Audiences shown a video about coral reefs had less willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation than when shown a slideshow of texts and photographs. The findings suggest the importance of the type and amount of information used in science communication.This agrees with my experience, but I don't think the amount of information is the key variable. Interactivity is the key variable. Hands and muscles and senses. The best learning, the only REAL learning, comes from direct relationships with the real physical object, or at least a physical model that you can get your hands on. For living things the physical model is actually better, because you can't dissect a living human and put it back together again. Interactive software is the next step down. I try to create as much interactivity as I can. It was easier in Windows EXE form where the OS is stable. In AUDIN I was able to create all sorts of virtual experiences and experiments, including a build-your-own-circuit lab. It's much harder in online setups where you have to keep things inside a dozen competing and contradictory constraints and non-standard standards that change every day. (As it happens, I'm wrestling with those standards this week, trying to transfer content between different LMSes. Highly frustrating.) A slideshow or book is the next step down. The advantage over video is that a slideshow has 'pages' with pauses between, giving you a chance to process each chunk before moving to the next. Video is the least interactive because it steadily flows into your eyes without a break or page. In the pre-digital world this also applied to projected films or closed-circuit TV. The students just sit there and receive, with no chance to stop and think, and no muscle involvement at all. CARVER! Look about you. Take HOLD of the THINGS that are HERE. TALK to them. Let them TALK to you.
The current icon shows Polistra using a Personal Equation Machine.