David Read

    @jjdr yes, agreed, this is one of the issues I have particularly problems with, the need to give principles high falutin’ names (contiguity, coherence) when something much simpler would be helpful (closeness, simplicity), it doesn’t do anything to bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners and simply keeps the two worlds apart.

    However, I don’t think it’s necessarily only an article for academics, as they aren’t the only ones who struggle to keep slides simple and clear for their students. During lockdown I had the opportunity to see many online lessons delivered by Primary school teachers (for my 8 year-old son) and Secondary (for my 15 year-old son) and the same issues of poorly designed slides came up again and again. Too much information, text too small, few supporting images or diagrams, poor choice of fonts/colours on an accessbility level. So, it is something that all teachers/educators need to be aware, there just needs to be a better way to communicate that than is currently done. I think the reasons why we use the same terminology on this course is simply because they have become the established terms in the literature, so it’s likely that people will meet them again and again, and we didn’t want to add more confusion by giving them alternative names.