Conceptual learning : the priority for higher education

The common sense notion of learning as the all-pervasive acquisition of new behaviour and knowledge, made vivid by experience, is an incomplete characterisation, because it assumes that the learning of behaviour and the learning of knowledge are indistinguishable, and that acquisition constitutes learning without reference to transfer. A psychological level of analysis is used to argue that conceptual learning should have priority in higher education

Student interpretations of the terms in first-order ordinary differential equations in modelling contexts

A study of first-year undergraduate students′ interpretational difficulties with first-order ordinary differential equations (ODEs) in modelling contexts was conducted using a diagnostic quiz, exam questions and follow-up interviews. These investigations indicate that when thinking about such ODEs, many students muddle thinking about the function that gives the quantity to be determined and the equation for the quantity's rate of change, and at least some seem unaware of the need for unit consistency in the terms of an ODE. It appears that shifting from amount-type thinking to rates-of-change-type thinking is difficult for many students. Suggestions for pedagogical change based on our results are made

Second chances: Investigating athletes’ experiences of talent transfer

Talent transfer initiatives seek to transfer talented, mature individuals from one sport to another. Unfortunately talent transfer initiatives seem to lack an evidence-based direction and a rigorous exploration of the mechanisms underpinning the approach. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the factors which successfully transferring athletes cite as facilitative of talent transfer. In contrast to the anthropometric and performance variables that underpin current talent transfer initiatives, participants identified a range of psychobehavioral and environmental factors as key to successful transfer. We argue that further research into the mechanisms of talent transfer is needed in order to provide a strong evidence base for the methodologies employed in these initiatives

Developing evaluation tools for assessing the educational potential of apps for preschool children in the UK

Selecting high quality apps can be challenging for caregivers and educators. We here develop tools evaluating educational potential of apps for preschool children. In Study 1, we developed two complementary evaluation tools tailored to different audiences. We grounded them in developmental theory and linked them to research on children’s experience with digital media. In Study 2 we applied these tools to a wide sample of apps in order to illustrate their use and to address the role of cost in quality of educational apps. There are concerns that a social disadvantage may lead to a digital disadvantage, an “app gap”. We thus applied our tools to the most popular free (N=19) and paid (N=24) apps targeting preschoolers. We found that the “app gap” associated with cost is only related to some aesthetic features of apps rather than any observable educational advantage proffered by paid apps. Our study adds a novel contribution to the research on children’s apps by developing tools to be used across a wide range of audiences, providing the first description of the quantity of app design features during app use and evaluating the educational potential of free and paid apps

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience ( 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level ( 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 ( 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 ( 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system