TEL-lingit like IT is

A conference paper by Geoff Kaufman (Carnegie Mellon University) and Mary Flanagan (Dartmouth College) called “High-low split: Divergent cognitive construal levels triggered by digital and non-digital platforms” ( PDF available ) has had some coverage [ Science Daily ] [ Psychology Today ] [ PC Magazine ]. The studies published in the paper compared levels of construal (perception and comprehension, or ‘gist’) of subjects reading the same matter from print, and a screen in an RCT (Randomised Control Trial). There were four studies, each comparing performance in digital and print formats, as follows: One: Completing the same survey (Behaviour Identification Form) Seventy-seven participants (average age of 24.2 years), completing the same survey either on an iPad 2 or in print. After being randomly placed in the iPad or print groups, subjects completed survey testing their use of abstract and concrete descriptions of various behaviours and events. Care was taken to provide the same ...

Inspired by this: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_bodekaer_this_virtual_lab_will_revolutionize_science_class I sincerely hope this does, in fact, revolutionize science class . The statistics mentioned in the clip alone make pursuit of this worthwhile. And, it's cost-effective: http://web.labster.com/ My team's currently playing with Gear VR; take my word for it, it's absolutely awesome. Labster is available for other formats (including PC, iPad, Mac), but it's the £400 Gear + Galaxy combo that looks to unlock it as an engaging and immersive experience. Awesome. Thoughtful and proven... and, like all good innovations, perfectly obvious when you think about it! An excellent example of how a resource-based approach to education can unlock scalability, exploration, and impressive outcomes.

In innovation it's tempting to focus just on one factor. In education, the overwhelming focus tends to be that of technology . But technology is just one part of the story. Consider how pit stops have changed over the decades. This clip contrasts things well: Clearly the technology is different (what is that first guy banging the tyres with?) But the real success here rests on so much more . A few observations: The main technology shift here is the use of pneumatic wrenches (and new ways of connecting the wheels). There are more people involved - and some with new roles. There is a clear objective, namely less processing time for the car. The process is much more efficient: from 57 seconds to about 1.3. The video seems to emphasise the difference in time taken to change tyres . To be fair the second driver didn't get their windshield wiped. So, to focus on the tyres: there were 12 people involved in the 2013 example instead of the one in the earlier clip, and ther...