't know

what this is do you listen to the radio on the internet? do you download radio shows from the internet?

do you download music from the internet? do you read discussion forums? do you post comments in discussion forums? do you read weblogs? do you post comments in a weblog? do you write your own weblog?

Do you have a favourite website on the internet? No Yes, my favourite website is__________________________________

Do you have a favourite computer game? No Yes, my favourite computer game is ___________________________

Thank you very much!

55

D: Guideline for focus groups with children

1) Listening to the radio show

In the first step of the focus group discussion all members of the group listen to the radio show together. During this time the discussion leaders remain quiet and observe the children's behaviour. It is important to make notes of the behaviour of the children together with their names, so that their behaviour can later be related to their statements:

- How do the individual children behave while listening to the show?

- Which children do other things? During which passages of the show?

- Which children talk to one another? During which passages of the show?

- Which children show signs of unrest? Which signs? During which passages of the show?

2) Free narration

The second step of the survey aims at letting the children narrate as freely as possible what comes to their mind when they think about the radio show and what they consider important. This should be achieved by asking very open, narration-generating initial questions. The interviewers should remain in the background during this phase and give space to the children's statements and discussions within the group.

- We have now listened to a radio show together? How did you react to it? Was it exciting, interesting, boring?

- What have you heard about in this show? What can you remember?

- What did you like? What did you not like?

3) Detailed questions

In the final step detailed questions shall be asked in terms of the evaluation of different aspects of the radio show. Only such questions shall be asked as have not been sufficiently addressed during the discussion. Also in this phase it is important to give room to aspects which are raised by the children themselves as well as to discussions within the group.

Evaluation of the topic

- What do you think the radio show is about?

- What did Habakuk and Schnüfferl talk about?

- What did Eveline talk about with the two boys in the studio?

- Do you find this topic interesting or not? Why?

- Do you think it is important or not? Why?

- Does this have anything to do with your life? What?

- Did you know anything about this topic before? If so, what?

- Did you learn anything new in this show? What?

- Would you like to learn more about this topic?

- Do you think this show has anything to do with science?

- Can you imagine becoming scientists yourselves?

Evaluation of the radio play

- When you think about the radio play at the beginning, was it interesting or not? What was interesting? What was not interesting?

- Was it exciting or boring? What was exciting? What was boring? Why?

- Was it also funny or not? What was funny? What was not funny?

- How did you like the characters – Schnüfferl and Habakuk? What did you (not) like?

- How did you like the narrator in the radio play? What did you (not) like about her?

- Did you like that the story was told by a woman? Should it have been told by a man or does it not matter whether it is a man or a woman?

- Would it have been better if a child had told the story?

- Were the voices pleasant? Why (not)?

56

- Did you like the way the characters and the narratress spoke? What did you (not) like about it?

Evaluation of the studio discussion

- When you think about the discussion with Eveline and the children, was it interesting or not? What was interesting? What was not interesting?

- Was it exciting or boring? What was exciting? What was boring? Why?

- Was it also funny or not? What was funny? What was not funny?

- Did you like that children participated in the show? Why (not)?

- Should more children have participated in the show? As moderators, as guests?

- Did you like the two boys in the discussion? Why (not)?

- Would it have been better, if there had also been a girl?

- Did you like the moderator Eveline? Why (not)?

- Did you like the way the moderator Eveline spoke? What did you (not) like about it?

- Did she have a pleasant voice? Why (not)?

- Did you like that a woman spoke with the two boys? Would a man have been better or do you not mind, whether it is a man or a woman?

Evaluation of the sound production of the show

- How did you like the music? If you did not like the music, why not? Which kind of music would you prefer?

- Was there too much or too little music?

- Can you remember any other sounds? Which ones?

- Did you like these sound effects or were they distracting? Should there be more of them?

Evaluation of the comprehensibility

- Did you understand everything or was there anything difficult to understand? What was difficult to understand? Why was it difficult?

- Did you manage to listen to all of the show or did you stop listening at any point of time? When? Why?

- Was the show too fast or too slow? What was too fast/ too slow?

- Was the show too long or too short? What was too long/ too short?

- Does the show contain too much information or could there be even more?

- Did you come across words that you do not know? Can you remember these words?

- Did you mind that you did not understand them?

Final questions

- If this show was on the radio every day, would you listen to it?

- Would you like to participate in such a show? Why (not)?

- Imagine you made such a show yourselves, how would you produce it?

57

E: Guideline for focus groups with adolescents106

1) Listening to the radio show

In the first step of the focus group discussion all members of the group listen to the radio show together. During this time the discussion leaders remain quiet and observe the adolescents' behaviour. It is important to make notes of the behaviour of the adolescents together with their names, so that their behaviour can later be related to their statements:

- How do the individual adolescents behave while listening to the show?

- Which adolescents do other things? During which passages of the show?

- Which adolescents talk to one another? During which passages of the show?

- Which adolescents show signs of unrest? Which signs? During which passages of the show?

2) Free narration

The second step of the survey aims at letting the adolescents narrate as freely as possible what comes to their mind when they think about the radio show and what they consider important. This should be achieved by asking very open, narration-generating initial questions. The interviewers should remain in the background during this phase and give space to the adolescents' statements and discussions among the group.

- We have now listened to a radio show together? How did you react to it? Was it exciting, interesting, boring?

- What have you heard about in this show? What can you remember?

- What did you like? What did you not like?

3) Detailed questions

In the final step detailed questions shall be asked in terms of the evaluation of different aspects of the radio show. Only such questions shall be asked as have not been sufficiently addressed during the discussion. Also in this phase it is important to give room to aspects which are raised by the adolescents themselves as well as to discussions within the group.

Evaluation of the topic

- What do you think the radio show is about?

- Was the information offered important to you? Why?

- Did you learn anything new? What?

- Is there anything that was particularly surprising to you?

- Has your view of science and scientists changed? In how far?

- Has anyone here ever considered becoming a scientist?

- Can anyone imagine becoming a scientist now?

Evaluation of the characters

- Who of the characters in the show did you prefer to listen to? Why?

- What is your opinion about the moderators? Funny, boring, exciting, nice, witty, interesting? Why?

- Do you think they are too young, too old?

- Did they have pleasant voices? Why (not)?

- Should any of the moderators have been the opposite sex? Why?

- Did you like that adolescents were involved themselves? Why?

- Would you have preferred more adolescents? If so, why? Where in the show? In which form?

- How did you like the gender distribution of the adolescents?

- How did you like the scientists/ experts? Funny, boring, exciting, nice, witty, interesting?

106 This structure of the guideline was the same in both rounds of discussion with adolescents. Additionally, in

both group discussions some further questions concerning special aspects relating to content, structure, production and participants in the shows were asked.

58

- Did they have pleasant voices? Why (not)?

- Who of the persons that were interviewed did you like most? Why?

- Who did you not like to listen to? Why?

- How did you like the gender distribution of the people that were interviewed?

Evaluation of the sound production of the show

- How did you like the music? Why?

- If you did not like the music, which kind of music would you prefer? Was there too much or too little music?

- Can you remember any other sounds? Which ones?

- Did you like these sound effects or were they distracting? Should there be more of them?

- How did you like the jingle?

Evaluation of the comprehensibility

- Did you understand everything or was there anything difficult to understand? What was difficult to understand? Why was it difficult?

- Did you manage to listen to all of the show or did you stop listening at any point of time? When? Why?

- Which persons (moderators, adolescents, interview partners) did you understand well and which ones did you not understand?

- Did someone speak too slow or too fast? Who?

- Was all content clear? If not, what was unclear? Why?

- Was the show too long or too short? What was too long/ too short?

- Does the show contain too much information or could there be even more? What was missing, what do you think could have been left out?

- Did you come across words that you do not know? Can you remember these words?

- Did you mind that you did not understand them?

Final questions

- Is this show different from radio shows that you usually hear? In how far? Is this good or bad?

- Do you think the radio is suitable for passing on scientific content or would other media be more suitable? Which ones? Why?

- Would you like to listen to more radio shows of this kind?

- Would you listen to this show at home? Why? Why not?

- Would you like to participate in such a show? If so, how would you produce it?

- More shows from this series are available for download from the internet. Are you interested in this?

59

F: List of codes – focus groups with children and adolescents

Listening to the show

Recalling its content

Evaluation of the show

Relevance of its content - Relevance to own life - Relevance to science

Structure of the show - Length of the show/ different parts of the show - Music-text-coherence - Forms of presentation

Narrative form107 - Figures of speech - Place - Time flow - Plot

Characters in the radio play108

Real persons

Sex of persons/ characters

Acoustic production - Music - Sound effects

Humour

Comprehensibility - Acoustic production - Length of the show - Speed - Volume - Vocabulary choice - Articulation - Language (English/ German) - Language complexity - Communicative behaviour

Participation of children/ adolescents - In the show - Themselves

Information transfer - Knowledge before listening to the show - New information - Request for more information - Change in interest

Willingness to listen - To this show (serials) - To similar shows on radio - To similar shows on TV

Statements about oneself

Statements about other children

Basic theories about media reception

107 Only relevant for group discussions with children. 108 Only relevant for group discussions with children.

60

G: Evaluation sheet “Let’s talk about science”

Name:

Institution:

Function of your institution

Which function did you and your institution fulfil in this project?

Which activities were carried out by you and/ or colleagues from your institution?

How many people took part in this?

When were the activities carried out?

Project progress

How did the project go from your point of view?

Did you encounter any difficulties or problems during the project? Which ones?

Could these problems be overcome? If yes, how?

Was the project schedule realistic as far as your activities were concerned?

Co-operation with the project partners

How did the project partners co-operate?

Were there any problems in the co-operation with the project partners? Which ones?

Could these problems be overcome? If yes, how?

Did you have regular contact with the project partners? How often and for which purpose?

Did the project partners ever contact you? How often and for which purpose?

How did you carry out the co-operation with the project partners? (E-Mail, telephone, personal meetings, project meetings with all partners)

61

Should the communication with the project partners have been different from your point of view? What would have been more useful/ productive?

Evaluation of the project results

How do you rate the results of the project?

Do you think the project aims were achieved? To which extent were they (not) achieved?

What could be done in the future to further enhance the outcome of the project?

What could have been done differently during the project in order to optimise its outcome?

Further comments on the project or the project progress

Thank you very much!

62

H: List of codes – questioning of project partners

Part of project partners - Activities of project partners - Employees involved in the project - Period of working for the project

Cooperation between project partners - Frequency of contacts - Form of contacts - Quality of cooperation

Appraisal of the project - Project progress - Difficulties - Time schedule - Outcomes - Personal benefit

Improvement of the project - Ideas for improvement - Future activities