The art of explaining stuff

 
Clockwise from left: Offside rule, cricket, maths and science

Explanations of the AV electoral system tend to resort to analogies. But is this the best way to convey new ideas? The Magazine seeks tips from a teacher, a scientist, a philosopher, a cricket buff and two political boffins.

It's a bit like X Factor - only without the singing, and it doesn't go on for weeks. It's also a bit like choosing your favourite crisps, and then your second favourite flavour, and so on.

Ahead of the 5 May referendum on whether to adopt the Alternative Vote (AV) electoral system, those explaining this unfamiliar method of picking MPs tend to use analogies. But is this the best way to convey a concept to someone who knows nothing about it?

Author and award-winning teacher Phil Beadle says in a classroom, the key to getting information across is breaking it down into small, manageable chunks, checking each chunk has been understood and "grinding repetition". This isn't so easy to do in a three-minute news item, but other key methods are universal.

The BBC's Ben Wright uses an Oscars analogy

This includes getting people to see how the issue in question relates to them.

"It's been said about teaching that if you can't get students to see what's in it for them, then you won't take it on," he says. "Good teaching is about contextualising learning, connecting it to experience, finding an appropriate analogy."

Obviously, the larger the group of people, the more general the analogy has to be, hence the use of crisp flavours or reality TV to explain AV. Beadle, a secondary school English teacher, has used hip hop artists to teach William Blake and football in other lessons.

How AV works - without the analogies

  • Voters to rank candidates in order of preference
  • If no candidate gains 50% of the vote, candidate with the least votes is eliminated
  • And their voters' support is switched to their second choice
  • Repeat until one candidate has 50% or more

Beadle says there is a school of thought that people learn and take in new information in three ways: visually, aurally and kinaesthetically - through the body. The latter is when you learn by carrying out a physical activity, rather than just listening or watching a demonstration by someone.

"The best way to get people to understand is to use all these three ways," he says.

This three-pronged approach appeals to John Stern, editor of The Wisden Cricketer magazine.

He prefers to explain cricket while watching a match for demonstration purposes, and with a ball and bat to hand so the novice can see and feel how, for example, the seam affects the movement of the ball.

Pupils use a favourite pop star vote to explain AV

"I start with the basics - two teams of 11, each trying to score more runs than the other. But it quickly descends into caveats and qualifiers, which is too confusing.

"But I do explain the underlying concept, that the bowler is trying deceive the batter. If you understand why it matters that the ball swings, that helps."

He avoids analogies, as these tend to obscure more than they illuminate.

"It's tempting to say 'do you know anything about baseball', but really the only similarity is that there's a bat and a ball."

As a science journalist, Quentin Cooper has to explain some very complicated things to a diverse audience. He says the key is knowing what facts you can leave out.

"You need to give them only what they need to know and point them to what they need to focus on," says Cooper, who presents BBC Radio 4's Material World. "If you are explaining some aspect of quantum physics, you can't start with what an atom is, it would take far too long.

Defeated-looking man with head leaning on blackboard Don't get too bogged down in detail

"Take DNA. Most people probably couldn't give a full explanation of what it is, but they know enough to understand when it is mentioned."

Stern agrees. He leaves out strange terminology, such as names of the fielding positions. "None of that is important. There are so many weird and bizarre things about cricket, you could make up what you like and the novice wouldn't know the difference."

It's also crucial the audience has faith in the person doing the explaining, says Cooper.

"It means not everything has to have a direct relevance to their life. With science it's often hard to say that something has a direct bearing on a person's life, but you can get them to think about the wider universe they live in and wonder how it works."

Keep it simple

The BBC's Michael Crick plays it straight in his own AV explanation

Philosopher Mark Vernon says the approach of connecting ideas to what people already know goes back to Socrates.

"He once explained a very complicated mathematical theory to an uneducated slave. He did so simply by prompting the slave, step by step, with things he already knew. So it's not so much explaining that you do, but helping someone to remember what they already know from other parts of life.

"Then they will regard what you've shown them as their own possession too, and be able to incorporate it directly into their lives."

University of Reading politics lecturer Dr Alan Renwick uses reality TV to explain voting systems - X Factor for AV and Britain's Got Talent for first past the post.

"Most people don't think about electoral systems, but they do make decisions every day and are constantly engaging with different ways of making these decisions.

Prawn cocktail v cheese and onion in an AV run-off

"People are used to the concepts, but not the context. AV is an unfamiliar voting system. But the logic of AV is similar to X Factor."

Fellow psephologist John Curtice prefers not to use analogies, as comparisons are blunt and, in some cases, misleading.

Instead, he breaks his explanations into practical chunks.

"There are always two things voters need to know about a voting system - how the ballot paper is filled out, and how the seats are allocated. I would just simply explain these two aspects of the system."

It's what some call the KISS approach - keep it simple, stupid.

 

More on This Story

In today's Magazine

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 79.

    @ LindseyFoots

    Au contraire, Raquel.

    AV allows me to vote for obvious losers in round one in the hope that my real choice gets through to the final. If anything it gives more power to the tactical voter because votes will now be counted multiple times.

    Josh, you are well on the right lines. That obviously means your ideas will be binned. Nice try though. ;¬)

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 78.

    Why not have an AV style vote but weighted in favour of those voted for first. I.e. give one point to the side voted for in the first round. Then if that side is eliminated then give half a point to the second of there choices in the second round, a third of the points to the third should the other two be eradicated and so on. This gives a far fairer representation of how people will be feeling.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 77.

    You can't please all the people all the time, but AV would bring us a bit closer to representation in Parliament that pleases more of us some of the time. Oh, and erradicate the system that yeilded "tactical voting".

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 76.

    Got involved in teaching Social Skills-type stuff 30-odd years ago.Basically we were told "Tell them what your're going to tell them,then tell them,then tell them what you've told them." I found it works most of the time but moreso if you can bring personal experiences into the lesson to add credibility.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 75.

    "Beadle says there is a school of thought that people learn and take in new information in three ways: visually, aurally and kinaesthetically - through the body." Yes, Mr Beadle, you are indeed right, but the "school of thought" is over 2,000 years old! Confucius said (in translation) "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do, and I understand"
    Rather less pretentious, don't you think?

 

Comments 5 of 79

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.